(OPE-L) Re: Permanent Arms Economy

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Thu Nov 04 2004 - 07:37:26 EST

This of course does not actually make them fixed capital, but
it does have a certain rationality in that it views the value
tied up in arms as a deduction from the total capital stock
available to the national capitalist class.
Paul C,

Well, couldn't one say the same thing about all unproductive
expenditures?  I.e.  i) any amount of surplus value which isn't
used for the purposes of productive consumption is _ipso facto_
unproductively consumed; ii) any amount of value which isn't
being used to reproduce value could be seen as being
wasteful from the perspective of capitalist rationality.

The problem is that only that portion of the capital devoted
to military commodity production which takes the form of
means of production could be said to represent constant
capital.  The military goods themselves, unless they _are_
means of production,  are 'simply' a portion of the total
commodity output.   How this is represented in a
simplified reproductive model is a question:  unless the
military goods take the form of something like food for
the troops it could hardly be said to represent means of
consumption for the working class; for the reasons
described above, it does not generally take the form
of means of production; and it is not exactly means of
consumption for the capitalist class -- although perhaps
that comes closest.  Perhaps one of the problems in
viewing this question from the standpoint of the reproduction
schema is that a major sector is *presumed* when discussing
military goods that has not analyzed at that level of abstraction
where reproduction schemes are introduced. Namely,
*The State*.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 05 2004 - 00:00:01 EST