From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 03 2004 - 14:46:46 EST
At 1:00 PM -0500 11/3/04, Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM wrote: >Rakesh wrote: > >> Capital is not only directly destroyed, it is used up as a result of >> war time activity. It is not as Jerry says factories have to be >> bombed per se. War consumes capital in two ways. > >So, military goods are means of production which take the >form of constant capital? Or, are the means of production >which are used to produce military goods constant capital? > >If you mean the latter, then it is the case that when the use-value >of military goods is exhausted through being used during war >then the demand for replacement military goods grows. This >presumes that corporations producing military goods which are >sold to the state increase (constant and variable) capital spending. > >But, this is simply the using-up of commodity values. Why >is it any more destructive of use-values than the process of >eating a sandwich? ???it needn't be, but when sandwiches aren't being eaten, ie aoutonomous investment falters as result of previous drop off in profitability, then military expenditures can lead to generally higher cap utilization and thus consumption of capital. w/ baby in one hand, hence brevity, rb >OTOH, if a bomb is dropped on a factory >it is easy to understand why there is a forcible destruction of >commodity values. > >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 05 2004 - 00:00:01 EST