Paul C writes in 5313 > >That is not quite what I am saying. The arms have value, since >labour has to be expended in producing them. The issue is whether >the value(=labour) in them contributes to the production of a social surplus >product. My contention is that it does not, and thus the labour >can not be considered productive of surplus value, hence >it is unproductive under Marx's definition. > Ah, so you do consider the labor embodied in the production of arms to have been productive of value, though not surplus value, since you are saying that arms are values. However, for you the arms are values simply in virtue of being embodiments of labor while for me they are values insofar as they also have been sold for money price (so arms produced by the state for itself would not be values). I do agree however that the value expended on the purchase of arms will not only not be valorized since the arms themselves cannot be used to absorb surplus labor, that expended sum of value has in fact been pulverized since through no use of the arms will labor be able to preserve their value gratis. However, this annihilation of value is not immediately obvious since if the state has borrowed to purchase the arms, the owner of state bonds--a form of fictitious capital--will be able to clip his coupons, which will however require the state to create money, tax or borrow more. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT