Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 09:03:19 EDT

Next message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "[OPE-L] Marx Myths and Legends -- Official Opening"
Previous message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "[OPE-L] Ricardo on the value of manufactured goods, or does the tail wag the dog?"
In reply to: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Next in thread: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Reply: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi Ian,

> The aim of the thought experiment is to try and push concepts to their
> breaking point and reveal their contradictions. Here you are saying
> that the scenario described in the thought experiment couldn't occur.
> I think given enough sophistication robots could lead an autonomous
> existence and be hired as wage-labour. If you are willing to accept
> the premiss of the thought experiment then I believe it shows that we
> can quickly dismiss the idea that there is some essential property of
> humans that explains why their labour and their labour alone can cause
> surplus-value.

The problem is that I can't accept this premise.  Why and how would
robots come to have an autonomous existence and be hired as wage-
labourers?

In solidarity, Jerry

Next message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "[OPE-L] Marx Myths and Legends -- Official Opening"
Previous message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "[OPE-L] Ricardo on the value of manufactured goods, or does the tail wag the dog?"
In reply to: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Next in thread: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Reply: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT