Rakesh, I respond below IN CAPS SIMPLY TO DISTINGUISH THE EXCHANGE... -----Original Message----- From: rakeshb <rakeshb@stanford.edu> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: 16 February 2001 23:45 Subject: [OPE-L:4923] Re: Re: Re: Re: faux frais, armaments, and security guardservices >Paul B writes: > >Rakesh, you art not denying that profits are made by the armaments capitalist, ie that surplus value is extorted from their employees. Why then are these >workers not productive of capital? > >> >> >> But this argument then denies that the armaments capitalist extorts >surplus value ( profits) from the workers. So you contradict yourself. How can the State spending both realise profit as you state 'So a debt has been >incurred equal to the sum of costs + profits in the arm mfg's sale to the >government', but at the same time NOT produce SV ? > >Paul B, > >But profit and surplus value are not the same. The commercial and banking >capitalists make the former without the producing the latter, yet the private property of these capitalists does serve them as capital. The question then is whether purchases by the state represent a similar kind of deduction from surplus value. (SAYS RAKESH) > I THOUGHT THIS MIGHT COME UP: ARE YOU SAYING BANKERS ARE THE SAME AS ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURERS ? ARE ARMS MONEY? IF SO I'M NOT SURE THAT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE PROGRESS. SECONDLY, THAT THE STATE DIRECTLY CONVERTS CAPITAL INTO REVENUE WHEN IT DIRECTLY EMPLOYS ITS OWN ADMINISTRATORS, ARMY, ETC. IS DIFFERENT FROM ITS RELATION IN THE MARKET TO MANUFACTURERS. HERE, AS IT SPENDS, IT REALISES THE VALUE AND SURPLUS VALUE IN THE ARMAMENTS. YOU ARE NOW SUGGESTING THAT THE ARMAMENTS WORKERS ARE NOT CREATING SURPLUS VALUE, BUT SIMPLY CONSUMING IT. IE THEY ARE UNPRODUCTIVE. BUT HOW CAN THIS BE IF THEIR EMPLOYERS EMPLOY THEM TO SELL THEIR COMMODITIES ON THE MARKET TO OBTAIN MORE CAPITAL? IF YOU CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON THE AGENT WHO PURCHASES RATHER THAN THE PROCESS OF THE EXPANSION OF CAPITAL WE SHALL BE RELYING ON THE NATURE OF THE CONSUMER, OR THE SOURCE OF THEIR REVENUE, AS THE BASIS OF THE DEFINITION OF PRODUCTIVE LABOUR. THIS SEEMS OFF THE MARK TO ME. OF COURSE IF YOU WANT TO START A TREND TO 'OBLITERATING' THE NOTION OF SURPLUS VALUE ALTOGETHER IN ALL OR PART OF THE OPERATIONS OF EVERY SUPPLIER TO THE STATE, DENYING THAT THESE SUPPLIERS ARE CAPITALISTS ( BECAUSE THE STATE USES SURPLUS VALUE TO BUY THINGS,) THEN WE WILL SOON BE LEFT WITH PROFIT AND PROFIT ALONE IN A HUGE EXPANSE OF THE ECONOMY. In your quote Mattick is not saying what you say. nb where I have >highlighted the text which is consistent with what I have said > >Highlights did not come through. > >Yours, Rakesh >Try format: /rich text, /and the colours might come out. Paul >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST