From: Ian Hunt (ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Sun Oct 09 2005 - 20:37:28 EDT
Dear Jerry, Very droll. Of course, tongue in cheek aside, your examples clearly fail as examples of commodities in Sraffa's system, since they are not use-values and have no price - but still, I expect you were having a dig at pretensions to determine prices independently of demand? Cheers, Ian >[Ian W wrote:] >> Remember that there can be arbitrary hierarchies of >> self-reproducing non-basic systems. "Beans" are just a >> special case, the mote in Sraffa' eye, which he first itched >> in his appendix. > >Ian and everyone else: > >The beans example is not a very good one for self-reproducing >non-basics (S-RNBs). Note that Sraffa says that "it may be >imagined" re some species of beans or corn. In other words, >we were talking about an imaginary (and improbable) species of >beans. > >I don't think anyone has really come up with good examples of >S-RNBs yet. > >In what follows I will offer two examples of 'pure' (?) S-RNBs. > > >I. Computer Viruses > ============ > >A computer virus can not be described as a commodity (since >it has no exchange-value) but it is a product of labor which is >produced using 'means of production' and (unpaid) labor time. >Once produced, it is self-reproducing. It reproduces >itself using the hardware and software of the infected computers >-- no additional expenditure of human labor is required. The >only limit to the spread of the virus is given by the quantity of >computers which are susceptible to infection. > >The 'usefulness' of the computer virus is its ability to diminish >or destroy the use-value (and hence also the value and >exchange-value) of computers. There is thus, following >an infection, a reduction in the UV, V, and EV of both means >of production and means of consumption (since computers are -- >in different circumstances -- both). It also results in the destruction >of, using Sraffian terms, non-basic _and_ basic commodities -- >even though the original product (the virus) was a non-basic (product, >not commodity). In Marx's terminology, part of the value of both >Dept. I and Dept. II commodities are destroyed. > >Hence, we have a situation in this special case where a >self-reproducing non-basic product can destroy at an >expanded rate the value of already produced commodities >(in this case, the value of the stock of computers). >Additionally, because of the integration and inter- >dependency of physical production systems, the value >of all those commodities that directly or indirectly require >functioning non-infected computers is diminished. (E.g. if >product X requires a healthy computer Y to function >and computer virus Z infests Y then X can not function). > > >II. Viruses as Biological Weapons > ==================== > >A deadly virus can be genetically engineered by scientists in a >laboratory. It can be produced by scientists who work for >and are paid by the state or it could be produced in other >ways, e.g. by voluntary labour performed by members of a >terrorist organization. > >(Important note: the following is NOT to be interpreted as >a suggestion or an encouragement.) > >The virus is then released into the population. > >The easiest way would be to infect a 'suicide bomber'. I.e. >the virus could be administered to a volunteer (perhaps even the >scientist who developed the virus) who would either be in or could >be readily transported to a major population center. > >Assuming that the virus is air-borne and easily transferred to other >human hosts, then the virus would reproduce itself at an >expanded rate. > >Consider how quickly an infection could spread! > >This is a vulnerability that is exacerbated by the globalization of >the international transportation system. Potentially, such a >pan-epidemic could destroy the entire human population (along >with _all_ use-value, value and exchange-value) if it was lethal >enough and spread rapidly enough. More likely, there would be >isolated pockets of humanity left. While I don't want to spell >out all possible futuristic variations on this possibility, I think >it highly likely that in some of those scenarios capitalism would >be ended -- and the 'gravedigger' would be a virus, not the >working class. > >One might object to this proposition by claiming that no >rational agent (in the government, an organization, or just >an individual) would create an agent which would destroy >all human life. How naive! History proves that it is possible. >History also proves that the agent developing a product >is not always aware of its long-term and aggregate >consequences. (Even if the party responsible for the >spread of the virus had a cure which was administered to >the chosen, there would be no way of knowing beforehand >the aggregate long-run consequences.) > >In any event, since governments and individuals have already >-- decades ago! -- developed, cultured, and stored such >deadly viruses, this is much more than an improbable >science fiction plot. > >In both of these cases, the S-RNBs do not produce commodities >by means of commodities. In the case of computer viruses, >_commodities are destroyed by means of products_. In the >case of viruses, _commodities and people are destroyed by >products_. Either way, value has been destroyed: both >'basic' and 'non-basic' systems are affected by these S-RNBs. >This is not so much of a theoretical problem as it is a practical >issue. > >In solidarity, Jerry -- Associate Professor Ian Hunt, Dept of Philosophy, School of Humanities, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Flinders University of SA, Humanities Building, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 11 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT