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

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Apr 13 2005 - 21:56:32 EDT

At 11:47 AM +1030 4/14/05, Ian Hunt wrote:
>If  can chip in here too. It is not clear that in total
>mechanization, labour time would retain its significance: as Chris
>suggests, the issue is that of a conflict of interest between
>labourer and capitalist, when both have a formally equal social
>standing. Machines, no matter how ingenious or creative, would have
>no interests in potential conflict with capital unless they had lives
>of their own and consciously pursued their own interest in those
>lives. If they did and had formally equal social standing, then the
>social relations of capital would have a place. On the other hand, if
>they were persons but lacked equal social standing, we would have
>slave or feudal commodity production: labour time no doubt would play
>a role here but not the same as under capitalism.

I don't understand this--there is no conflict between slaves/serfs
and masters? Why is equal standing necessary for there to be a
conflict of interest? Why must there be a conflict of interest among
people of equal (juridical?) standing for surplus value to be
produced, and to be the aim of production. Certainly surplus value
can be produced even if people do have equal juridical standing, but
this does not prove that they must for it to be produced.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT