On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Julio Huato <[email protected]> wrote:
> Would it be fair to say that your skepticism is about our collective > ability to internalize the costs of environmental mayhem, politically > or otherwise? > Under capitalism, it's more than skepticism. My argument is that the externalization of those costs is a major, if not the principal, source of surplus value. I should add a couple of more sources to my list: Stefano Bartolini's analysis of negative externalities growth and Rolfie Hueting's analysis of asymmetrical entering in accounting for environmental and social costs. > Let me think this aloud. Let's start with this: If a house burns > down, value is destroyed. If the house is rebuilt, value is created. > If (1) it is basically the same house, (2) society needs the new house > just as much as it needed the old one, and (3) the social labor time > required to build it anew is the same as it was before, then the value > destroyed is the value restored. It would seem like a zero sum in > wealth and value. > My view is that is wealth is destroyed if a house burns down but not "value" per se. The situation is comparable to accelerated depreciation of capital goods. The house was simply "consumed" more rapidly than originally intended by its owner. I would agree that it would be preferable for "society" to reckon that the sustainability of social gross wealth should take precedence over the maximization of private net income. I just think that to get there it would first be necessary to understand what steers the current path. Now, change gears and suppose that society discovers that both the > burning down of an existing house and its reconstruction have as a > necessary byproduct an irreversible effect on the natural environment > (let's call it "entropy") harmful to us and increasingly so over time. > Frame it a bit differently: a common good called "sustainable > human-nature interaction" (SHNI), a sine qua non good for the survival > of the species, becomes increasingly expensive to reproduce. (I'd > like to think that a SHNI that could accomodate our species in this > planet for several centuries down the road won't require us to reverse > the second law of thermodynamics, but only to avoid speeding it up > recklessly.) > > As a result, society now reckons that the destruction of a house > obliterates more value than the narrowly-regarded value of the house > itself and that the building of new houses further increases social > labor time necessary to produce SHNI, so that the net value that > results is negative, because SHNI has turned more expensive to > reproduce. Wouldn't these measures of net wealth (gross wealth minus > gross illth) and net value be more reliable measures of human freedom, > productive power, or welfare? > > Now, how can society accomplish this shift in consciousness? By > building of socialism, by working people waging their righteous class > struggle. For things to be of value, they have to meet a human need, > they have to be use values in the proportion required by society. > However, in a society split by class and other internal conflicts, > what is wealth for some is illth (poverty?) for others, so the very > definition of wealth, and value is up for grabs. Revolutions are > about contesting the notion that what is good for GM is good for > everybody; they are about redefining the content of public wealth. > What is good, what is wealth, and -- therefore -- what is valuable is > the result of a struggle we have no alternative but to win. > > > So here's the general picture: the aggregate mass of surplus value > depends > > both on the present expenditure of labor time and on institutional > barriers > > to prevent most of that surplus being consumed in the future reduction of > > working time. > > > > Unequal exchange arises in the distribution of that surplus > > value as profit, which is regulated by private property ownership and > > competition, not by where the surplus value was actually produced. > > > > The generation of waste and environmental damage is functional is this > set up > > in that it expands the social necessity for the expenditure of labor time > > to repair the damage without thereby increasing the quantity of > use-values > > available for consumption. > > > > It would be fair to say that the above sounds "irrational" -- but that is > > from the perspective of society. From the perspective of the accumulation > > of capital, such irrationality is perfectly rational. > > I need to think about this more. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
