Arms production + Dept III

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

Jerry writes:
>
> (1) In answer to Adam on 2 vs. 3 Departments
>   It is important to understand Marx's purposes and level of abstraction
> when evaluating the meaning of the 2 department reproduction schema.
> IMHO, it is a mistake to confuse the level of analysis in V2 with that
> of V3 (including the the "law of the tendency for the rate of profit
> to decline" amd the "counteracting influences").
>  How we interpret the meaning of luxury consumption and the military
> shouldn't be confused with the above. They are both important, but
> separate, questions.
>

Important, separate, but related questions.

There is the question of which department we put arms production in.
Given that it goes in Department III, there is another argument about
why arms production acts as a countervailing tendency to the tendency
of the rate of profit to fall.

I believe that the boom of the 50's and 60's was a result of the
effect that the permanent arms economy had on the rate of profit.

This can be countered with "Arms production doesn't belong in Dept III" or
"Dept III doesn't have the effect on the rate of profit you say it does" or
perhaps even "there wasn't a boom" or even "there was a boom even though the
rate of profit fell".

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------