RE: Arms production + Dept III

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

Jerry, I found your reply a little irritating.

I was developing an argument about the relationship between the rate
of profit, Imperialism, and the permanent arms economy and you just
ignored the main thrust of the argument.

Most of your comments are just flippant remarks.

So, you critisize me using Trotsky's analogy when trying to explain what
I meant by the difference between the short time boom and slumps and
long term booms and crises. I was just trying to explain what I was
talking about.

You then say
> The point isn't to accept the LTGRPD, but to understand it and *ask* how
> it relates to capitalist crises and conjunctural developments.

That's what I was trying to do ! You don't have to agree with what I
was arguing, but you should at least recognise what I was trying to do.

> Capital is a social relation, not a thing. Capitalist social relations
> continue to be exported to all parts of the world.

The seems to be a stupid thing to say. Of course Capital is a social relation.
Nevertheless, it is also a thing which can be exported. Japanese companies
tend to export their capital to Britain rather than other European countries.
Examining the rela movement of Capital seems very important. For instance,
Russia had more investment from France and Britain than Germany pre 1914,
which to a large extent determined which side it was on in WWI.

Adam:
>>The massive export of Capital was the mechanism by which the continuous
>>pressure on the organic composition of capital was relieved. Essentially,
>>Capital which otherwise would have been reinvested at home, increasing the
>> organic composition of capital, instead was exported. So an individual
>> Capitalist could increase his profits without this pushing the system as
>> a whole into crisis.

Jerry:
>The system as a whole is an international system and, consequently,
>calculations of c.v, and s have to be made with this in mind. Otherwize,
>one can't observe international transfers of value and surplus value.

This seems to be deliberately ignoring the point, again.
In the classical age of Imperialism, the world market expanded.
Why should this expansion have alleviated the crisis ? My argument
was that it relieved the pressure on the organic composition of
Capital.

>Marxists should be very wary of making "unambiguous: always and at all
>times yes" statements.

Only if they think they're don't hold at all times + all places.
For instance, the class struggle continues at all places and at
all times.

>Coca Cola + advertising: Labor employed in advertising does not create
>value or surplus value, but assists in the realization/actualization of
>surplus value.

I think the distinction is completely arbitrary.
What about the clerk who works in the accounts department of Coca Cola ?
Do they produce or realise surplus value ? What if Coca Cola contracts out
their accounting procedures ? Does the accounts clerk suddenly change
from "realising" Coca Cola's surplus to "producing" the contractors profits ?

>Arms production + state: When arms are produced by capitalists and sold
>to the state the relation is very different than advertising for Coke.

Why exactly ?

>The point of producing arms is to produce profit.

The point of producing an advert is to produce profit.
What's the difference ? Is it that the "end user" is a company in one
case and a state in the other ?


Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


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


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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