[Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

(Thread IKs: dead gay comedy forums)

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

but anyway i used it here because i think i did manage to genuinely surprise or at least unsettle that guy because i had drawn his attention to something otherwise socially invisible, i.e. that the ground we're walking on and the walls we're passing by etc are all deliberate products of labor whose chief purpose is the facilitation of private business. the default view is that a storefront is totally natural and then the presence of a bl(ack/ue) lives matter flag in its window is an uninvited aberration pregnant with meaning

# ? Mar 11, 2024 17:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 06:55

Johnny Cache Hit: Oct 17, 2011

Ferrinus posted:

the most immediate thing to understand about commodity fetishism is that it is NOT about really wanting a fast car, but about liberal society treating commodities as fetish objects, i.e. as talismans imbued with mystical power that, in themselves, have desires and can make things happen. the all-encompassing Free Market basically interposes itself between you and your fellow human beings, such that if you go out to buy something for some money that thing's price appears to be an inherent property of its existence rather than a reflection of the fact that some other person or group of people made that thing, for you. except of course they didn't make it for you, either, they just made It, and sent it drifting off into the market on its own, with no thought to who was getting it or why they made it at all, except that making it was the only way for them to realize the value of their labor-power such that they could go on to buy commodities like food and water

to quote a tweet on this topic i like:

quote:
The term commodity fetishism isn't meant to scold people for liking material things.

It instead describes the objective fact that in capitalism we don't relate to each other as humans asking each other to do things, but rather indirectly command each other *through commodities*.

...

If I got to a restaurant, I don't beg the cook to make me a meal and the waiter to deliver it, nor do I imperiously threaten them with violence, nor do I cajole them into it.

I just *buy the meal*. The meal itself then appears to command them to move, like a little god.

edit: one extra note that helped me understand this when a comrade explained it: marx's original phrasing could be better translated as, instead of commodity fetishism, "the fetish character of the commodity". that is to say, he's writing about the way that commodities resemble those annoying guys from act 3

thank you for quoting that tweet, something about how it was written helped crystalize the concept for me.

# ? Mar 11, 2024 18:18

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Who built the seven gates of Thebes?
The books are filled with names of kings.
Was it the kings who hauled the craggy blocks of stone?
And Babylon, so many times destroyed.
Who built the city up each time? In which of Lima's houses,
That city glittering with gold, lived those who built it?
In the evening when the Chinese wall was finished
Where did the masons go? Imperial Rome
Is full of arcs of triumph. Who reared them up? Over whom
Did the Caesars triumph? Byzantium lives in song.
Were all her dwellings palaces? And even in Atlantis of the legend
The night the seas rushed in,
The drowning men still bellowed for their slaves.
Young Alexander conquered India.
He alone?
Caesar beat the Gauls.
Was there not even a cook in his army?
Phillip of Spain wept as his fleet
was sunk and destroyed. Were there no other tears?
Frederick the Greek triumphed in the Seven Years War.
Who triumphed with him?
Each page a victory
At whose expense the victory ball?
Every ten years a great man,
Who paid the piper?
So many particulars.
So many questions.

# ? Mar 11, 2024 18:45

Pomeroy: Apr 20, 2020

Brecht man, you just can't beat him.

# ? Mar 11, 2024 21:01

hubris.height: Jan 6, 2005; Pork Pro

Ferrinus posted:

a while ago i wrote a kind of informal for-dummies rundown of the law of value and how it leads to capitalist profits. it appeared in a short-lived blog that mostly discussed communist or communist-friendly organizing initiatives in advance of the dsa's 2021 convention. i'm gonna repost the first half of my article here, and maybe the second half about how profit actually works later on

good read thanks

this thread is probably one of the best threads I've read over the past 2 decades and it's a crime it isn't rated 5, for whatever that's worth. lots of work being done itt

# ? Mar 11, 2024 21:41

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

Epic High Five posted:

I've got a request for the brainiacs here.

What is a good, punchy, elevator-pitch style explanation of commodity fetishism. It's one of the concepts that is core to Marx's works that I...don't necessarily struggle with, I get it I feel like, but whereas with most other things I can summarize them pretty well for when I'm converting people to godless communism, commodity fetishism feels like it eludes me, at least in a way that still retains the core of the concept. "It's viewing the product of labor as though it appeared from thin air" and similar feel grossly inadequate, and it's a concept that I feel is one of the really big ones that gets overlooked, especially when the people you're trying to explain these things to are western consumers where commodity fetishism and the worship of money are the national religion. It and the length of the working day are the parts of Capital that I remember you could really see people's worldviews shifting when they came up years ago in my Capital reading group. A way to erase social relations in such a way that they can be replaced by strictly monetary measures?

edit - actually I definitely know all about this, I'm merely asking for the benefit of uhhh the lurkers.

For me it's that I can buy an air compressor for $100 that's some brand no one has heard of, or I can buy an airbrush branded compressor for $250 but they're the exact same air compressor made in the exact same factory with the same parts by the same labourers.

We're told to think of commodities in a capitalist economy as simply objects and not as the products of labour and resources. These commodities are often imbued with some particular quality - whether it's quality of the brand, or sex appeal, or social indicator - rather than seeing them as the output of a process of production involving labour.

Dreylad has issued a correction as of 22:02 on Mar 11, 2024

# ? Mar 11, 2024 21:57

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

V. Illych L. posted:

Who built the seven gates of Thebes?
The books are filled with names of kings.
Was it the kings who hauled the craggy blocks of stone?
And Babylon, so many times destroyed.
Who built the city up each time? In which of Lima's houses,
That city glittering with gold, lived those who built it?
In the evening when the Chinese wall was finished
Where did the masons go? Imperial Rome
Is full of arcs of triumph. Who reared them up? Over whom
Did the Caesars triumph? Byzantium lives in song.
Were all her dwellings palaces? And even in Atlantis of the legend
The night the seas rushed in,
The drowning men still bellowed for their slaves.
Young Alexander conquered India.
He alone?
Caesar beat the Gauls.
Was there not even a cook in his army?
Phillip of Spain wept as his fleet
was sunk and destroyed. Were there no other tears?
Frederick the Greek triumphed in the Seven Years War.
Who triumphed with him?
Each page a victory
At whose expense the victory ball?
Every ten years a great man,
Who paid the piper?
So many particulars.
So many questions.

a fave

i love that we know the answer for the pyramids. crews that went on strike when they weren't paid enough grain

# ? Mar 11, 2024 22:29

BillsPhoenix: Jun 29, 2023; But what if Russia aren't the bad guys? I'm just asking questions...

"The past labor that is embodied in the labor powe and the living labor that it can call into action, the daily cost of maintaining it, and its daily expenditure of work, are two totally different things. The former determines the exchange value of the labor power, the latter is its use value."
-Karl Marx

"It has to be postulated that the use value of the machine significantly greater than its value; that its devaluation in the service of production is not proportional to its increasing effect on production." -Karl Marx (emphasis mine).

Using Marxs own logic in defense of depreciation, Marx proved labor can not be the only source of value.

This has been written and published many times, you may dismiss flaws as you like (Wolff...) but if you believe you truly understand use and exchange values and their dialetical build up, try to reconcile the above for yourself.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 12, 2024 00:29

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

Hoist by his own petard. It's over

# ? Mar 12, 2024 00:33

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

The story of Egyptian workers striking for more beer is extremely cool.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 00:33

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

Lots of great replies on commodity fetishism, thanks everybody. For whatever reason I knew the outline of it but just couldn't set it in with everything else, think I got tripped up by the name a bit like seems to be common.

BillsPhoenix posted:

"The past labor that is embodied in the labor powe and the living labor that it can call into action, the daily cost of maintaining it, and its daily expenditure of work, are two totally different things. The former determines the exchange value of the labor power, the latter is its use value."
-Karl Marx

"It has to be postulated that the use value of the machine significantly greater than its value; that its devaluation in the service of production is not proportional to its increasing effect on production." -Karl Marx (emphasis mine).

Using Marxs own logic in defense of depreciation, Marx proved labor can not be the only source of value.

This has been written and published many times, you may dismiss flaws as you like (Wolff...) but if you believe you truly understand use and exchange values and their dialetical build up, try to reconcile the above for yourself.

Where has it been published, and by whom

# ? Mar 12, 2024 00:38

Rodney The Yam II: Mar 3, 2007

Doesn't that mean to say that it's not proportional as in it reduces the value? So the machine is still not a source of value, it simply allows a larger volume of production which actually reduces the per unit value

# ? Mar 12, 2024 00:54

Rodney The Yam II: Mar 3, 2007

Hence the rate of profit will fall

# ? Mar 12, 2024 00:55

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

Rodney The Yam II posted:

Doesn't that mean to say that it's not proportional as in it reduces the value? So the machine is still not a source of value, it simply allows a larger volume of production which actually reduces the per unit value

Machines do not generate surplus value, they add their existing value to the production process.

A machine used in production for a fixed time before it breaks down has gradually transferred its value to the products it produced for that time. Any instrument transfers part of its value to the product based on how long it lasts. For an example, an instrument that only lasts 5 days and makes a product a day, transfers 1/5th of its value to each product it makes over those 5 days. This is the same as any commodity that's an input for the production process of any other commodity (abstracting away things like waste, upkeep etc)

mila kunis has issued a correction as of 01:05 on Mar 12, 2024

# ? Mar 12, 2024 01:03

BillsPhoenix: Jun 29, 2023; But what if Russia aren't the bad guys? I'm just asking questions...

Epic High Five posted:

Lots of great replies on commodity fetishism, thanks everybody. For whatever reason I knew the outline of it but just couldn't set it in with everything else, think I got tripped up by the name a bit like seems to be common.

Where has it been published, and by whom

Sraffa, Wolff, Keen I know of. Again, you can attack their work, but instead I would recommend trying to reconcile the two quotes directly from Marx.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 01:05

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

BillsPhoenix posted:

Sraffa, Wolff, Keen I know of. Again, you can attack their work, but instead I would recommend trying to reconcile the two quotes directly from Marx.

Oh I was just curious, others will doubtless explain better than I could why you've got the wrong idea entirely

# ? Mar 12, 2024 01:07

BillsPhoenix: Jun 29, 2023; But what if Russia aren't the bad guys? I'm just asking questions...

mila kunis posted:

Machines do not generate surplus value, they add their existing value to the production process.

A machine used in production for a fixed time before it breaks down has gradually transferred its value to the products it produced for that time. Any instrument transfers part of its value to the product based on how long it lasts. For an example, an instrument that only lasts 5 days and makes a product a day, transfers 1/5th of its value to each product it makes over those 5 days. This is the same as any commodity that's an input for the production process of any other commodity (abstracting away things like waste, upkeep etc)

Agreed, and this directly relates only to the first quote and the Capital chapter or machines.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 01:08

DJJIB-DJDCT: Feb 1, 2024

Epic High Five posted:

Oh I was just curious, others will doubtless explain better than I could why you've got the wrong idea entirely

# ? Mar 12, 2024 01:10

BillsPhoenix: Jun 29, 2023; But what if Russia aren't the bad guys? I'm just asking questions...

Epic High Five posted:

Oh I was just curious, others will doubtless explain better than I could why you've got the wrong idea entirely

I have two quotes from Marx that I'm asking people that claim understanding to think through themselves.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 01:20

Rodney The Yam II: Mar 3, 2007

A fascinating combination of Just Asking Questions and Do My Homework For Me

# ? Mar 12, 2024 01:32

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

BillsPhoenix posted:

Agreed, and this directly relates only to the first quote and the Capital chapter or machines.

It is unclear to me what point you're trying to make, I'm just making it clear for people that machines add portions of their own value to the production process, and do not create surplus. The value of a machine is also, at its root, given to it by the human labour required to build it.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 01:33

Mandel Brotset: Jan 1, 2024

imagine four marx quotes on the edge of a cliff�

# ? Mar 12, 2024 01:52

In Training: Jun 28, 2008

I think BillsPhoenix is croups. Trolling from beyond. We live in the graveyard of failed theory threads .

# ? Mar 12, 2024 02:08

The Voice of Labor: Apr 8, 2020

economists have only interpreted the world in various ways. the point, however, is to change it

# ? Mar 12, 2024 03:01

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

BillsPhoenix posted:

"The past labor that is embodied in the labor powe and the living labor that it can call into action, the daily cost of maintaining it, and its daily expenditure of work, are two totally different things. The former determines the exchange value of the labor power, the latter is its use value."
-Karl Marx

"It has to be postulated that the use value of the machine significantly greater than its value; that its devaluation in the service of production is not proportional to its increasing effect on production." -Karl Marx (emphasis mine).

Using Marxs own logic in defense of depreciation, Marx proved labor can not be the only source of value.

This has been written and published many times, you may dismiss flaws as you like (Wolff...) but if you believe you truly understand use and exchange values and their dialetical build up, try to reconcile the above for yourself.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

marx never said labor is the only source of value anyway. but also i dont think your quote means what you're saying it does. here's the section you are quoting from the grundrisse and how he works through the example. can you explain your thought process relating to this?

quote:

This example attains significance only if we assume a smaller capital which employs more labour and less material and machinery, but yields a higher percentage on the total capital; and a larger capital employing more machinery and more material, as many working days in absolute numbers but relatively fewer, and a smaller percentage on the whole, because less on labour, being more productive, division of labour used, etc. It also has to be postulated (which was not done above) that the use value of the machine significantly greater than its value; i.e. that its devaluation in the service of production is not proportional to its increasing effect on production.

Thus, as above, a press (first, hand-operated printing press; second, self-acting printing press).

Capital I, 100, uses 30 in material; 30 for the manual press; 4 working days = 40 thalers; gain 10%; hence 25% on living labour (1/4 surplus time).

Capital II, 200, uses 100 in materials; 60 in press, 4 working days (40 thalers); gain on the 4 working days 13 1/3 thalers = 1 working day and 1/3, compared to only 1 working day in the first case; total sum: 213 1/3. I.e. 6 2/3%, compared to 10% in the first case. Nevertheless, the surplus value on the labour which has been employed is 13 1/3 in this second case, as against 10 in the first; in the first, 4 days create 1 surplus day in 4 working days; in the second, 4 days create 1 1/3 surplus days. But the rate of profit on the total capital is 1/3 or 33 1/3% smaller than in the first; the total amount of the gain is 1/3 greater. Now let us suppose that the 30 and the 100 in material are sheets of book paper, and that the instruments wear out in the same space of time, say 10 years or 1/10 per year. Then No. I has to replace 1/10 of 30 in material, i.e. 3; No. II, 1/10 of 60, i.e. 6. The material does not enter further into annual production (which may be regarded as 4 working days of 3 months each) on either side, see above.

Capital I sells 30 sheets at 30 for materials + 3 for instrument + 50 (objectified labour time) (production time) = 83.

Capital II sells 100 sheets at 100, material, + 6, instrument, + 53 1/3 = 159 1/3.

Capital I sells 30 sheets for 83 thalers, 1 sheet at 83/80 thalers = 2 thalers, 23 silver groschen.

Capital II sells 100 sheets for 159 thalers, 10 silver groschen; 1 sheet at
159 thalers 10 silver groschen i.e., 1 thaler, 17 silver groschen, 8 pfennigs.
100

It is clear then that Capital I is done for, because its selling price is infinitely too high. Now, although in the first case the profit on total capital was 10% and in the second case only 6 2/3%, the first capital only took in 25% on labour time, while the second takes 33 1/3%. With Capital I, necessary labour is greater relative to the total capital; and hence surplus labour, while smaller in absolute terms than with Capital II, shows up as a higher rate of profit on the smaller total capital. 4 working days at 60 are greater than 4 at 160; in the first, 1 working day corresponds to a capital of 15; in the second, 1 working day corresponds to 40. But with the second capital, labour is more productive (which is given both in the greater amount of machinery, hence the greater amount of space that it takes up among the value components of capital; and in the greater amount of material in which a working day, which consists of a greater proportion of surplus time and hence uses more material in the same time, is expressed). It creates more surplus time (relative surplus time, i.e. determined by the development of the force of production). In the first case, surplus time is 1/4, in the second, 1/3. It therefore creates more use values and a higher exchange value in the same amount of time; but the latter not in proportion with the former, since, as we saw, exchange value does not rise in the same numerical proportion as the productivity of labour. The fractional price is therefore smaller than the total production price � i.e. the fractional price multiplied by the amount of fractional prices produced is greater. Now, if we had assumed an absolutely greater number of working days than in No. I, although a relatively smaller number, then the matter would have been even more striking. The profit of the larger capital, working with more machinery, therefore appears smaller than that of the smaller capital working with relatively or absolutely more living labour, precisely because the higher profit on living labour appears as smaller, when calculated on the basis of a total capital in which living labour makes up a lesser proportion of the whole, than the lower profit on living labour which makes up a larger proportion of the smaller total capital. But the fact that No. II can employ more material, and that a larger proportion of the total value is in the instrument, is only the expression of the productivity of labour.

This, then, is the unfortunate Bastiat�s famous riddle; he had firmly convinced himself � to which Mr Proudhon had no answer � that because the rate of profit of the larger and more productive total capital is smaller, it follows that the worker�s share has grown larger, whereas precisely the opposite is the case; his surplus labour has grown larger. [8]

Nor does Ricardo seem to have understood the matter, for otherwise he would not have tried to explain the periodic decline of profit merely by the rise in wages caused by the rise in grain prices (and hence of rent). [9] But at bottom, surplus value � in so far as it is indeed the foundation of profit, but still distinct from profit commonly so-called � has never been developed. The unfortunate Bastiat would have said in the above case that in the first example the profit was 10% (i.e. 1/10), in the second only 6 1/4%, i.e. 1/16 (leaving out the percentage), so that the worker receives 9/10 in the first case, 15/16 in the second. The relation is correct in neither of the two cases, nor is their relation to one another correct. Now, as far as the further relation of the new value of capital to capital as indifferent total value is concerned (and this is how capital as such appeared to us at the beginning, before we moved on into the production process, and it must again appear to us in this way at the end of the process), this is to be developed partly under the rubric of profit, where the new value obtains a new character, and partly under the heading of accumulation. We are here initially concerned only with developing the nature of surplus value as the equivalent of the absolute or relative labour time mobilized by capital above and beyond necessary labour time.

The consumption, in the production process, of the element of value consisting of the instrument cannot in the least [serve to] distinguish the instrument of labour from the material � here, where all that is to be explained is the creation of surplus value, self realization. This is because this consumption is part of the simple production process itself, hence the value of the consumed instrument (whether it be the simple use value of the instrument itself or the exchange value, if production has already progressed to where there is a division of labour and where at least the surplus is exchanged) has to be recovered again in the value (exchange value) or the use value of the product � so that the process can begin anew. The instrument loses its use value in the same proportion as it helps to raise the exchange value of the raw material and serves as a means of labour. This point must, indeed, be examined, because the distinction between the invariable value, the part of capital which is preserved; that which is reproduced (reproduced for capital; from the standpoint of the real production of labour � produced); and that which is newly produced, is of essential importance.
Multiplication of simultaneous working days. (Accumulation of capital.) � Growth of the constant part of capital in relation to the variable part spent on wages = growth of the productivity of labour. � Proportion in which capital has to increase in order to employ the same number of workers if productivity rises

It is now time to finish with the question of the value resulting from the growth of the productive forces. We have seen: this creates a surplus value (not merely a greater use value) just as in the case of an absolute increase in surplus labour. If a certain limit is given, say e.g. that the worker needs only half a day in order to produce his subsistence for a whole day � and if the natural limit has been reached � then an increase of absolute labour time is possible only if more workers are employed at the same time, so that the real working day is simultaneously multiplied instead of only lengthened (in the given conditions, the individual worker can work no more than 12 hours; if a surplus time of 24 hours is to be gained, then there have to be 2 workers). Capital in this case, before entering the self-realization process, has to buy 6 additional hours of labour in the act of exchange with the worker, i.e. has to lay out a greater part of itself; at the same time it has to lay out more for material, on the average (beside the fact that the extra worker has to be available, i.e. that the working population has to have grown). Hence the possibility of this further realization process depends here on a previous accumulation of capital (as regards its material existence). If, however, productivity increases, and hence relative surplus time � at the present point we can still regard capital as always directly engaged in the production of subsistence, raw materials etc. � then less expenditure is necessary for wages and the growth in the material is created by the realization process itself. But this question belongs, rather, with the accumulation of capitals.

We now come to the point where we last broke off. [10] An increase in productivity increases the surplus value, although it does not increase the absolute amount of exchange values. It increases values because it creates a new value as value, i.e. a value which is not merely an equivalent destined for exchange, but which asserts itself as such; in a word, more money. The question is: does it ultimately also increase the amount of exchange values? This is, at bottom, admitted; for even Ricardo admits that along with the accumulation of capitals there is an increase in savings, hence a growth in the exchange values produced. The growth of savings means nothing more than the growth of independent values � of money. But Ricardo�s demonstration contradicts his own assertion.

Our old example. 100 thalers capital; 60 thalers in constant value; 40 in wages; produces 80; hence product = 140. * Let these 40 in surplus value be absolute labour time.

* Here we see again that the surplus value on the whole of the capital = to half of the newly produced value, since a half of the latter = to necessary labour. The relation between this surplus value, which is always equal to surplus time, i.e. = to the worker�s total product minus the part which forms his wage, depends (1) on the relation between the constant part of capital and the productive part; (2) between necessary labour time and surplus time. In the above case, the relation of surplus time to necessary time is 100%; gives 40% on a capital of 100; hence (3) it depends further, not only on the relation given above in (2), but also on the absolute magnitude of necessary labour. If, in a capital of 100, the constant part were 80, then the part exchanged for necessary labour would be = 20, and if this created 100% surplus time, the profit on capital would be 20%. But if the capital were 200 with the same relation between the constant and the variable part (i.e. 3/5 to 2/5), then the total would be 280, which is 40 out of 100. In this case the absolute amount of profit would rise from 40 to 80, but the relation would remain at 40%. However, if out of the 200 the constant element were 120 and the quantity of necessary labour 80, but the latter increased by only 10%, i.e. 8, then the total sum would be = 208, i.e. a profit of 4%; if it increased by only 5, then the total 205, i.e. 2 1/2%.

Now suppose that productivity doubles: then, if a wage of 40 gives 8 hours of necessary labour, the worker could now produce a whole day of living labour in 4 hours. Surplus time would then increase by 1/3 (2/3 of a day to produce a whole day before, now 1/3). 2/3 of the product of the working day would be surplus value, and if the hour of necessary labour = 5 thalers (5 � 8 = 40), then he would now need only 5 � 4 = 20 thalers. For capital, then, a surplus gain of 20, i.e. 60 instead of 40. At the end, 140, of which 60 = the constant value, 20 = the wage and 60 = the surplus gain; together, 140. The capitalist can then begin production anew with 80 thalers of capital:

Let capitalist A on the same stage of old production invest his capital of 140 in new production. Following the original proportions, he needs 3/5 for the invariable part of capital, i.e. 3 � 140/5 = 3 � 28 = 84, leaving 56 for necessary labour. Before, he spent 40 on labour, now 56; 2/5 of 40 additionally. Then at the end, his capital = 84 + 56 + 56 = 196.

Capitalist B on the higher stage of production would similarly employ his 140 thalers for new production. If out of a capital of 80 he needs 60 for invariable value and only 20 for labour, then out of a capital of 60 he needs 45 for invariable value and 15 for labour; thus the total would be = 60 + 20 +20 = 100 in the first and, secondly, 45 + 15 + 15 = 75. Thus his total yield is 175, while that of the first = 196. An increase in the productivity of labour means nothing more than that the same capital creates the same value with less labour, or that less labour creates the same product with more capital. That less necessary labour produces more surplus labour. The necessary labour is smaller in relation to capital; for the process of its realization this is obviously the same as: capital is larger in relation to the necessary labour which it sets into motion; for the same capital sets more surplus labour in motion, hence less necessary labour. *

* If it is postulated, as in our case, that the capital remains the same, i.e. that both begin again with 140 thalers, then in the case of the more productive capital, a larger part has to go to capital (i.e. to its invariable part), while with the less productive capital, a larger part to labour. The first capital of 140 thus sets into motion a necessary labour of 56, and this necessary labour presupposes an invariable part of 84 out of the total capital. The second sets labour in the amount of 20 + 15 = 35 into motion, and an invariable capital of 60 + 45 = 105 (it further follows from what was developed earlier that an increase in the force of production does not proportionately increase value). In the first case, as already shown above, the absolute new value is greater than in the second, because the mass of labour employed is greater in relation to the invariable part; while in the second the former is smaller, precisely because labour is more productive. However (1) the difference between the new value of 60 in one case and 40 in the other means that the first cannot begin production anew with the same capital as the second; for a part of the new value on both sides has to enter into circulation as an equivalent so that the capitalist can live, and live from his capital. If both of them eat up 20 thalers then the first begins anew with a capital of 120, the other also with 120 etc. See above. Return to this whole matter again; [11] but the question of the relation between the new value created by the increased force of production and the new value created by absolute increases in labour belongs in the chapter on accumulation and profit.

It is sometimes said about machinery, therefore, that it saves labour; however, as Lauderdale correctly remarked, the mere saving of labour is not the characteristic thing; [12] for, with the help of machinery, human labour performs actions and creates things which without it would be absolutely impossible of accomplishment. The latter concerns the use value of machinery. What is characteristic is the saving of necessary labour and the creating of surplus labour. The higher productivity of labour is expressed in the fact that capital has to buy a smaller amount of necessary labour in order to create the same value and a greater quantity of use values, or that less necessary labour creates the same exchange value, realizes more material and a greater mass of use values. Thus, if the total value of the capital remains the same, an increase in the productive force means that the constant part of capital (consisting of machinery and material) grows relative to the variable, i.e. to the part of capital which is exchanged for living labour and forms the wage fund. This means at the same time that a smaller quantity of labour sets a larger quantity of capital in motion. If the total value of capital entering into the production process increases, then the wage fund (this variable part of capital) must decrease relatively, compared to the relation if the productivity of labour, i.e. the relation of necessary to surplus labour, had remained the same. Now let us assume in the above case that the capital of 100 is agricultural capital. Then, 40 thalers for seeds, fertilizer etc.; 20 thalers instrument of labour, and 40 thalers wage labour, at the old level of production. (Let these 40 thalers = 4 days of necessary labour.) At the old production level, these create a total of 140. Now let fertility double, owing to improvement either in the instrument or in the fertilizer etc. In this case the product has to = 140 thalers (given that the instrument is entirely consumed). Let fertility double, so that the price of the necessary working day falls by half; so that only 4 necessary half days of work (i.e. 2 whole ones) are necessary in order to produce 8. 2 working days to produce 8 is the same as when 1/4 of each working day (3 hours) is required for necessary labour. Now, instead of 40 thalers, the farmer has to spend only 20 for labour. Thus at the end of the process the component parts of capital have changed; from the original 40 for seed etc., which now have double the use value; 20 for instrument and 20 for labour (2 whole working days). Before the relation of the constant part of capital to the variable = 60:40 = 3:2; now 80:20 = 4:1. Looking at the whole capital, necessary labour was = 2/5; now 1/5. Now, if the farmer wants to continue to use labour in the old relation, then by how much would his capital have to increase? Or � in order to avoid the nefarious presupposition that he continued to operate with a constant capital of 60 and a wage fund of 40 � after a doubling of productive force, which introduces false relations; * because it presupposes that, despite the doubled force of production, capital continued to operate with the same component parts, to employ the same quantity of necessary labour without spending more for raw material and instrument of labour; � then, therefore, productivity doubles, so that he now needs to spend only 20 thalers on labour, whereas he needed 40 before. (If it is given that 4 whole working days were necessary, each = 10 thalers, in order to create a surplus of 4 whole working days, and if this surplus is provided for him by the transformation of 40 thalers of cotton into yarn, then he now needs only 2 whole working days in order to create the same value, i.e. that of 8 working days; the value of the yarn expressed a surplus time of 4 working days before, now of 6. Or, each of the workers needed 6 hours of necessary labour time before in order to create 12; now 3. Necessary labour time was 12 � 4 = 48, or 4 days. In each of these days, the surplus time was = 1/2 day (6 hours). It now amounts to only 12 � 2 = 24 or 2 days; 3 hours per day. In order to bring forth the surplus value, each of the 4 workers would have to work 6 � 2 hours; i.e. 1 day; now he needs to work only 3 � 2 hours; i.e. 1/2 day. Now, whether 4 work 1/2 a day or 2 a whole (1) day is the same. The capitalist could dismiss 2 workers. He would even have to dismiss them, since a certain quantity of cotton is only enough to make a certain quantity of yarn; thus he cannot order 4 whole days of work any more, but only 4 half days. But if the worker has to work 12 hours in order to obtain 3 hours, i.e. his necessary wage, then, if he works 6 hours, he will obtain only 1 1/2 hours of exchange value. But if he can live for 12 hours with 3 hours of necessary labour, then with it he can live only 6 hours. Thus if all 4 workers were to be employed, each of the 4 could live only half a day; i.e. the same capital cannot keep all 4 alive as workers, but only 2. The capitalist could pay 4 out of the old fund for 4 half days of work; then he would pay 2 too many and would make the workers a present of the productive force; since he can use only 4 half days of living labour; such �possibilities� neither occur in practice, nor can we deal with them here, where we are concerned with the relation of capital as such.) Now 20 thalers of the capital of 100 are not directly employed in production. The capitalist uses 40 thalers of raw material, 20 for instrument, together 60 as before, but now only 20 thalers for labour (2 working days). Of the whole capital of 80 he uses 3/4 (60) for the constant part and only 1/4 for labour. Then if he employs the remaining 20 in the same way, 3/4 for constant capital, 1/4 for labour; then 15 for the first, 5 for the second. Now since 1 working day = 10 thalers (given), 5 would be only = 6 hours = 1/2 working day. With the new value of 20, gained through productivity, capital could buy only 1/2 a working day more, if it continues to realize itself in the same proportion. It would have to grow threefold (namely, 60) (together with the 20 = 80) in order to employ the 2 dismissed workers for the previous 2 full working days. In the new relation, the capital uses 3/4 in constant capital in order to employ 1/4 as wage fund.

* Although in the case e.g. of the farmer this is quite correct, if the seasons bring a doubling of fertility, and correct for every industrialist if the force of production doubles not in his branch, but in the branch whose output he uses; i.e. if e.g. raw cotton cost 50% less and grain (i.e. wages) and the instrument likewise; he would then continue as before to spend 40 thalers for raw cotton, but in twice the quantity, 20 for machinery, 40 for labour.

� Suppose cotton alone doubled in productivity, the machine remains the same, then � this to be examined further.

Thus if 20 is the whole capital, 3/4 i.e. 15 constant and 1/4 labour (i.e. 5) = 1/2 a working day.

With a whole capital of 4 � 20, hence 4 � 15 = 60 constant, hence 4 � 5 = 20 wages = 4/2 working days = 2 working days.

Therefore, if the productive force of labour doubles, so that a capital of 60 thalers in raw materials and instrument now needs only 20 thalers in labour (2 working days) for its realization, whereas it needed 100 before, then the total capital of 100 would have to grow to 160, or the capital of 80 now being dealt with would have to double in order to retain all the labour put out of work. But the doubling of productive force creates a new capital of only 20 thalers = 1/2 of the labour time employed earlier; and this is only enough to employ 1/2 a working day additionally. Before the doubling of the productive force, the capital was 100 and employed 4 working days (on the supposition that 2/5 = wage fund of 40); now, when the wage fund has fallen to 1/5 of 100, to 20 = 2 working days (but to 1/4 of 80, the capital newly entering into the realization process), it would have to rise to 160, by 60%, in order still to be able to employ 4 working days as before. It can only employ 1/2 a new working day with the 20 thalers drawn from the increase in the productive force, if the whole old capital continues operating. Before, it employed with 100, 16/4 (4 days) working days; it could now employ only 5/4. Therefore, when the force of production doubles, capital does not need to double in order to set the same necessary labour into motion, 4 working days; i.e. it does not need to rise to 200, but needs to rise only by double the whole, minus the part deducted from the wage fund. (100 − 20 = 80) � 2 = 160. (By contrast, the first capital, before the increase in productive force, which divided 100 as 60 constant 40 wages (4 working days), in order to employ two additional days, would need to grow from 100 to only 150; i.e. 3/5 constant capital (30) and 2/5 wage fund (20). If it is given that the working day doubles in both cases, then the second would amount to 250 at the end, the first only 160.) Of the part of capital which is withdrawn from the wage fund owing to the increase in the force of production, one part has to be transformed again into raw material and instrument, another part is exchanged for living labour; this can take place only in the proportions between the different parts which are posited by the new productivity. It can no longer take place in the old proportion, for the relation of the wage fund to the constant fund has decreased. If the capital of 100 first used 2/5 for wage fund (40) and, owing to a doubling of productive force, then used only 1/5 (20), then 1/5 of the capital has become free (20 thalers); and the employed part, 80, uses only 1/4 as wage fund. Thus, of the 20, similarly, only 5 thalers (1/2 working day). The whole capital of 100 therefore now employs 2 1/2 working days; or, it would have to grow to 160 in order to employ 4 again.

If the original capital had been 1,000, divided in the same way: 3/5 constant capital, 2/5 wage fund, then 600 + 400 (let 400 equal 40 working days; each working day = 10 thalers). Now double the productive force of labour, i.e. only 20 working days required for the same product (= 200 thalers), then the capital necessary to begin production anew would be = 800; that is 600 + 200; 200 thalers would have been set free. Employed in the same relation, then 3/4 for constant capital = 150 and 1/4 wages = 50. Thus, if the 1,000 thalers are employed in their entirety, then now 750 constant + 250 wage fund = 1,000 thalers. But 250 wage fund would be = 25 working days (i.e. the new fund can employ labour time only in the new relation, i.e. at 1/4; in order to employ the entire labour time as before, it would have to quadruple). The liberated capital of 200 would employ a wage fund of 50 = 5 working days (1/4 of the liberated labour time). (The part of the labour fund disconnected from capital is itself employed as capital at only 1/4 for labour fund; i.e. precisely in the relation in which that part of the new capital which is labour fund stands to the total sum of the capital.) Thus in order to employ 20 working days (4 � 5 working days), this fund would have to grow from 50 to 4 � 50 = 200; i.e. the liberated part would have to grow from 200 to 600, i.e. triple; so that the entire new capital would amount to 800. Then the total capital, 1,600; of this, 1,200 constant part and 400 labour fund. Thus if a capital of 1,000 originally contained a labour fund of 400 (40 working days), and if, owing to a doubling of productive force, it now needs to employ a labour fund of only 200 in order to buy necessary labour, i.e. only 1/2 of the previous labour; then the capital would have to grow by 600 in order to employ all the previous labour in its entirety (in order to gain the same amount of surplus time). It would have to be able to employ twice the labour fund, i.e. 2 � 200 = 400; but, since the relation of the labour fund to the total capital is now = 1/4, this requires a total capital of 4 � 400 = 1,600. *

* The total capital which would be necessary in order to employ the old labour time is therefore = to the old labour fund multiplied by the denominator of the fraction which now expresses the relation of the labour fund to the new total capital. If the doubling of productive force has reduced the latter to 1/4, then multiplied by 4; if to 1/3, then multiplied by 3. If the productive force has doubled, then necessary labour, and thereby the labour fund, is reduced to 1/2 of its earlier value; but this makes up 1/4 relative to the new total capital of 800 or 1/5 relative to the old total capital of 1,000. Or the new total capital is = 2 � the old capital minus the liberated part of the labour fund; (1,000 − 200) � 2 = 800 � 2 = 1,600. The new total capital expresses the total sum of constant and variable capital required in order to employ half of the old labour time (1/3, 1/4, 1/x, etc, depending on whether the force of production increased 3 �, 4 �, x � ); 2 � then the capital required to employ all of it (or 3 �, 4 �, etc., depending on the relation in which the productive force has grown). The original relation of the parts of capital must here always be given (technologically); on this depends, e.g., in what ratios the multiplication of productive force expresses itself as a division of necessary labour.

Or, which is the same thing, it is = 2 � the new capital which owing to the new productive force replaces the old in production (800 � 2) (thus if the productive force had quadrupled, quintupled etc. = 4 �, 5 � the new capital etc. If the force of production has doubled, then necessary labour is reduced to 1/2; likewise the labour fund. Thus if it amounted, as in the above case of the old capital of 1,000, to 400, i.e. 2/5 of the total capital, then, afterwards, 1/5 or 200. This relation, by which it is reduced, is the liberated part of the labour fund = 1/5 of the old capital = 200. 1/5 of the old = 1/4 of the new. The new capital is = to the old + 3/5 of the same. These trivia more closely later etc.)

Given the same original relations between the parts of the capital and the same increase in the productive force, the largeness or smallness of the capital is completely irrelevant for the general theses. Quite another question is whether, when capital grows larger, the relations remain the same (but this belongs under accumulation). But, given this, we see how an increase in the force of production changes the relations between the component parts of capital. If in both cases 3/5 was originally constant and 2/5 labour fund, then doubling the productive force acts in the same way on a capital of 100 as on one of 1,000. (The word labour fund is here used only for convenience�s sake; we have not yet developed capital in this specificity [Bestimmtheit]. So far two parts; the one exchanged for commodities (material and instrument), the other for labour capacity.) (The new capital, i.e. the part of the old capital which represents its function, is = the old minus the liberated part of the labour fund; this liberated part, however, = the fraction which used to express necessary labour (or, same thing, the labour fund) divided by the multiplier of the productive force. Thus, if the old capital = 1,000 and the fraction expressing necessary labour or the labour fund = 2/5, and if the force of production doubles, then the new capital which represents the function of the old = 800, i.e. 2/5 of the old capital = 400; this divided by 2, the multiplier of productive force, = 2/10 = 1/5 = 200. Then the new capital = 800 and the liberated part of the labour fund = 200.)

We have seen that under these conditions a capital of 100 thalers has to grow to 160, and a capital of 1,000 to 1,600, in order to retain the same labour time (of 4 or 40 working days) etc.; both have to grow by 60%, i.e. 3/5 of themselves (of the old capital), in order to be able to re-employ the liberated labour time (in the first case 20 thalers, in the second 200) of 1/5 � the liberated labour fund � as such.
Percentage of total capital can express very different relations. � Capital (like property) rests on productivity of labour

<Notabene. We saw above that identical percentages of the total capital can express very different relations in which capital creates its surplus value, i.e. posits surplus labour, relative or absolute. [13] If the relation between the invariable value-part of capital and the variable part (that exchanged for labour) such that the latter = 1/2 the total capital (i.e. capital 100 = 50 (constant) + 50 (variable), then the part exchanged for labour would have to increase by only 50% in order to yield 25% on the capital; i.e. 50 + 50 (+ 25) = 125; while in the above example 75 + 25 (+ 25) = 125; i.e. the part exchanged for living labour increases by 100% in order to yield 25% on the capital. Here we see that, if the relations remain the same, the same percentage on the total capital holds no matter how big or small it may be; i.e. if the relation of the labour fund to the total capital remains the same; thus, above, 1/4. Thus: 100 yields 125, 80 yields 100, 1,000 yields 1,250, 800 yields 1,000, 1,600 yields 2,000 etc., always = 25%. If capitals whose component parts are in different relations, including therefore their forces of production, nevertheless yield the same percentages on total capital, then the real surplus value has to be very different in the different branches.>

<Thus the example is correct, the productive force compared under the same conditions with the same capital before the rise in productive force. Let a capital of 100 employ constant value 50, labour fund = 50. Let the fund increase by 50%, i.e. 1/2; then the total product = 125. Let the labour fund of 50 thalers employ 10 working days, pay 5 thalers per day. Since the new value is 1/2, the surplus time has to be = 5 working days; i.e. the worker who needed to work only 10 working days in order to live for 15 has to work 15 for the capitalist in order to live for 15; and his surplus labour of 5 days constitutes capital�s surplus value. Expressed in hours, if the work day = 12 hours, then surplus labour = 6 per day. Thus in 10 days or 120 hours, the worker works 60 hours = 5 days too many. But now with the doubling of productivity, relations within the 100 thalers would be 75 and 25, i.e. the same capital now needs to employ only 5 workers in order to create the same value of 125; the 5 working days then = 10; doubled; i.e. 5 working days are paid, 10 produced. The worker would need to work only 5 days in order to live 10 (before the increase in productive force he had to work 10 to live 15; thus, if he worked 5, he could live only 7 1/2); but he has to work 10 for the capitalist in order to live 10; the latter thus makes a profit of 5 days; 1 day per day; or, expressed in days, the worker had to work 1/2 to live 1 before (i.e. 6 hours to live 12); now he needs to work only 1/4 to live 1 (i.e. 3 hours). If he worked a whole day, he could live 2; if he worked 12 hours, 24; if he worked 6, 12 hours. But he now has to work 12 hours to live 12. He would need to work only 1/2 in order to live 1; but he has to work 2 � 1/2 = 1 to live 1. In the old state of the productive force, he had to work 10 days to live 15; or 12 hours to live 18; or 1 hour to live 1 1/2, or 8 hours to live 12, i.e. 2/3 of a day to live 3/3. But he has to work 3/3 to live 2/3, i.e. 1/3 too much. The doubling of the productive force increases the relation of surplus time from 1:1 1/2 (i.e. 50%) to 1:2 (i.e. 100%). In the earlier labour time relation: he needed 8 to live 12, i.e. 2/ 3 of the whole day was necessary labour; he now needs only 1/2, i.e. 6, to live 12. That is why capital now employs 5 workers instead of 10. If the 10 (cost 50) produced 75 before, then now the 25, 50: i.e. the former only 50%, the second 100. The workers work 12 hours as before; but in the first case capital bought 10 working days, now merely 5; because the force of production doubled, the 5 produce 5 days of surplus labour; because in the first case 10 working days yielded only 5 days of surplus labour; now, with the force of production doubled, i.e. risen from 50% to 100% � 5, 5; in the first case 120 working hours (= 10 working days) produce 180; in the second, 60, 60; i.e. in the first case, the surplus time is 1/3 of the whole day (50% of necessary labour) (i.e. 4 hours out of 12; necessary time 8); in the second case surplus time is 1/2 the whole day (100% of necessary labour) (i.e. 6 hours out of 12; necessary time 6); hence the 10 days yielded 5 days of surplus time (surplus labour) in the first case, and in the second the 5 yield 5. Thus relative surplus time has doubled; relative to the first relation it grew by only 1/2 compared to 1/3; i.e. by 16 4/6%.>
constant variable
100 60 + 40 (original relation)
100 75 + 25 (+ 25) = 125 (25%)
160 120 + 40 (+ 40) = 200 (25%)

Since surplus labour, or surplus time, is the presupposition of capital, it therefore also rests on the fundamental presupposition that there exists a surplus above the labour time necessary for the maintenance and reproduction of the individual; that the individual e.g. needs to work only 6 hours in order to live one day, or 1 day in order to live 2 etc. With the development of the forces of production, necessary labour time decreases and surplus labour time thereby increases. Or, as well, that one individual can work for 2 etc. (�Wealth is disposable time and nothing more. � If the whole labour of a country were sufficient only to raise the support of the whole population, there would be no surplus labour, consequently nothing that can be allowed to accumulate as capital . . . Truly wealthy a nation, if there is no interest or if the working day is 6 hours rather than 12 � Whatever may be due to the capitalist, he can only receive the surplus labour of the labourer; for the labourer must live.� (The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties.) [14]

�Property. Origin in the productivity of labour. If one can produce only enough for one, everyone worker; there can be no property. When one man�s labour can maintain five, there will be four idle men for one employed in production. Property grows from the improvement in the mode of production � The growth of the property, this greater ability to maintain idle men and unproductive industry = capital � machinery itself can seldom be applied with success to abridge the labours of an individual: more time would be lost in its construction than could be saved by its application. It is only really useful when it acts on great masses, when a single machine can assist the labours of thousands. It is accordingly in the most populous countries where there are most idle men that it is always most abundant. It is not called into action by scarcity of men, but by the facility with which they are brought together � Not 1/4 of the English population provides everything that is consumed by all. Under William the Conqueror for example the amount of those directly participating in production much greater relative to the idle men.� (Ravenstone, IX, 32.) [15]

Just as capital on one side creates surplus labour, surplus labour is at the same time equally the presupposition of the existence of capital. The whole development of wealth rests on the creation of disposable time. The relation of necessary labour time to the superfluous (such it is, initially, from the standpoint of necessary labour) changes with the different stages in the development of the productive forces. In the less productive [16] stages of exchange, people exchange nothing more than their superfluous labour time; this is the measure of their exchange, which therefore extends only to superfluous products. In production resting on capital, the existence of necessary labour time is conditional on the creation of superfluous labour time. In the lowest stages of production, firstly, few human needs have yet been produced, and thus few to be satisfied. Necessary labour is therefore restricted, not because labour is productive, but because it is not very necessary; and secondly, in all stages of production there is a certain common quality [Gemeinsamkeit] of labour, social character of the same, etc. The force of social production develops later etc. (Return to this.) [17]
Increase of surplus labour time. Increase of simultaneous working days (Population). (Population can increase in proportion as necessary labour time becomes smaller, i.e. the time required to produce living labour capacities decreases.) � Surplus capital and surplus population. � Creation of free time for society

# ? Mar 12, 2024 03:18

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

quote:

Surplus time is the excess of the working day above that part of it which we call necessary labour time; it exists secondly as the multiplication of simultaneous working days, i.e. of the labouring population. (It can also be created � but this is mentioned here only in passing, belongs in the chapter on wage labour � by means of forcible prolongation of the working day beyond its natural limits; by the addition of women and children to the labouring population.) The first relation, that of the surplus time and the necessary time in the day, can be and is modified by the development of the productive forces, so that necessary labour is restricted to a constantly smaller fractional part. The same thing then holds relatively for the population. A labouring population of, say, 6 million can be regarded as one working day of 6 � 12, i.e. 72 million hours: so that the same laws applicable here.

It is a law of capital, as we saw, to create surplus labour, disposable time; it can do this only by setting necessary labour in motion � i.e. entering into exchange with the worker. It is its tendency, therefore, to create as much labour as possible; just as it is equally its tendency to reduce necessary labour to a minimum. It is therefore equally a tendency of capital to increase the labouring population, as well as constantly to posit a part of it as surplus population � population which is useless until such time as capital can utilize it. (Hence the correctness of the theory of surplus population and surplus capital.) It is equally a tendency of capital to make human labour (relatively) superfluous, so as to drive it, as human labour, towards infinity. Value is nothing but objectified labour, and surplus value (realization of capital) is only the excess above that part of objectified labour which is necessary for the reproduction of labouring capacity. But labour as such is and remains the presupposition, and surplus labour exists only in relation with the necessary, hence only in so far as the latter exists. Capital must therefore constantly posit necessary labour in order to posit surplus labour; it has to multiply it (namely the simultaneous working days) in order to multiply the surplus; but at the same time it must suspend them as necessary, in order to posit them as surplus labour. As regards the single working day, the process is of course simple: (1) to lengthen it up to the limits of natural possibility; (2) to shorten the necessary part of it more and more (i.e. to increase the productive forces without limit). But the working day, regarded spatially � time itself regarded as space � is many working days alongside one another. The more working days capital can enter into exchange with at once, during which it exchanges objectified for living labour, the greater its realization at once. It can leap over the natural limit formed by one individual�s living, working day, at a given stage in the development of the forces of production (and it does not in itself change anything that this stage is changing) only by positing another working day alongside the first at the same time � by the spatial addition of more simultaneous working days. E.g. I can drive the surplus labour of A no higher than 3 hours; but if I add the days of B, C, D etc., then it becomes 12 hours. In place of a surplus time of 3, I have created one of 12. This is why capital solicits the increase of population; and the very process by means of which necessary labour is reduced makes it possible to put new necessary labour (and hence surplus labour) to work. (I.e. the production of workers becomes cheaper, more workers can be produced in the same time, in proportion as necessary labour time becomes smaller or the time required for the production of living labour capacity becomes relatively smaller. These are identical statements.) (This still without regard to the fact that the increase in population increases the productive force of labour, since it makes possible a greater division and combination of labour etc. The increase of population is a natural force of labour, for which nothing is paid. From this standpoint, we use the term natural force to refer to the social force. All natural forces of social labour are themselves historical products.) It is, on the other side, a tendency of capital � just as in the case of the single working day � to reduce the many simultaneous necessary working days (which, as regards their value, can be taken as one working day) to the minimum, i.e. to posit as many as possible of them as not necessary. Just as in the previous case of the single working day it was a tendency of capital to reduce the necessary working hours, so now the necessary working days are reduced in relation to the total amount of objectified labour time. (If 6 are necessary to produce 12 superfluous working hours, then capital works towards the reduction of these 6 to 4. Or 6 working days can be regarded as one working day of 72 hours; if necessary labour time is reduced by 24 hours, then two days of necessary labour fall away � i.e. 2 workers.) At the same time, the newly created surplus capital can be realized as such only by being again exchanged for living labour. Hence the tendency of capital simultaneously to increase the labouring population as well as to reduce constantly its necessary part (constantly to posit a part of it as reserve). And the increase of population itself the chief means for reducing the necessary part. At bottom this is only an application of the relation of the single working day. Here already lie, then, all the contradictions which modern population theory expresses as such, but does not grasp. Capital, as the positing of surplus labour, is equally and in the same moment the positing and the not-positing of necessary labour; it exists only in so far as necessary labour both exists and does not exist. *

If the relation of the necessary working days to the total number of objectified working days was = 9:12 (hence surplus labour = 1/4), then the striving of capital is to reduce it to 6:9 (i.e. 2/3, hence surplus labour = 1/3). (Develop this more closely later; still, the major basic traits here, where we are dealing with the general concept of capital.)

* It does not belong here, but can already be recalled here, that the creation of surplus labour on the one side corresponds to the creation of minus-labour, relative idleness (or not-productive labour at best), on the other. This goes without saying as regards capital itself; but holds then also for the classes with which it shares; hence of the paupers, flunkeys, lickspittles etc. living from the surplus product, in short, the whole train of retainers; the part of the servant [dienenden] class which lives not from capital but from revenue. Essential difference between this servant class and the working class. In relation to the whole of society, the creation of disposable time is then also creation of time for the production of science, art etc. The course of social development is by no means that because one individual has satisfied his need he then proceeds to create a superfluity for himself; but rather because one individual or class of individuals is forced to work more than required for the satisfaction of its need � because surplus labour is on one side, therefore not-labour and surplus wealth are posited on the other. In reality the development of wealth exists only in these opposites [Gegens�tze]: in potentiality, its development is the possibility of the suspension of these opposites. [18] Or because an individual can satisfy his own need only by simultaneously satisfying the need of and providing a surplus above that for another individual. This brutal under slavery. Only under the conditions of wage labour does it lead to industry, industrial labour. � Malthus therefore quite consistent when, along with surplus labour and surplus capital, he raises the demand for surplus idlers, consuming without producing, or the necessity of waste, luxury, lavish spending etc.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 03:19

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

i'm pretty sure labor is the only source of value, but it's not the only source of WEALTH

BillsPhoenix posted:

"The past labor that is embodied in the labor powe and the living labor that it can call into action, the daily cost of maintaining it, and its daily expenditure of work, are two totally different things. The former determines the exchange value of the labor power, the latter is its use value."
-Karl Marx

"It has to be postulated that the use value of the machine significantly greater than its value; that its devaluation in the service of production is not proportional to its increasing effect on production." -Karl Marx (emphasis mine).

Using Marxs own logic in defense of depreciation, Marx proved labor can not be the only source of value.

This has been written and published many times, you may dismiss flaws as you like (Wolff...) but if you believe you truly understand use and exchange values and their dialetical build up, try to reconcile the above for yourself.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

you seem to be skipping ahead before ensuring that you understand basic material. these quotes don't contradict or indeed strongly relate to each other. it sounds like you are still confused as to the difficulties between use-value, exchange value, and value.

the first quote discusses the difference between labor-power's value (ie the average cost of recreating it) and its use-value (the creation of value). there is no mention of machinery.

the second quote discusses the difference between the use-value and value of machinery, and how those traits relate to commodities produced. a machine's ability to, for example, speed up production (or have some other salutary effect) is not proportionate to the value that machine imparts to its products. labor-power is not mentioned.

if the second point confuses you, consider this:

Mk.I is a $100 machine that breaks down after stamping out ten widget, which takes it a year.. therefore, when pricing widgets for sale i should incorporate the de facto $10s of machine each widget costs me.

Mk.II is a $100 machine that breaks down after making ten widgets, but can make them in a single month. it also increases the price of each widget by $10, the same as Mk.I. so the Mk.II has an increased effect on production (increased speed over the prior model) but no change in its devaluation through production

Mk.III might be a $50 machine that can stamp out ten widgets in a week. it has an even greater effect on production, ie a distinct and generally preferable use-value, but actually adds LESS value to each widget than before

...which is an interesting thing to note but not at all in tension with the properties of labor-power. so this suggests to me that you are not applying yourself to the material

Ferrinus has issued a correction as of 18:32 on Mar 12, 2024

# ? Mar 12, 2024 04:58

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

In Training posted:

I think BillsPhoenix is croups. Trolling from beyond. We live in the graveyard of failed theory threads .

every fight with BillsPhoenix will result in either in a revolutionary reconstitution of CSPAM at large, or in the common ruin of contending posters.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 05:06

disaster pastor: May 1, 2007

Ferrinus posted:

Mk.I is a $100 machine that breaks down after stamping out ten widget, which takes it a year.. therefore, when pricing widgets for sale i should incorporate the de facto $10s of machine each widget costs me.

Mk.II is a $100 machine that breaks down after making ten widgets, but can make them in a single month. it also increases the price of each widget by $10, the same as Mk.I. so the Mk.II has an increased effect on production (increased speed over the prior model) but no change in its devaluation through production

Mk.III might be a $50 machine that can stamp out ten widgets in a week. it has an even greater effect on production, ie a distinct and generally preferable use-value, but actually adds LESS value to each widget than before

I just want to say that I don't always agree with your points but I really appreciate how well put-together your examples always are

In Training posted:

I think BillsPhoenix is croups. Trolling from beyond. We live in the graveyard of failed theory threads .

was doing believable "am I trolling or am I a poster with imperfectly medicated schizophrenia" posting but the John Nash references really gave the game away, smh

# ? Mar 12, 2024 13:59

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

mila kunis posted:

Machines do not generate surplus value, they add their existing value to the production process.

A machine used in production for a fixed time before it breaks down has gradually transferred its value to the products it produced for that time. Any instrument transfers part of its value to the product based on how long it lasts. For an example, an instrument that only lasts 5 days and makes a product a day, transfers 1/5th of its value to each product it makes over those 5 days. This is the same as any commodity that's an input for the production process of any other commodity (abstracting away things like waste, upkeep etc)

And keep in mind that the tool being used is itself a product of labour. So it is really *that* labour being transferred to the final product which required the tool in question to have been produced in the first place as a prerequisite to this final product being produced.

It's the same process of labour determining the value of a product, except intermediated through the required tools to produce the product (which themselves required tools to produce, which themselves required tools to produce etcetc). Understood in this sense, any commodity of any complexity is the end result of a great many labourers working in concert, each making their own specific contribution, to be able to realize the final product. And it is all that labour combined which ends up encapsulated in that final product and determines its exchange value.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 15:09

Rodney The Yam II: Mar 3, 2007

So in that sense, some machines could be conceptualized as value-reservoirs? Value-as-labour is concentrated and sedimented in "mechanical" forms, and can be transferred to other material things through productive use?

# ? Mar 12, 2024 15:35

Lumpy: Apr 26, 2002; La! La! La! Laaaa!; College Slice

Rodney The Yam II posted:

So in that sense, some machines could be conceptualized as value-reservoirs? Value-as-labour is concentrated and sedimented in "mechanical" forms, and can be transferred to other material things through productive use?

The machines embody the labor that was put into them like all commodities: their use-value is transferring small bits of that labor / value mechanically into a new commodity.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 16:05

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

I remember after having read Ricardo many years ago having the thought that, if I were an entrepreneur, I would have to "price-in" the cost of all of my machinery onto my financial calculations: if the oven for my bakery either has a five-year warranty, or has a projected lifespan of five years, then I would have to amortize the cost of the oven such that, by the end of those five years, I would have enough set aside/banked that I would be able to purchase another oven.

and you have to do this "pricing-in" for everything, even if it only comes out to cents-per-month, when amortized over however many years, but it has to be done

I also recall wondering how many people actually approach business like this, and thinking that the margins are going to be so narrow that trying to run a business is probably going to lose me money if I ever tried lol

# ? Mar 12, 2024 16:45

my dad: Oct 17, 2012; this shall be humorous

An understated way of growing your profit margins is this one weird magic trick called getting someone else to foot the bill. :v:

# ? Mar 12, 2024 17:19

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

gradenko_2000 posted:

I remember after having read Ricardo many years ago having the thought that, if I were an entrepreneur, I would have to "price-in" the cost of all of my machinery onto my financial calculations: if the oven for my bakery either has a five-year warranty, or has a projected lifespan of five years, then I would have to amortize the cost of the oven such that, by the end of those five years, I would have enough set aside/banked that I would be able to purchase another oven.

and you have to do this "pricing-in" for everything, even if it only comes out to cents-per-month, when amortized over however many years, but it has to be done

I also recall wondering how many people actually approach business like this, and thinking that the margins are going to be so narrow that trying to run a business is probably going to lose me money if I ever tried lol

tada! and you see why most small businesses fail, and why the ones that don't use this one weird trick

my dad posted:

An understated way of growing your profit margins is this one weird magic trick called getting someone else to foot the bill.

which is that they are fronts, or contract grift, or a hobby, or a hobby for a spouse, or you exploit your family until you can exploit other people by opening more locations

it's a neat and satisfying explanation for why the world works as you can see it work

# ? Mar 12, 2024 17:32

BillsPhoenix: Jun 29, 2023; But what if Russia aren't the bad guys? I'm just asking questions...

fart simpson posted:

marx never said labor is the only source of value anyway.

Ferrinus posted:

i'm pretty sure labor is the only source of value, but it's not the only source of WEALTH

Fascinating.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 18:21

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

BillsPhoenix posted:

Fascinating.

i'm pretty confident fart simpson is wrong here and i'm right, but the distinction is extremely simple: wealth just refers to use-values, but that includes things like fresh air and running water which no one's labor went into creating and which therefore have no value or exchange-value. something has value precisely because, in addition to being useful, someone spent their time and energy finding or making it. but lots of things are useful by default

what i think is going through comrade simpson's head there is that many people bandy about the phrase "labor is the source of all wealth". their heart is in the right place, but they are wrong. labor is the source of all value. here, if you like, is a direct quote of marx taking apart and correcting this exact sentiment

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

now, since this is all you have to say, i trust that you understand the two quotes you were counterposing before and no longer believe them to be contradictory

# ? Mar 12, 2024 18:26

BillsPhoenix: Jun 29, 2023; But what if Russia aren't the bad guys? I'm just asking questions...

I agree with your assessment that fart is well meaning, but wrong. I'd like everyone to understand why he is wrong though, so they don't fall apart in real life discussions.

I did not propose the contradiction, and cited 3 authors that have, there are more.

There is a myriad of counter arguments to this contradiction, none if which dismiss it entirely as a misunderstanding. Though Keen admittedly tries to stretch it into a 2nd argument, where he misapplies use value in relation to the machine.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 18:38

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

BillsPhoenix posted:

I agree with your assessment that fart is well meaning, but wrong.

i'm seeing a reading comprehension issue here. i DIDN'T paternalistically call fart simpson "well-meaning". the people whose hearts are in the right place, but who are wrong, are the ones who claim that labor is the source of all wealth. it's worth correcting them on that point because their misunderstanding is much worse than they know. i assume simpson just misremembered or misread something but knows well what i am talking about

quote:

I'd like everyone to understand why he is wrong though, so they don't fall apart in real life discussions.

I did not propose the contradiction, and cited 3 authors that have, there are more.

There is a myriad of counter arguments to this contradiction, none if which dismiss it entirely as a misunderstanding. Though Keen admittedly tries to stretch it into a 2nd argument, where he misapplies use value in relation to the machine.

it's definitely a misunderstanding because those quotes literally don't contradict. like there is not even an interesting apparent tension between the use-value and value of labor-power on one hand, and the use-value and value-transfer of a machine on the other hand. if you don't understand some part of my explanation, or if you think some other author has raised an issue that i haven't answered, you should try summarizing it in your own words rather than pretending it's out there somewhere but being too coy to specify

Ferrinus has issued a correction as of 18:42 on Mar 12, 2024

# ? Mar 12, 2024 18:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 06:55

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

Actually Marx is right about everything, simple as that

# ? Mar 12, 2024 18:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

«‹›386 »