GERRY,
THIS IS A MORBID TOPIC... I THOUGHT THAT FOR US THE IDEA WAS TO FIGHT TO GET DIFFERENT RESULTS!
IN SUM, IMPERIALIST WAR (NOT REVOLUTIONARY WAR) IS THE ACCELERTION OF ALL THOSE METHODS THE CAPITALIST CLASS USES IN 'FRATERNAL COMPETITION' WHEN THINGS HAVE GOT VERY TOUGH + ANYTHING ELSE THEY CAN THINK OF TO WIPE OUT THE OPPOSITION!!!!!! ACTUALLY 'FRATRICIDE' IS SEEN AS THE ONLY WAY OUT. IN THE PROCESS THE KEY POINTS ARE 1) REDUCE THE CONDITIONS GENERALLY OF THE WORKING CLASS SO AS TO INCREASE THE RATE OF EXPLOITATION AS MUICH AS POSSIBLE - THIS IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL 2) IN SO DOING ESTABLISH A REGIME FAVOURABLE TO YOUR INTERESTS - POLITICAL/SOCIAL/LEGAL DURING AND AFTER THE WAR ETC 3) ENSURE THAT THE MARKETS SEIZED HAVE SUFFICIENT POTENTIAL TO ABSORB THE EXPANDED PRODUCTION THAT MUST BE CREATED IN ORDER TO RETURN THE PROFITS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN YOUR KIND OF PEACE. 4) THE LATTER WILL USE EVERY ADVANCE MADE BY SCIENCE ... BOURGEOISE NECESSITY BEING THE MOTHER OF INVENTION ETC...
I''M NOT SURE THAT I CAN SAY MORE HERE. WHAT WAR ARE YOU STUDYING?
PAUL B.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald_A_Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com>
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Date: 18 February 2001 13:13
Subject: [OPE-L:4951] Re: armaments and value
Paul B: Thank you for your patience and your most recent reply in [OPE-L:4949].
The distinctions that you make concerning whether a change in value was a "result" are useful.
I realize that it is not the issue we started with, but can we explore the possible (i.e. contingent) "results" of the consumption of the use-value of armaments more?
In particular, I want to ask: what are the results of *WAR*
in terms of the quantity of post-war aggregate value, the depreciation of constant fixed capital, and the organic composition of capital?
I think you would have to agree that these are important questions.
More specifically, I have two questions:
1) how does the slaughter of the working class affect the post-war value creation process and the revaluation of existing "stocks" of variable capital? How will that, in turn, affect the organic composition of capital and the general rate of profit?
2) How does the forcible destruction of constant (circulating and fixed) capital in wartime (e.g. through bombings) affect the value of these means of production? Further, is there any reason to suppose that even though there is a redistribution of value internationally following the war that the quantity of value redistributed will exactly equal the quantity of value destroyed? I.e. is there, at this level of abstraction (pace Andrew K) a diminution of aggregate value or simply a redistribution of value? Thus, does the so-called "conservation of value" still hold or has the consumption of the use-value of the armaments resulted in a diminution of aggregate value much greater than the value of the armaments? What is the consequence in terms of the organic composition of capital, the turnover time of constant fixed capital, and the average rate of profit?
BTW, please feel free to take your time in responding. There's no rush.
Also, if there are any others who have answers to the above questions, I would be very happy to hear your responses.
In solidarity, Jerry
----- Original Message -----
YES BUT THIS IS NOT AN INTENTIONAL PART OF THE PRODUCTION PROCESS AS SUCH, IT IS A RESULT.
<snip, JL>
. 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST