I guess this brings up the moral undertone of abstinence talk. The idea is that abstinence is suffering and shows self control, which make one worthy. Which brings out anger and cynicism about whu really suffers more and who can afford to show "self control." But the point I was making, which you don't dispute, is different and purely positive. Is it not the case that some business profits are due to R&D, investment in equipment and plant, savings to be worthy of loans?
No one has actually explained why not, except for T. Fast, who points out that this is stipulated to be false in the simpler models of CApital I, though not, as I argued, in the more elaborate models of Capital III. But a stipulation is not an explanation.
A "yes" answer does not imply:
that capitalism is justified that capitalists are entitled all of their profits or any of their profits that workers do not abstrain, suffer, and show as much or more self conrrol as capitalists
Or any other such foolishness.
Let me suggest reframing the issue. The basic question for socialists is: Are capitalists necessary? If workers could do everything necessary for makinga decent life without having to give a share of the social product to capitalists, what is the rationale for arranging society where they have to do that? Ins ome ways this is the real point of the LTOV and the LV -- we don't need capitalists.
We also don't really need the apparatus of the LTOV/LV. Although it is a moderately useful heuristic, it makes Marxists so crazy to defend it as True that it probably should be dropped so that they can figure out intelligible ways of making their points. Like I asked Charles about whether he had ever persuaded anyone or knew anyone who had of taht the state would wither away using the argument that all conflict is due to class (he admitted that he had not and did not), the practical utility of value theory is pretty limited.
Shane M. and I will have to disagree about how to understand labor as the measure of value in value theory, but while I am right and have a lot of company, part of my point is that the argument is not worth the candle. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
I'm done, gotta bill some hrs.
--- joanna bujes <jbujes at covad.net> wrote:
>
>
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> >>>I don't know hoe much productivity growth is due
> to
> >>>R&D and investment in new plant and equipment, as
> well
> >>>as building up necessary cash reserves and
> acquiring
> >>>long term assets liquid and other, but isn't that
> the
> >>>modern equivalent of "abstinence," where
> dividents and
> >>>executive jets are indulgence?
> >>>
> Abstinence, my ass. It's just the way the fucking
> model works.
> Capitalism requires capital; capital may be
> accumulated by "abstinence"
> or by theft. Point being, if you never get any more
> money than that
> required to feed yourself (the position of most
> workers in the world),
> how the fuck are you going to abstain without dying?
>
> Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe" is the founding myth of
> capitalism: self-made
> autonomous individual marooned on a desert island
> reinvents himself with
> the aid of the friend-slave Friday. Since he saves
> Friday's life from
> cannibals...that's OK. More moral merit. After he
> cobbles together a
> subsistence existence on the island, he is rescued
> and returns to the
> world to find that his slave plantations somehwere
> or other have made
> him a rich man. But that's OK cause he suffered so
> much on the island
> and PROVED he could have done it all by
> himself....so he can now enjoy
> his riches since they were morally earned.
>
> No one should talk about capitalism/imperalism
> without having read
> Crusoe. It's the dream in the machine all right. And
> Defoe is the bees
> knees in the 18th century.
>
> Also, for a good laugh, check out Monty Python's
> skit on capitalists on
> a talk show having a pissing contest about who
> suffered the most. It's a
> treat.
>
> Joanna
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com