======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================


what we're talking about is labor that produces luxury commodities,
which is "productive" labor. and in the "good" times, as Marx notes,
this labor *may* have the ability to take home an above-average wage
(That may allow a the lucky worker to return to Brazil and become
mayor of his town and eventually profit from the sort of indentured
servitude he creates in channeling other workers to his original
source of income)

A reading of Volume 2 clarifies the confusion perhaps because in
focusing on Circulation, Marx attempts to solve problems of how the
profits for all commodities are realized within a totality of a
hypothetical, theoretical closed model (that eventually expands) --

Yes, a lot of commodities aren't part of the means of production, and
Marx lumps all of these commodities into "Department II", in which are
all commodities that are intended for "individual" consumption (not
profit creation)-- Whereas all commodities created to become means of
production Marx lumps in Department I. Marx then clarifies how if each
of these departments is divided in terms of their value component into
three groups (Variable capital (wages), constant capital, and surplus
value) how all of this value can be realized (how all the commodities
can be sold)-- And of course the value of department II can only be
realized when purchased with wages because these are commodities
intended for consumption (not capital creation) --

In a "simple reproduction" marx is then forced to confront luxury
articles in a systematic way (the only place where he spends more than
a few lines on luxuries) because in the early model all the surplus
value of the capitalists is being spent in department II--on
commodities for their personal consumption. Not realistic at all, but
an interesting starting point --And this leads to his thoughts on
luxury labor , which I quoted in my piece. once "expanded"
reproduction begins, the capitalist of course has the opportunity to
purchase more means of production/variable capital with his profits,
instead of spending it all on luxuries.

--the result being that luxuries move away from being some ideal
category, but a commodity that is in relation to the rate of profit,
and the accumulation and expanded reproduction of captial-- Luxuries
have a structural relationship to the circulation of capital and the
fluctuating rate of profit--

and these problems of circulation are of course taken up in more
detail by Rosa Luxembourg in "Accumulation of Capital" , which leads
to the debate whether she miscalculates marx's schema, etc--

*it so happens that one of the theses of Robert Brenner (a perennial
favorite here on Marxmail!) is that most intensive commodity
production before *his* version of capitalism starts is taking place
in Luxury industries-- think of Silk factories of the middle ages and
early Renaissance, Tapestries, ceramics, Arms, etc-- The structural
relationship being that in a world where expanded reproduction is more
difficult to achieve in basic commodities--peasant production, limited
ability to invest profits in more means of production, more labor
power-- Profits of nobility were consistently spent on luxuries to
reinforce the eclat of their social appearance, and warfare
expenditures.



On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Tom Cod <tomc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm confused, however, by your references to commodities with
> requisite quotes to Capital and such.  A lot of commodities aren't
> part of the means of production per se (as distinct from being a
> product thereof), unless they're "capital goods" such as machines.
> Nonetheless, I get it that here the "commodities" being produced
> mostly consist of catering to the wealthy and privileged.
>

________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to