From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Fri Feb 29 2008 - 08:36:17 EST
Hi Paul C and B: The point remains, though, that based on historical experience there is no way of knowing ex ante whether military funding which results in the development of new technologies is going to eventually result in the transfer of more or less new technologies to firms than had the government spending been on R&D for non-military technological development. This is in part because research on one purpose oftentimes leads to advances in technology in areas quite different than what was originally intended. Paul B is, of course, quite right to argue that it is not a "capital vs. state" question: rather, there is *coordination* between the state and capital that you can see quite clearly, for instance, in the development of military technologies. A question, though, which isn't talked about too much is the following: the state conducts (either directly or indirectly) research which leads to the development of new technologies - often initially in the military or "space" programs. This R&D, like other government spending, is paid for through taxation (or borrowing, but that generally means additional taxation at a later time) - including working-class taxation. As we have talked about, oftentimes the state-sponsored research leads to advances in technological change by corporations. In a sense, then, these corporations receive these technologies *gratis* from the state. Yet, they are *paid for* in part by workers. This then is an example of a *privatization* of public technologies and knowledge. As Paul B would be quick to point out, this is not accidental. In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 02 2008 - 00:00:03 EST