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

Sraffa is not interested in interpreting a system of zero wages as a real social possibility: whether such as system could be realized is not the point. Sraffa is asking what is the upper bound of the rate of capitalist profit, not because he ever expects the system to reach that bound but because it may be theoretically useful to know that a rate of profit will always be below it. No doubt Kliman could also engage in the same exercise.

--------------------------------------------------

Hi Ian H:

The issue concerns the meaning of limit cases and whether

a specific limit case if _beyond the limit_ of a particular

paradigm.

If one postulates a limit case, then the limit case must

be logically consistent with the rest of the basic propositions

of the theory.

Within the Sraffian paradigm, there is (of course) production

of commodities by means of commodities. Within Marx's

perspective, commodities under capitalism are produced

by wage-labour using commodities (and nature).

The key difference here is the role of *labour* in creating

commodities. For Marx, value represents a *specific social

relation* which requires the expenditure of *human* labor and

that labor take a particular form.

The limit case where V=0 is _beyond the limit_ from a Marxian

value-theoretic perspective.

To begin with, where V=0 (the 'limit case'), *non-labor*

can produce commodities (and hence our thought experiment).

This is _beyond_ the limit of Marx's paradigm.

Furthermore, in the limit case where V = 0, then _all_ of

Marx's formulas break down. What is the formula for the

rate of profit where V = 0? If V = 0, then the formula

becomes S/C. Yet, that is a vulgar perspective which

suggests that S is created by C - a theorem which Marx

emphatically rejected.

If you want to hop on board the Sraffian paradigm, then

assuming V = 0 is OK, I guess. But, it is a limit case

_way_ beyond the limit of Marx's perspective. It is

ironic that it has been included in "numerical

illustrations" which claim to simply re-state "Marx's

Marxism" in its allegedly "original form".

In solidarity, Jerry