<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>technical conditions approach</title></head><body> <div><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000"><br></font></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">I thought the whole point was to imagine a production system ("the </font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">literal production of commodities by commodities") n which one </font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">homogeneous non-labour factor ("computers") produces everything </font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">(including itself with a surplus)..  The analysis breaks down, </font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">doesn't it, if you introduce separately owned additional factors that </font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">are neither homogeneous nor reproducible?</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">Ted</font></blockquote> <div><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000"><br></font></div> <div><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">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?</font></div> <div><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">I have myself expressed skepticism of this line of reasoning here and on another list serve.</font></div> <div><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">But this kind of criticism seems much more important to me</font></div> <div><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000">than the transformation problem Doug just won't let go of.</font></div> <div><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000"><br></font></div> <div><font face="Courier" size="+2" color="#000000"> Rakesh</font></div> </body> </html>