[OPE-L:5484] Re: Counteracting factors

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Wed May 02 2001 - 20:37:37 EDT

A response from Jurriaan to [5481]:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <j.bendien@wolmail.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Counteracting factors

> Hi Jerry,
> I will get back to you about that, I'm a bit short of time. Just a few
> thoughts. I am happy to concede that Mandel thought the arms industry has
> contradictory effect on average profitability levels, but my main point is
> that the arms industry can have a large semi-independent effect on average
> profitability levels, which Marx himself did not consider.
> For Paul, the profits of the arms industry are a transfer by the state,
> therefore, tautologically (by virtue of the accounting definition) they
> cannot represent a fraction of new value added. However if the state pays
> for utilities, then Paul would presumably consider those utilities
> productive, adding new value. Now why is that ? What is the difference ?
> reduces apparently to the fact that the output of the arms industry
> enter into the reproduction process. (I doubt this is fully true anyway,
> the arms industry does have a big economic effect also in terms of its
> innovations; for the same token, I can make an argument that the arms
> industry provides a big stimulus to production in both Dept 1 and 2). But
> anyway I don't think that whether a good re-enters the reproduction
> or not, is a criterion for whether new value is added through producing
> good in the first place.
> I am sympathetic to Paul's concept of productive labour, from a socialist
> economist's point of view (i.e. "waste" is socially defined), but what
> is talking about, is simply what is productive from the point of view of
> the overall functioning of the bourgeois system.
> And as Mandel emphasises, from THIS point of view, all wage-labour which
> produces commodities for private profit is productive. It doesn't matter
> the commodities are dum-dum bullets or pornographic magazines or nuclear
> bombs or pyramids or any sort of horrible use-value, or what the exact
> consequences are of its consumption (about which there may be a moral
> panic), the simple fact is that a commodity is produced out of which you
> can make a profit. (The real analytical problem is then to correctly
> delineate the realm of commodity production, and this as we know is not so
> easy to do).
> Regards
> Jurriaan
(5481 deleted, JL)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT