******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Barry, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to lack familiarity with some basic concepts in Marxist economics, specifically the labor theory of value. May I suggest this as a starting point - https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm#c6 On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Barry Brooks <dura...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Thanks for the tip Fred. I read George Caffentzis, "Why Machines Cannot > Create Value... > https://libcom.org/library/george-caffentzis-letters-blood-fire > > What would swell the ranks Marxist revolutionaries? I'll tell you > after we get George out of the way. > > GC's "defense of the claim that machines do not create value" is a > failure. His letters repeatedly prove that all human labor can not be > eliminated. However, that fact does even imply that machines don't > create any value. What is this strange "value" that machine output > does not have? > > Self replication of automation is beside the point except to prove that > human labor can never be eliminated totally. OK, but how does the > fact that human labor was and will be always be necessary bear on why > "value" is set by human labor? Self replicating automation is > impossible and productivity has various limits, therefore machines > can't create value? What a leap of logic! When automation becomes > self-replicating will it be able to create value? > > "The ratio between workers caloric input and labor output could never > reach 100%." What about oil drillers? This false and irrelevant > conclusion makes it clear that GC is taking sides and resorting to > lawyer-like facts to win for his side. Damn the truth; just find data. > Remember "How to Lie With Statistics?" > > Yes, machines don't give a "Magical something for nothing." Having > dismissed magic as a threat to the singular source of value, GC has > again tried to divert our attention from the question, "can machines > create value?" > > It all makes sense after one sees what Marx had in mind when he said > machines can not create value. > > It seems that Marx-value is neither use-value nor exchange-value but > just the wages generated. Since workers are not being paid when > machines produce things, no value comes from machine production. That > does not mean that no income is generated or that the output is just > imaginary. > > ######################### > > It's not a question of whether machines can do all work or whether AI > will be smarter than people. The question is will smart machines be > able to take over so much work from humans that we need to end wage > dependence? If we believe as an article of faith that machines can't > create "value" that does not mean that they can't replace workers. > > Marxists could insist giving "to each" a share of the non-value output > produced by machines. That would swell the ranks Marxist > revolutionaries. > > Our strange denial of the impact of machines have on the need for human > work has rendered most Marxists harmless, and therefore tolerated in > the academy as representatives of a monopoly radicalism. Capitalists > also support wage dependence, maximum resource plunder, and the > delusion that we are creators. All classes of parasites pretend they are > THE creators. What we have been given and destroyed has no standing in > the theories of of human pride. > > > > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
