The algebra is silly. The idea is powerful, but we have to translate what it means.
On 12/13/06, Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>