GERRY,
SEE MY INSERTIONS
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald_A_Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com>
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Date: 17 February 2001 12:54
Subject: [OPE-L:4943] Re: Re: armaments and value
Re [OPE-L:4919]:
Paul B: At this point, I'm not sure we disagree on any major point.
Yet, a) I do think that rent is important to this sector when we examine the armaments industry more concretely; and b) I'm not sure what to make of your claim in [OPE-L:4910] that firms in this sector can't promote the production of relative surplus value and a reduction in value of variable capital. Could you explain why you believe that this is the case?
DOES PRODUCTIVITY IN ARMAMENTS LEAD DIRECTLY TO ANY CHEAPENING OF THE INPUTS INTO DEPTS 1 AND 2A ? IF NOT THEN THEY DO NOT REDUCE THE PART OF THE WORKING DAY WHICH REPRODUCES VARIABLE CAPITAL.; IN THIS CASE NO RELATIVE SURPLUS VALUE CAN RESULT AND THE OTHER CAPITALISTS SEE SUCH INDUSTRY AS PRETTY USELESS CALLING FOR TAX REDUCTIONS ETC, PEACE DIVIDENDS, WHATEVER,(* DESPITE THE ARMS INDUSTRY CONSTANTLY PLEADING THE USEFULNESS OF ITS RESEARCH, AND CENTRAL ROLE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT ETC ETC. WHICH CAN'T BE DENIED!)
It might also be worthwhile to note that armaments production might have an effect on the size of the relative surplus population (the industrial reserve army) by e.g. with the consumption of use-value of the armaments some proportion of the working class can be killed! YES BUT THIS IS NOT AN INTENTIONAL PART OF THE PRODUCTION PROCESS AS SUCH, IT IS A RESULT. And, of course, the state uses war itself to drive down wages, increase the intensity of work, control or bust unions, etc. These are all contingent results that may vary upon the circumstance. YES BUT HIS WILL ARISE AS CAPITAL CREATES ITS OWN BARRIERS AND A MASSIVE DESTRUCTION PROCESS IS NECESSARY TO REESTABLISH PRODUCTION PROFITABLE ENOUGH TO ALLOW NEW GROWTH. IT IS A RESULT.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST