Dave B
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It comes back to a theoretical definition or premise. You cannot start with a definitive statement then change it later. The reductive, minimalist or abstract ‘mathematical’ definition is. Surplus labour is labour performed beyond which it is necessary for the direct producer(s) themselves(s) to reproduce their labour time (necessary labour time). What it produces is a surplus product. And its value is the amount of labour time required for it and that is surplus value. It applies irrespective of commodity production, exchange value, capitalism, labour vouchers or free access moneyless socialism. It isn’t actually a condition of the premise that what is produced during the necessary labour time is sold for money (or exchanged for vouchers) in order that the direct producers can buy stuff they need to reproduce their labour time. That fact that the premise was derived from how it operates in capitalism is of no matter. If you want to make a definitive statement conditional ie in capitalism or with exchange value then you can. That is in fact what people do; with value as conditional on the existence of exchange value and surplus value as conditional on profit and capitalism etc etc. You could argue that Karl should have made it conditional or was wrong not to etc; which would be a bit of a separate argument. But he clearly didn’t I think. Thus the feudal peasants worked on the Lords land on Thursdays and Fridays, during . those days they produced a surplus product, which they did not consume. (What they consumed was the stuff that they made on Mondays to Wednesday). The Thursdays and Fridays was surplus labour time ie surplus value that existed (embodied) in the surplus product. Actually that does not require exchange value or money or wages. Thus; So much is evident with respect to labour rent, the simplest and most primitive form of rent: Rent is here the primeval form of surplus-labour and coincides with it. But this identity of surplus-value with unpaid labour of others need not be analysed here because it still exists in its visible, palpable form, since the labour of the direct producer for himself is still separated in space and time from his labour for the landlord and the latter appears directly in the brutal form of enforced labour for a third person. In the same way the "attribute" possessed by the soil to produce rent is here reduced to a tangibly open secret, for the disposition to furnish rent here also includes human labour-power bound to the soil, and the property relation which compels the owner of labour-power to drive it on and activate it beyond such measure as is required to satisfy his own indispensable needs. Rent consists directly in the appropriation of this surplus expenditure of labour-power by the landlord; for the direct producer pays him no additional rent. Here, where surplus-value and rent are not only identical but where surplus-value has the tangible form of surplus-labour, the natural conditions or limits of rent, being those of surplus-value in general, are plainly clear. The direct producer must 1) possess enough labour-power, and 2) the natural conditions of his labour, above all the soil cultivated by him, must be productive enough, in a word, the natural productivity of his labour must be big enough to give him the possibility of retaining some surplus-labour over and above that required for the satisfaction of his own indispensable needs. It is not this possibility which creates the rent, but rather compulsion which turns this possibility into reality. But the possibility itself is conditioned by subjective and objective natural circumstances. And here too lies nothing at all mysterious. Should labour-power be minute, and the natural conditions of labour scanty, then the surplus-labour is small, but in such a case so are the wants of the producers on the one hand and the relative number of exploiters of surplus-labour on the other, and finally so is the surplus-product, whereby this barely productive surplus-labour is realised for those few exploiting landowners. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch47.htm
I think 1Kg of oil is going to produce about 3kg of carbon dioxide I think ; so i guess if you could strip out one KG and store it underground for 30 cents it would only double the price
There was a seminal 500 page work done in 2005 by the IPCC The technical or chemistry issues of economically stripping it out of the gas flumes from power stations using re-generational technology were thought to be the original problem. Storage or what to do with it was not considered to be the serious technological problem or the easy bit. Ie absorbing it onto something then de-sorbing it and thus regenerating the absorbent back to its original condition etc. That kind of technology in general has made huge advances in the last 25 years. As has molecular filter or membrane technology which is less to do with chemistry than material sciences or whatever. And that is being proposed as an alternative methodology. I am reasonably familiar with the general subject as it has become also become part of the standard tool kit for fruit juice adulterators. Thus for instance, depending on prices of course, it is almost old hat technology now stripping out tell-tale (or marker compound) like tartaric acid from grape juice so you can safely use it to cut something more expensive like blackcurrant. Or, using ‘horsemeat’ DNA technology is complete waste of time because as far as us liquid food people are concerned, as they started sieving that out with molecular filters years ago. The real problem is that oil is in fact very cheap at about at 1$ a gallon. I can’t be arsed doing the mass balance equation but stripping out from exhaust fumes and burying a ‘gallon’ of carbon dioxide for some-kind of fraction of 1$ would seem a capitalist economic challenge?
'The' chapter on the matter is as below. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htm I think i am taking for convience a combination of. For example: if a day’s labour only sufficed to keep the worker alive, that is, to reproduce his labour-power, speaking in an absolute sense his labour would be productive because it would be reproductive; that is to say, because it constantly replaced the values ( equal to the value of its own labour-power) which it consumed. <Assuming, however, that no capital exists, but that the worker appropriates his surplus-labour himself—the excess of values that he has created over the values that he consumes. Then one could say only of this labour that it is truly productive, that is, that it creates new values.>
If people think I am taking an outrageous interpretation of surplus value, surplus product and surplus value in socialism; I would like to refer them to the following passage. Where Karl after rambling on about the insurance industry in capitalism makes a rare and extremely interesting detour into communism. Examining which theoretical or analytical aspects of capitalism will inevitably carry over into communism. The less interesting bit starts of with the kind of idea of some surplus product/labour/value in capitalism going towards a disaster fund, or whatever. Or stuff that “is neither consumed as such nor serves necessarily as a fund for accumulation”. He goes onto to say that this would continue; …even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production…. Along with; ….that portion serving for accumulation, and hence expansion of the process of reproduction…… And; ….surplus-labour for those who on account of age are not yet, or no longer, able to take part in production, all labour to support those who do not work would cease. Capital Vol. III Part VIIRevenues and their SourcesChapter 49. Concerning the Analysis of the Process of Production This is the sole portion of revenue which is neither consumed as such nor serves necessarily as a fund for accumulation. Whether it actually serves as such, or covers merely a loss in reproduction, depends upon chance. This is also the only portion of surplus-value and surplus-product, and thus of surplus-labour, which would continue to exist, outside of that portion serving for accumulation, and hence expansion of the process of reproduction, even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production. This, of course, presupposes that the portion regularly consumed by direct producers does not remain limited to its present minimum. Apart from surplus-labour for those who on account of age are not yet, or no longer, able to take part in production, all labour to support those who do not work would cease. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch49.htm
I think this is a fairly interesting exercise as it always good to stress test any theory by looking at what it applies to from a different perspective to see how well it stands up. I think we are discussing ‘un-productive labour’ without any clear definition of what it is, or with a definition that changes with the argument? I propose , as a class analysis, ‘productive labour’ should be considered to be; the production of something useful (or a use value- or need) for the consumption of the class that do produce use-values. And that ‘un-productive labour’ should be considered to be; the production of something useful (or a use value- or need) for the consumption of the class that don’t produce any use-values. Before we even start must avoid getting bogged down by subjective evaluations as to whether or not any use-values are really useful or for that matter intangible like a opera song or watching a football match. Eg Marx 1867 (Capital)The Commodity[….first chapter of the first German edition of Capital. Modern editions of Capital have a first chapter based on the second or subsequent editions…. I prefer it] The nature of………needs is irrelevant, e.g., whether their origin is in the stomach or in the fancy. We are also not concerned here with the manner in which the entity satisfies human need; whether in an immediate way as food – that is, as object of enjoyment – or by a detour as means of production. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm So we could test the proposition? That would make butlers and chauffeur driven cars un-productive labour and fast food workers, bus driving, NHS healthcare workers and state education of the proles productive labour. And the commercial money ‘economy’ as something useful or needed by the capitalist class, and not us in moneyless socialism, un-productive labour. As well as the arms industry; and obviates the problem of whether making a very tangible aircraft carrier or hellfire carrying drone is productive labour or not. Unless you disagree and think it is productive labour of course. If you are going to switch the analysis of capitalism from one based on the predicates, definitions or premises of value and surplus value etc to an analysis of productive labour, which is a good idea I think; then you well you have to do just that. Which is why the department of labour analysis or model is useful. So if we start with; ‘productive labour’ should be considered to be, the production of something useful (or a use value- or need) for the consumption of the class that do produce use-values. Then what is that? There are obviously a proportion of the workers making stuff for the consumption of all workers and not stuff for the capitalist class. [ it is probably a bit idealised, as with all models, as the capitalist class will probably consume some of the same commodities as the workers even if they don’t ride around on buses etc- but I don’t think it is a real deal breaker unless we are going to begrudge a non producing useless 1% the same consumption fund or the working class. It was perhaps clearer in Stalin’s Russia were production was more directly organised and sectionalised according to who it was for] The seemingly obvious fact that only a proportion of the workers are making stuff for the consumption of all workers must be reassuring as surplus product and surplus labour makes an immediate appearance. The surplus product and surplus labour of productive workers, (those making stuff only for workers) goes immediately to the other workers who are producing things that are not needed by the producers of use values. Thus a proportion of my surplus product will go and be consumed by chauffeurs, domestic servants, money shufflers, advertising and arms industry workers. Stuff that I, as a productive worker, don’t consume or need, and might even suffer from as an anti use-value. That 8 hour amounts of my (as a productive worker) surplus product that ends up in the hands of a capitalist somewhere along the line might be used to extort 10 hours of labour out of a chauffeur that a capitalist finds useful to himself is of no matter. Another proportion of my surplus product will go and be consumed by workers producing new ‘means of production’, eg factories, machines, roads and electrification etc. In capitalism that is done because it is an economic necessity for the individual capitalist class. If they don’t expand and increase the productivity of their workers and lower the labour time value of the commodities they produce they go under. And they monopolise that ‘social’ process, or own and control it as much as they can control anything in capitalism. (like they have lost control of the expansion and accumulation of productive capital now) Accumulation of capital eg more factories is useful or a need for them, whose use-value or cui bono. But we will still be producing new ‘means of production’ beyond given temporal ‘requirements’ to increase the productivity and lower the labour time value of the consumable use values in socialism to lower the length of our wageless working day, perhaps? But nobody should say that everything that capitalism does is diametrically opposed to socialism. Or as Lenin put it; …free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class…. http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html#c6 Anyway from Karl. Capital Vol. IIIPart VII. Revenues and their SourcesChapter 48. The Trinity Formula This surplus-labour appears as surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus-product. Surplus-labour in general, as labour performed over and above the given requirements, must always remain. In the capitalist as well as in the slave system, etc., it merely assumes an antagonistic form and is supplemented by complete idleness of a stratum of society. A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction in keeping with the development of the needs and the growth of population, which is called accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist. It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time devoted to material labour in general. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch48.htm I like this part of the quote from Karl; “This surplus-labour appears as surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus-product.” As it rolls up together the ‘trinity’ of labour-value-product in one short sentence.
It is true that many so called self employed or self described self employed are ‘disguised employees’ and thus wage workers. It is discussed quite well below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR35 It was and still is widespread in the computer or IT industry where it isn’t unusual for 30% and over of the ‘workers’ are employed thus. The genuine self employed or simple commodity production that continues to co-exist within the general capitalist economy tend to be selling products, commodities and services to the workers. Eg kitchen fitters, car mechanics, plumbers etc etc. Or in areas of the economy which don’t require or benefit economically or productively from large amounts of capital. When they do sometimes say with a self employed lorry driver with his ‘own’ £250,000 rigg or a restaurant owner they can be producing surplus value that goes to pay the interest on the loaned capital. The merchant capitalist class, in our case the supermarkets, can also use their capital the exploit the producing self employed in several ways. Eg. Capital Vol. III Part IVConversion of Commodity-Capital and Money-Capital into Commercial Capital and Money-Dealing Capital (Merchant's Capital)Chapter 20. Historical Facts about Merchant's Capital …..and exerted only a merchant's control, for that was for whom they really worked.[8]This system presents everywhere an obstacle to the real capitalist mode of production and goes under with its development. Without revolutionising the mode of production, it only worsens the condition of the direct producers, turns them into mere wage-workers and proletarians under conditions worse than those under the immediate control of capital, and appropriates their surplus-labour on the basis of the old mode of production. The same conditions exist in somewhat modified form in part of the London handicraft furniture industry. It is practised notably in the Tower Hamlets on a very large scale. The whole production is divided into very numerous separate branches of business independent of one another. One establishment makes only chairs, another only tables, a third only bureaus, etc. But these establishments themselves are run more or less like handicrafts by a single minor master and a few journeymen. Nevertheless, production is too large to work directly for private persons. The buyers are the owners of furniture stores. On Saturdays the master visits them and sells his product, the transaction being closed with as much haggling as in a pawnshop over a loan. The masters depend on this weekly sale, if for no other reason than to be able to buy raw materials for the following week and to pay out wages. Under these circumstances, they are really only middlemen between the merchant and their own labourers. The merchant is the actual capitalist who pockets the lion's share of the surplus-value.[9]Almost the same applies in the transition to manufacture of branches formerly carried on as handicrafts or side lines to rural industries. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch20.htm It still goes on now in a different form with small, say, diary farmers; who can be just as militant as regards industrial ‘unionised’ action as any in the factory system. Historically it can be very important as discussed by the likes of Adam Smith re 18th century onwards and ‘corn factors’. Who would buy up the corn at harvest time and low prices to sell at higher prices later. The small farmers lacked the reserve capital to hold onto their product until later. It is not much different in economic principal really, on a smaller scale, when it comes to reserve capital to the payday loan thing as the advertisements. If you have a little bit of loot stashed away you don’t have to go to a payday loan shark at 1000% APR when the car breaks down, the boiler goes on the blink, the electricity bill comes in or if you are a small farmer the rent or tax bill. In Russia in the late nineteenth century after the serfs started to become more simple commodity producers when the annual tax and rent bills etc came in they couldn’t pay and borrowed cash at interest from more frugal hardworking peasants. Eventually the less forward thinking peasants got in debt over their heads to be foreclosed on and ended up working on their former ‘own’ land as wage slaves for their creditors. According to Karl the same thing happened to the small Roman peasants who also had slave owning agricultural commodity producers to compete with on the market. As well in Judea in AD6; JC was actually accused by the Roman ‘Jewish’ collaborators, according to the gospel narrative, of telling people not to pay roman taxes. The so called anti slavery American civil war had many causes and aspects etc. However in the early part of the 19th century the simple commodity producing small peasantry of the North didn’t give shit about what was happening south. It was only the prospect of it moving North, or Northwest with the potential of slave labour being used to produce the same kind of commodities as the likes of Abe Lincoln’s socio economic peers that set alarm bells going. A bit like outsourcing and relocating factories to China and competing with lower remuneration for work. People like the Ingalls of the little House On the Prairie might think, or not, that slavery is an abomination to start with but they would hate it even more once they had to go economically head to head with it. NHS heath workers produce a commodity that is just as important as regards reproducing workers labour power as Mars bars, orange juice and central heating repairs. I think retail workers add value; the litmus test is would people still be doing that kind of thing in socialism?
A capitalist will use a ‘standard’ 10 hours of a workers time and remunerate them with what a ‘standard’ 8 hours of a workers time can produce. That happens irrespective of how the capitalist utilises 10 hours of a workers time. If non productive workers, like say domestic servants, got 6 hours worth of stuff for 10 hours work then they would skip of and work in productive labour where we are assuming you get 8 hours worth of stuff for 10 hours work. If non productive workers, like say domestic servants, got 10 hours worth of stuff for 10 hours work then productive workers would become domestic servants. In fact the amount of stuff you get for paid for work or the rate of exploitation tends to be the same across all industries within and without productive labour. Non productive work is funded out of the surplus value of productive work.
The government, under a law that was passed, conceded control of the water under a monopoly to Bechtel in a certain area. So that means that Bechtel tried to charge a fee and had the monopoly power over a very basic necessity for people. The law said even that people had to ask, had to obtain a permit to collect rainwater. That means that even rainwater was privatized. The most serious thing was that indigenous communities and farming communities, who for years had their own water rights, those water sources were converted into property that could be bought and sold by international corporations. http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/5/bolivian_activist_oscar_olivera_on_bechtels
Well I see L bird is up to his old tricks as a non scientist talking about science, putting up straw man arguments about true knowledge and using false Marx quotes etc. The nature of ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ and ‘what is the truth’ is a very old one and pre bourgeois. As Pontius put it to JC. Actually it was a Democritus (first chemist- hurrah) question (Karl did his Phd thesis Democritus) and had a Democritus answer which was also in the Gospel incidentally as a kind of joke; John 4. The Democritus answer is that the ‘truth’ lies at the bottom of a deep well. In other words it pre- exists, materially, outside of human consciousness before it is discovered or pulled out. And we are forced to fit our consciousness around material ‘reality’; as Karen Horney said,; it refuses to go away and ignore us. Is that realistic and true? Did the earth revolve around the sun before it was discovered? Did Neptune exist before it was discovered?; in 1846. The nature of discovery is problematic on its own as a computer scientist/astronomer claimed that Galileo saw it in 1613. I went to a lecture by the guy that wrote the programme that ante-dicted the positions of the planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune Or is L bird saying that we have created the ‘reality’ of Neptune. On this mythical ; “mythical objective method of producing True Knowledge” ‘True’ scientists couldn’t give a rats arse for the ‘subjective’ opinion of others; 'future reality' is their judge. We will design a big F**k off plane using tested ‘objective methods’ and you watch the mother f**ker fly perfectly first time. And screw your artificially ‘created’ realities. There is a kind of related theory on reality sometimes referred to as ‘sense perception theory’ which can include conscious experience of ‘reality’ etc.
In fact L Bird is crediting scientists with being Descarte’s evil demon. Descarte was not as idiotic as L Bird though! Among the accusations of blasphemymade against Descartes by Protestantswas that he was positing an omnipotent malevolent God. Kennington[3][4]states that the evil demon is never declared by Descartes to be omnipotent, merely to be not less powerful than he is necessarily deceitful, and thus not explicitly an equivalent to an omnipotent God. The evil demon is capable of simulating an external world and bodily sensations, but incapable of rendering dubious things that are independent of trust in the senses, such as pure mathematics, eternaltruths, and the principle of contradiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon Enter Hegel’s phenomenology of Logic.I don’t trust bank money either. Or pension funds for that matter I think it will all go belly up very fast soon. So converted £6100 paper money into 10oz of platinum commodities in December. Just to keep me going on eco friendly recycled bottles homemade wine kits etc. They are worth £8700 now. http://www.goldline.co.uk/platinum-bars.page
Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 3, Socialism and the State The material premise of communism should be so high a development of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of life’s goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or “decent” boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion. Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective “utopian.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm Trotsky’s Terrorism and Communism The Mensheviks are against this. This is quite comprehensible, because in reality they are against the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is to this, in the long run, that the whole question is reduced. The Kautskians are against the dictatorship of the proletariat, and are thereby against all its consequences. Both economic and political compulsion are only forms of the expression of the dictatorship of the working class in two closely connected regions. True, Abramovich demonstrated to us most learnedly that under Socialism there will be no compulsion, that the principle of compulsion contradicts Socialism, that under Socialism we shall be moved by the feeling of duty, the habit of working, the attractiveness of labor, etc., etc. This is unquestionable. Only this unquestionable truth must be a little extended. In point of fact, under Socialism there will not exist the apparatus of compulsion itself, namely, the State: for it will have melted away entirely into a producing and consuming commune. None the less, the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State. And you and I are just passing through that period. Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction. Now just that insignificant little fact – that historical step of the State dictatorship – Abramovich, and in his person the whole of Menshevism, did not notice; and consequently, he has fallen over it. http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch08.htm
I think maybe the key to understanding the present in a Marxist sense is to examine the past. In the olden days of gold money commodity it was in limited supply as you couldn’t just switch or rapidly expand gold money production; or suddenly expand the 4th department of capital. (Karl foolishly only had two departments of capital ignoring the department of fixed capital by conflating it, if he really considered it all, with his second department of capital constant.) In times of economic uncertainty the capitalist tended to want to get out of productive capitalism and owning machines and factories etc and revert back to gold money hoards etc. This had two aspects; the first initially less important perhaps. The first; functioning productive capitalists would not reinvest their surplus value back into expanding productive capital-machines and factories (and thus mostly fixed). This might not actually affect the so called second department which theoretically just involves constant and raw material; if they just continue as before and just not building more and better factories and machines etc. The second being the money capitalists who had money loaned to the functioning capitalist wanted to have the money back rather than a potential income stream of surplus value from functioning capitalists. With concern about the functioning capitalists going belly up and non performing loans; a bit like with no job and no income subprime mortgage loans not being likely to deliver an income stream either. In the past when the money capitalists pulled out their gold money capital the functioning capitalist couldn’t function and some would have to fire sale sell up their hard fixed capital. That generally lowered the market value of such fixed capital and lowered the market value of fixed capital like machines etc. That fixed capital was generally regarded by the money capitalists as collateral and stuff the money capitalist could lay claim to from any distressed functioning capitalist. So that spooked the money capitalist more. Just as the market house price collapse (and collateral for a loans) spooked the subprime lenders. Then, in the 19th century, as it became a money renters market, the interest rate on gold money capital shot up as you could argue did the market value of the gold money itself. As in a case that Fred I think discussed in volume III; there is quite a bit of Fred only stuff in volume III. Money capitalists would demand a 15% interest on even a ‘safe as houses’ functioning capitalist that were still doing really well; because they could. I think what we are seeing superficially now is that the real capitalists both functioning and more importantly perhaps money capitalists want out. They want safe money rather than a right or ownership to income streams backed by collateral of uncertain future value. The ‘central banks’ are saying if that is what you want you can have it. And they are buying rights and ownership of productive capital with fresh paper money. It seems to be working in two ways which is just one really when one ignores the smoke and mirrors. The money capitalist are withdrawing or not ‘rolling over’ loans to the functioning capitalists and the central banks are replacing the withdrawn money of the money capitalist with fresh stuff. The central banks ‘balance sheets’ increase ie they have formal ownership of functioning capital and the money capitalists have their money. Ironically it is like creeping, central bank, state capitalism. I suppose when or if things settle down the central banks can take back the paper money in exchange of income stream right on productive capital and 'denationalise' it again. Which is why there is no obvious inflation. Inflation happens when more money is being used to exchange of buy and sell goods of the same labour time value. Thus as Karl thought about it with his take on the velocity of money theory. Rosa’s argument about workers not being able to afford to buy back the surplus product as the capitalist had all the surplus value was quite a sensible deduction from Karl’s flawed two department theory. With 2 more departments the capitalist can exchange their surplus value from them to buy fixed capital and more of the gold money capital, as a hoard, if they so choose, or just capitalist bling. In fact I think there should be 5. 1st making stuff for workers. 2nd making raw material or constant capital which was Karl’s; and a bit trivial in my opinion. 3rd making capitalist consumable bling including swimming pool attendents and general domestics. 4th producing more and better fixed capital. 5th producing value and effort embodied gold money commodity for circulation and hoards. In fact if you took an extra terrestrial Star trek view on capitalism and dropped the trivial 2nd for simplicity. You could have say 3 billion workers in the first department making stuff for 6 billlion workers; or for themselves and 3 billlion other workers who don’t make stuff for workers. 1 billion workers in the 3rd department making capitalist bling. 1 billion workers making more and better fixed capital robots and machines etc in the 4th 1 billion workers making the money commodity for a hoard or circulation in the 5th. The fact that the 3rd 4th and 5th also make surplus value is just a smoke and mirrors accounting trick disguising the fact that it is all predicated on the surplus value and surplus product created from the productive ‘productive’ labour of workers making more stuff than they need for themselves. Re thinking perhaps Rosa’s theory and why it was wrong. The 4th and the 5th department, using surplus value/product to ‘give back’ surplus value to workers by employing them is now perhaps ‘dysfunctional’?
I know all this has got nothing to do socialism etc but this could turn out like “Dallas”, as I suspect Hillary is in trouble. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45279.htm https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/354847-wikileaks-dnc-leaks-russia/
