>I thought the whole point was to imagine a production system ("the
>literal production of commodities by commodities") n which one
>homogeneous non-labour factor ("computers") produces everything
>(including itself with a surplus).. The analysis breaks down,
>doesn't it, if you introduce separately owned additional factors that
>are neither homogeneous nor reproducible?
>
>Ted
Perhaps computer industry finding itself in a division of labor and exchange relations does not make any real sense. But so what? The point is that machines themselves seem to be a source of surplus and profit rate is shown not to depend solely if at all on the appropriation of unpaid labor time. The questions are what is the source of the surplus, what determines the profit rate? As the economy approaches very high levels of automation--indulding Jeremy Rifkin and Doug's mentor Stanley Aronowitz--doesn't this prove the labor theory of value was groundless all along? I have myself expressed skepticism of this line of reasoning here and on another list serve. But this kind of criticism seems much more important to me than the transformation problem Doug just won't let go of.
Rakesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20061213/462128f8/attachment.htm>