Re: [OPE-L] fully automated economy and capitalism

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Nov 29 2007 - 03:49:55 EST


I agree that it is socially pointless to speculate on this it is merely in the context of Klimans assuming zero
wages and Ajits response that I mentioned it

Paul Cockshott
Dept of Computing Science
University of Glasgow
+44 141 330 3125
www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/



-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L on behalf of Ian Hunt
Sent: Wed 28/11/2007 11:50 PM
To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] fully automated economy and capitalism
 
Dear Paul,
The cogs of abstract models turn but without engaging anything. I
agree that we can construct models- the problem is their
interpretation. What rights would members of a society accept as the
basis for social cooperation? I simply question whether the structure
of rights characteristic of capitalism could be agreed as the basis
of cooperation in a society where industry process are fully
automated. I doubt that full investment of returns could the basis of
a system owned by a society of human beings. In the model, you just
have maximum growth of a mechanical automaton. Whose interests would
that serve? If all resources are ploughed back into the growth of the
productive mechanism, would the human bystanders of this process live
on air?

I agree there is some mathematical interest in the models. I agree
also that one could approach close to the science fiction case of an
economy with only the labour of supervision. But I find it hard to
conceive how the juridical (and practical) categories of a capitalist
system of distribution of rights and duties, burdens and advantages
of social cooperation could get any purchase in the situations
envisaged. You can't just simply assume that they do. I they do not,
then the model has some mathematical affinities to a model of
capitalist production but it cannot be interpreted as such,
Cheers,
Ian

>I agree that it has nothing to do with the study of capitalism
>
>I think though that we can at a very abstract level model a
>large number of growth processes via i/o tables. These have
>an implicit maximal growth rate. As a particular example of
>an i/o system a capitalist economy has a maximal growth rate
>which corresponds to the maximum profit rate.
>
>However one could also perhaps model a commodity producing
>slave society in a similar way.
>
>Paul Cockshott
>Dept of Computing Science
>University of Glasgow
>+44 141 330 3125
>www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OPE-L on behalf of GERALD LEVY
>Sent: Wed 28/11/2007 2:14 PM
>To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
>Subject: Re: [OPE-L] fully automated economy and capitalism
>
>
>
>
>Hi Paul C:
>
>How are you defining 'profit' and the 'rate of profit' below?
>
>If we take the  formula s/c+v  to be the rate of profit, in a
>fully automated economy v = 0 and this implies that s =
>0 unless you think that c can create surplus value.
>
>I suppose one could define 'surplus' (NB: as distinct from
>'surplus value') in a different way,  such that it could exist in
>your fully automated society.  But, it would be difficult
>because in pre-capitalist (or post-capitalist) societies a surplus
>refers to an amount of the total product produced beyond the
>necessary reproductive requirements  of the direct producers.
>But,   there are no direct producers in a fully automated society
>unless you take the robots to be the 'producers'.   [If so, then
>the (non-labor) costs associated with maintaining and
>reproducing the robots could be seen as 'socially necessary'
>and a pre-requisite for the reproduction of the system.]
>
>Who would be consuming the output, you ask? Well,
>I guess that would be the human (or non-human) parasites
>who live off of the product produced by the robots,
>right?
>
>What any of this has to do with real economies is unclear
>to me. I don't think such an abstract, ahistorical model  has
>*anything* meaningful to say about capitalism.
>
>In solidarity, Jerry
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>I agree that without wage labour you could not speak of capitalism
>in the normal sense, but
>That does not follow that all prices would be zero, since the firms
>might still be
>Aiming to maximise profit.
>
>More unclear would be who or what was consuming the output?
>
>One could assume all was reinvested and the rate of profit would
>then the the rate of growth as analyzed by von Neumann
>


--
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 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EST