‘Sraffa on non-self-replacing systems’: a rejoinder
回应Sinha对斯拉法手稿的解读，澄清斯拉法在讨论非自我复制系统时，并未涉及新产品的引入，而是关注资本品无法被实物替换时的价值替代问题。
I will begin my reply by considering Sinha’s interpretation of a passage from manuscript D3/12/35:12 which I quote in my paper (p. 945). Sinha affirms in his comment that when this passage is put in its context, it becomes clear that Sraffa is referring to circumstances in which ‘new methods of production introduce entirely new products’ (my italics). Let us, however, examine in detail the context mentioned by Sinha. In manuscript D3/12/35:12, Sraffa discusses the extension of the notion of National Income to non-self-replacing (NSR) systems. He points out that a problem arises in these systems as regards the determination of the part of the social product that replaces the capital goods consumed, since some of these goods are not reproduced in kind. On pages 9–10, Sraffa mentions a hypothetical procedure for dealing with the problem, which consists of identifying in the social product ‘objects which perform more or less the same technical services’ as the capital goods not reproduced, and then assuming conventionally that the aggregate of capital goods not reproduced is replaced by a collection of these ‘objects’ having the same value. Sraffa remarks that this procedure may have a ‘specious plausibility’ when ‘there is some technical resemblance’ between the capital goods not reproduced and the objects that should replace them—as, for example, in the case of an NSR system displaying a deficit of handlooms and a surplus of mechanical looms. Then he states—and here comes the passage under discussion—that the absurdity of the procedure ‘would become patent if the change in the methods of production foreshadowed by the comparative quality-composition of the product {and} of the capital were in the direction … of producing less cloth and more of a totally different article’ (D3/12/35:12(10), my italics). Here Sraffa is arguing that the means of production of cloth will generally bear no technical resemblance to those employed in the production of an entirely different commodity, and that it would be absurd to conventionally assume, say, that the looms not reproduced in the social product are replaced by a quantity of ploughs of the same value. We thus see that the introduction of new goods produced through innovative methods is neither explicitly mentioned by Sraffa nor implicitly required for the validity of his argument. In addition to these considerations, I wish to point out that, in a sentence appearing in a later manuscript, Sraffa suggests that NSR systems can arise for reasons independent of technical change. Consider the following passage, referring to economies that employ only circulating capital goods:1