Re Paul C's [OPE-L:4986]: Previously I asked: > > Consider, for example, the bombing of Hiroshima. Suppose that aggregate global value before the bombing equaled X. > > After the bomb has dropped, is there a "conservation of value" (value = X) or has the quantity of value in the world been diminished (less than X)? Paul C responded: > The anwer seems patently obvious. > Of course value has been destroyed. Labour had to be expended to rebuilt the I agree that this must be the answer. Now let us consider the implication -- * what this instance tells us is that the aggregate value can be *diminished*, rather than merely redistributed, through some mechanism other than the consumption of use-value. I believe that this *destruction of value* contradicts the so-called "conservation of value principle". Yet, at issue here is not only a theoretical issue (namely are there circumstances in which the conservation of value principle does not hold), but rather concerns some very important real-world phenomenon. In particular, the analysis of the following category of real-world developments can not assume the conservation of aggregate value: (1) natural and social disasters. The present example of a consequence of war might be thought of as a social disaster. Neo-neo-classicals might call these "external shocks". (2) what happens during and following economic crisis. In particular, I would maintain that there is (or at least can be) a *real* destruction of (constant) capital values whereby the aggregate values is (or can be) *diminished* rather than merely redistributed. That, in turn, suggests that the consequence of the moral depreciation of constant fixed capital can be, rather than a zero-sum game redistribution of value among capitalists such that aggregate value remains the same (I think this was Alan's position in his "Links" article on moral depreciation [NB: without it actually being a zero-sum game in his theory]), a decrease in aggregate value whereby some percentage of the aggregate value is "lost". I am still interested, though, in getting some answers to what the *consequences of war* are (or can be) re: 1) the organic composition of capital? 2) the rate of exploitation (Paul B offered an answer to that)? 3) the turnover time of constant fixed capital? 4) the cost of constant circulating capital? 5) the extent to which there is a temporal temporary dis-junction between wages and the value of labor-power? 6) the size of the industrial reserve army? 7) the rate of profit? 8) the distribution of value internationally? I realize, in advance, that there are no hard and fast rules for answering these questions that apply for all wars, but I'm hoping that we can specify some relationships and identify some trends. I haven't worked out answers to all of the above questions myself and would welcome any answers by others. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST