Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value? : was RE: [OPE-L] Enrique D. Dussel's writings online

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 06:05:20 EDT

Andrew Brown wrote:

>  The whole story in elementary (neo-classical) economics of 'the
>economic problem' of allocation of labour, land and means of
>production fails to recognise that the quality and quantity of
>labour is not given to society at any point of time, but must be
>determined, and that this collective determination of labour gives
>rise to the realisation of the potentials inherent in all other
>productive inputs, hence the proportionate allocation of those
>realised potentials.

  I see the basis of Ian's high praise.
>P.S. Ian, if robots one day became able to creatively produce to the
>extent of humans, then they would have become labourers, with social
>relations of production, and labour time would retain its relevance.

Didn't Norbert Wiener argue, long ago, that a robot can be made
either obedient or intelligent--that is capable of following
instruction, or capable of learning--but not both? I am sure Ian has
something to say about that!

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT