I can accept the wrongness but it has other implications. Firstly, the
productive component of labour must include construction workers not just
the traditional manufacturing class. Secondly, other luxury goods are not
required to be manufactured in the home economy. Thirdly, the capital
component of such goods, especially in bricks and mortar, becomes
unproductive where the good is not used in a productive capacity (is a
private car productive - and if it is, is an SUV more productive than a
tw-seater). Capital is sunk into conditions in which it cannot be reproduced
through the creation of a surplus.
Compare the latter notion to the export of capital into the extraction of
raw materials. What implications does that have for the rate of profit in
the geographic area holding that new capital.
Which means that in order to continue satisfying the demand for the
'enjoyment' of a surplus in the home economy, there is a continuing, and
most likely increasing, need to exploit labour abroad. Slowly, capital is
leeched into unproductive conditions in the home economy.
And back to Carrol's point - does a house or a golf course create surplus
value? - are they productive uses of capital?
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] A New Economy?
Simon Ward wrote:
productive capital is drained away and
whatever capital is left is slowly but steadily transferred to
unproductive
conditions - ever more luxurious housing for example or golf courses.
This is wrong; these are luxury commodities and the production of them
generates surplus value just as does the production of boots or tennis
balls or or shirts. See Capital, Vol. II, Chap. XX, Section IV.
Exchange Within Department II. Necessities of Life and Articles of
Luxury.
Carrol
