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