RedMarx

A Forum
It is currently Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:46 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Welcome


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Ambiguities in Surplus Value
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:02 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
sartesian wrote:
OK -- let me take a stab at this:

Marx states that relative surplus value can only be amplified by reducing the value of the necessities making up the wage, and thus reducing the value of the wage itself in the reproduction of capital.

He makes it a point to demonstrate that mere reductions in prices of commodities through the applications of more efficient processes, or greater applications of constant capital, do not create additional surplus value, but distribute the same portion of new value over a greater number of use values. "Productivity of labor" as such is, in this instance, defined by Marx as greater output of use values, and does not enhance the aggrandizement of surplus value.

But having argued that, Marx seems to have forgotten this and goes on (in the Economic Manuscripts, in TSV, in the Grundrisse) to talk about societies that have moved to the point where relative surplus value is the dominant mode of expropriation, and he equates that dominant mode, that transformation to the real subsumption of labor by capital with the extraction of relative surplus value through the application of machinery to the production process.

How are we to reconcile this apparent/real conflict? If machinery cannot impact accelerate the extraction of relative surplus value unless it reduces the value of the wage, how are we to account for Marx's real subsumption of labor; how are we to account for situations where rates of surplus value increase and the value of necessities do not fall; the wages do not fall?

If machinery does increase the extraction of relative surplus value in its enhancement of "general" social productivity, how are we to calculate that relation based on the value composition itself-- which I think we should be able to.

And just to anticipate a response, a response that opens another hugely ambiguous term Marx uses; if someone wants to argue that the application of machinery raises the intensity of labor above the norm, thus leading to greater value produced in less or the same time-- how is that even possible? If time is the measure of value, how do we even measure intensity as something different, as something average? If time is the measure of value, how can intensity lead to greater value in the same time period?

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Ambiguities in Surplus Value
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:20 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
I'm going to take a brief crack at this and throw some ideas out there.

Capital Chapter 1 wrote:
The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.


Capital Chapter 22 wrote:
After this reduction to the same terms of the day-wages, time-wage must again be translated into piece-wage, as the latter only can be a measure both of the productivity and the intensity of labour.


Here Marx calls the piece-wage the only way to measure both productivity and intensity of labour.

He goes on

Capital Chapter 22 wrote:
In every country there is a certain average intensity of labour below which the labour for the production of a commodity requires more than the socially necessary time, and therefore does not reckon as labour of normal quality. Only a degree of intensity above the national average affects, in a given country, the measure of value by the mere duration of the working-time. This is not the case on the universal market, whose integral parts are the individual countries. The average intensity of labour changes from country to country; here it is greater, there less. These national averages form a scale, whose unit of measure is the average unit of universal labour. The more intense national labour, therefore, as compared with the less intense, produces in the same time more value, which expresses itself in more money.

But the law of value in its international application is yet more modified by the fact that on the world-market the more productive national labour reckons also as the more intense, so long as the more productive nation is not compelled by competition to lower the selling price of its commodities to the level of their value.

In proportion as capitalist production is developed in a country, in the same proportion do the national intensity and productivity of labour there rise above the international level. [2] The different quantities of commodities of the same kind, produced in different countries in the same working-time, have, therefore, unequal international values, which are expressed in different prices, i.e., in sums of money varying according to international values. The relative value of money will, therefore, be less in the nation with more developed capitalist mode of production than in the nation with less developed. It follows, then, that the nominal wages, the equivalent of labour-power expressed in money, will also be higher in the first nation than in the second; which does not at all prove that this holds also for the real wages, i.e., for the means of subsistence placed at the disposal of the labourer.

But even apart from these relative differences of the value of money in different countries, it will be found, frequently, that the daily or weekly, &tc., wage in the first nation is higher than in the second, whilst the relative price of labour, i.e., the price of labour as compared both with surplus-value and with the value of the product, stands higher in the second than in the first.3


The footnote at the end is perhaps also worth reading.

Ultimately it seems as though intensity is increased through the application of machinery as the labourer must now keep pace with the machine. If before a worker worked a single loom, and with changes in machinery he is now enabled to simultaneously work with multiple looms, the intensity of his labour increases as he must now work harder to keep pace with multiple looms simultaneously. Labour is the expenditure of human muscle and nerve tissue Marx says several times I believe, interpreting this a tad more literally we can see how this extra work load is more exhausting than before.

As for measuring intensity aside from the piece-wage. Perhaps the technical composition of capital, as opposed to the value composition of capital, could be of use here?

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ambiguities in Surplus Value
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:47 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 619
Has thanked: 17 time
Have thanks: 25 time
I think "intensity of labor" is so vague a concept, so undefined by Marx that it can't really be used, at least not in this matter.

Exactly how does the "intensity of labor" differ from the "productivity of labor"? If I work an assembly line, and the "belt speed" is set so that I have to make 4 welds on one side of 30 auto frames an hour, and the line is sped up to 35 auto frames an hour, the intensity of my labor is increased, right? How does that differ from a redesign of production, or process, or the application of robots to the process, such that 35 auto frames, or 40, or 50 are processed in an hour, but instead of my making 4 welds per side, I reset 1 button per auto frame to reset the robots to the "start position"?

We only know that the new value added in the production process is the same-- 1 hour-- whether it's distributed over 30 or 35 or 50 frames, whether I make 140 welds, or the robots make 140 welds and I press a button 35 times. Time is the measure. Marx points out that capitalism is not a system where one man's hour is worth the same as another man's hour, but where one man IN an hour, is worth the same as another man in an hours. "Time is everything, man is nothing. He is at most, time's carcass."

So intensity really doesn't differ from productivity of labor, which is labor augmented by machinery to produce a greater mass of objects in the same period.

How do we get to the greater portion of unpaid labor, how do we get to the condition where instead of having to produce new value equivalent to the wage in 3 hours during an eight hour day, the workers produce the new value equivalent to their wage in 1.5 hours, without the wage declining due to the decline in the value of the necessities required for its reproduction.

Now to be sure, the most relative surplus value extracted correlates with those societies that have the most productive agriculture; where the population devoted to "reproducing the necessities" is at a minimum due to the application of capital to the agricultural production process.

But how do we get improved rates of surplus value, of relative surplus value, when working hours drop, the wage per hour increases, and there has been no decline in the value of the necessities?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ambiguities in Surplus Value
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:16 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
If we want to compare productivity vs. intensity piece-wages are the way to go.

If at the outset the wage per piece is 20 cents, and the average daily wage is 20 bucks, upon the introduction of new machinery the new wage per piece may drop to 10 cents. However, it would also be possible for the average daily wage to rise to 25 dollars. The productivity in this case is measured by the wage per piece, and the intensity being measured by the daily wage. How the daily wage rises as the wage per piece drops is based on the fact that with machinery the skill set necessary for production of a given article narrows, enabling the labourer to get really good at a single monotonous task.

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ambiguities in Surplus Value
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:49 am 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 619
Has thanked: 17 time
Have thanks: 25 time
Broletariat wrote:
If we want to compare productivity vs. intensity piece-wages are the way to go.

If at the outset the wage per piece is 20 cents, and the average daily wage is 20 bucks, upon the introduction of new machinery the new wage per piece may drop to 10 cents. However, it would also be possible for the average daily wage to rise to 25 dollars. The productivity in this case is measured by the wage per piece, and the intensity being measured by the daily wage. How the daily wage rises as the wage per piece drops is based on the fact that with machinery the skill set necessary for production of a given article narrows, enabling the labourer to get really good at a single monotonous task.



And then what is the impact on the rate of surplus value?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ambiguities in Surplus Value
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:37 am 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 619
Has thanked: 17 time
Have thanks: 25 time
SA wrote:
An Approach to the Ambiguities
So how about this: productivity in any specific labor process of capital, the substitution of machinery for labor, the "real subsumption of labor by capital" does not automatically generate the expansion of relative surplus value. Socially, in the production process, this real subsumption amounts to valorization of greater increments of capital by lower increments of labor power.

Regarding the valorization process, however, the increment of valorization is magnified not by the depreciation of the value of the wage, not by the the reduction in production time alone, but in the reduction of turnover time-- shrinking the lag between production and realization, reducing the gap between production and circulation, such that capital recuperates its "advanced" outlay more quickly, and recirculates that recuperation such that its subsequent outlays for "v" and "c" are paid for, more or less, with "house money," requiring no following "original" outlays.

Now as Marx makes clear in the Grundrissee and the other Economic Manuscripts, the very mechanisms reduce turnover times for portions of the total capital-- the investments in fixed assets which only transfer their value in fractions-- also entails the slowdown in the turnover of the entire capital. Thus while the investment in fixed assets only participates incrementally in the valorization process, the entire investment is required to participate in the labor process.

The comrade as theplanningmotive.com has explored this. And I'll be rereading volume 2, just to see how much I'm fooling myself.


http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com/2016/07/an-approach-to-ambiguities.html


SA wrote:
EDIT: So that capital expansions are (almost always) initially indicated by expanded and expanding investments in the means of communication and the means of transportation. "Telephones and trucks" used to be the phrase used on Wall Street to identify the "upticks." And... at the same time, the investment in these assets, these improved, more efficient, better performing assets, entails a slowdown in the realization of their value-- something made so painfully evident in the overproduction of container ships, with total capacity doubling between 2013 and 2016, revenue per container at record lows, having declined 25% since 2015, and the adaptation of "slow steaming" techniques to keep the fleet in service and avoid the "downtime" and costs of laying the ships up.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ambiguities in Surplus Value
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:30 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
sartesian wrote:
Broletariat wrote:
If we want to compare productivity vs. intensity piece-wages are the way to go.

If at the outset the wage per piece is 20 cents, and the average daily wage is 20 bucks, upon the introduction of new machinery the new wage per piece may drop to 10 cents. However, it would also be possible for the average daily wage to rise to 25 dollars. The productivity in this case is measured by the wage per piece, and the intensity being measured by the daily wage. How the daily wage rises as the wage per piece drops is based on the fact that with machinery the skill set necessary for production of a given article narrows, enabling the labourer to get really good at a single monotonous task.



And then what is the impact on the rate of surplus value?


At first, nothing, but now you'll notice that the value of labour-power was decidedly not changed merely by the introduction of this machinery. However, the price of labour-power went up enabling the potential for this price to be slashed back down to its value, meanwhile the intensified labour will produce more commodities than the less intense version but it will be fumbled together with increased productivity.

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ambiguities in Surplus Value
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:13 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 619
Has thanked: 17 time
Have thanks: 25 time
The Ambiguities of Surplus Value: Absolutely, Relatively, Intensely
1. Objects and Commodities

When Marx "settles" on labor as the substance common to all commodities in capital's markets, that's not because commodities share no other commonalities to their existence. Marx settles on labor because the condition of labor alone transforms objects into social products.

Common physical characteristics and qualities-- mass, size, shape, electrical charge-- do not make objects commodities. Similarities and/or differences in function, purpose, design do not make objects into commodities. Objects of use, necessity, decoration, sustenance, navigation, and of course, destruction become commodities when they are not produced for the needs of the producers, but for purpose of alienation-produced by others for others; for commerce; for exchange. The commodity is the form, the property, created when the condition of labor is itself a commerce, for trade, for exchange; when it is by others for others.

That labor appears both concrete, embodied in and as the specific object, and in the abstract, as a process, a vehicle, a power for making any object into a commodity, and power can be measured; power is measure. The measurement of labor power that is labor power is called time.

2. The Dictatorship of Time

"Economy of time: to this all economy ultimately reduces itself," wrote Marx in the Grundrisse.

Throughout history--because economics is concentrated history-- economy has been all about the allocation and apportionment of the time the society needs to reproduce itself.

All economy is the economy of time, but not all economy of time is the economy of value. Marx said that too, not in so many words, but in so many more words, 50+ volumes worth.

For the direct producer the exchange is one of personal time for personal use. For the commodity producer, the exchange is one of personal time for an equivalent, either in other commodities, or in a means to obtain other, all other commodities. For the capitalist commodity producer, the exchange is not of personal time for use, or any equivalent. The exchange is the purchase of the labor power, of the time to labor, of others. The products belong to those purchasers of labor power not for the satisfaction of their direct needs, but for the needs of others who likewise have purchased labor-time. Capital "recognizes" itself, realizes itself only in other capitals.

Time is of the essence. Restricting the labor-time necessary for reproducing the laborers, distinguishing labor-time between its necessary and a surplus portions, while at the same time making that distinction invisible in the products is the essence of capitalist commodity production. It is the expression of value. The value-form is the commerce, the traffic, in labor-time, in lost time, in alienated time, in the time of others.

Marx can and does recognize this separation of time, its fracturing and subsequent re-formation of time as value, of value as the loss of time, as the suppression of the labor process by the valorization process, well before writing Capital, before writing the notebooks known as the Economic Manuscriptse, because of the extensive, and intensive, division of labor already made manifest in the factory system

In The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx writes:
Competition, according to an American economist, determines how many days of simple labour are contained in one day’s compound labour. Does not this reduction of days of compound labour to days of simple labour suppose that simple labour is itself taken as a measure of value? If the mere quantity of labour functions as a measure of value regardless of quality, it presupposes that simple labour has become the pivot of industry. It presupposes that labour has been equalized by the subordination of man to the machine or by the extreme division of labour; that men are effaced by their labour; that the pendulum of the clock has become as accurate a measure of the relative activity of two workers as it is of the speed of two locomotives. Therefore, we should not say that one man’s hour is worth another man’s hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing; he is, at the most, time’s carcass. Quality no longer matters. Quantity alone decides everything; hour for hour, day for day; but this equalising of labour is not by any means the work of M. Proudhon’s eternal justice; it is purely and simply a fact of modern industry.
In the automatic workshop, one worker’s labour is scarcely distinguishable in any way from another worker’s labour: workers can only be distinguished one from another by the length of time they take for their work. Nevertheless, this quantitative difference becomes, from a certain point of view, qualitative, in that the time they take for their work depends partly on purely material causes, such as physical constitution, age and ***; partly on purely negative moral causes, such as patience, imperturbability, diligence. In short, if there is a difference of quality in the labour of different workers, it is at most a quality of the last kind, which is far from being a distinctive speciality. This is what the state of affairs in modern industry amounts to in the last analysis

3. Relatively Unambiguous....or not

In his exploration of capitalist commodity production and the expression of value, Marx presumes that commodities exchange at their values. This is, of course, an abstraction; values are expressed in commodity exchange only through prices, and prices are subject to all sorts of disturbances and perturbations which will cause the prices to deviate from the values that are embedded in, and are the commodities. But deviations, oscillations, imbalances, irregularities are precisely the mechanisms through which value asserts itself; through which the "law of value"-- that commodities exchange not at the labor-time embedded in them but in relation to the social labor-time necessary for their reproduction-- materializes.

Marx maintains this exchange of commodities at value, until he can show how capital necessarily distorts the exchange as itself an expression of the law,. Capital's laws regarding allocation of the mass of surplus value compel an "adjustment" to these exchanges at value, an adjustment called prices of production which operates to distribute value, without however impacting that mass itself.

That's easy.

More than easy, it's something we need to keep in focus when we discuss the wage-rate and the compensation of labor at its value; of the time necessary for its reproduction. Marx presents us with an abstraction, a commodity, labor-power, which in the abstract is exchanged like all other commodities, at its value, for its equivalent in value, detached value (money) in accordance with the social-labor time necessary for its reproduction. It is the only way Marx can make an intelligible critique of the earlier theories of surplus value.

However, that labor-power is compensated at its value, its cost of reproduction in the abstract, cannot be reversed in the concrete by using the wage, the price of the commodity, to tell us anything hard and fast about the relative complexity of different labors; the relative productivity of different labors; the relative "needs" of different laborers.

Compensating labor-power at its value, at a price that represents some relation to its value is an abstraction and a fuzzy one at that. Clearly, the costs of reproduction are mutable, and can be driven down by a number of methods and still the laborers as a class do "reproduce themselves," although perhaps not as robustly, healthfully, massively .

The "concern" of capital for the reproduction of the labor-power, of the class of laborers, the need of capital for the reproduction of labor power, the class of laborers is, like everything else in capitalism, a question of ratios, proportions, relations. That x percent of the working class needs to achieve compensation that enables it to come to work everyday for z years and beget y percent of replacement or additional workers in z years doesn't depend on the needs of the laborers, but on the needs of capital. If capital needs x percent to reproduce y percent in z years, the corollary that screams out the totality that is the truth is: "1-x percent do not have to be compensated at a rate sufficient to work for z years; begetting 1-y percent replacements."

Keep that in mind whenever anyone tries to convince you that higher wages are compensation for "productivity."

[b]4. Unambiguously Relative...or not[/b]

Marx initiates the discussion in no uncertain terms in Chapter 12, Volume 1:
Given the length of the working-day, the prolongation of the surplus-labour must of necessity originate in the curtailment of the necessary labour-time; the latter cannot arise from the former. In the example we have taken, it is necessary that the value of labour power should actually fall by one-tenth, in order that the necessary labour-time may be diminished by one-tenth, i.e., from ten hours to nine, and in order that the surplus labour may consequently be prolonged from two hours to three.
Such a fall in the value of labour-power implies, however, that the same necessaries of life which were formerly produced in ten hours, can now be produced in nine hours. But this is impossible without an increase in the productiveness of labour. For example, suppose a shoe-maker, with given tools, makes in one working day of twelve hours, one pair of boots. If he must make two pairs in the same time, the productiveness of his labour must be doubled; and this cannot be done, except by an alteration in his tools or in his mode of working, or in both. Hence, the conditions of production, i.e., his mode of production, and the labour-process itself, must be revolutionised. By increase in the productiveness of labour, we mean, generally, an alteration in the labour-process, of such a kind as to shorten the labour-time socially necessary for the production of a commodity, and to endow a given quantity of labour with the power of producing a greater quantity of use-value. Hitherto in treating of surplus-value, arising from a simple prolongation of the working day, we have assumed the mode of production to be given and invariable. But when surplus-value has to be produced by the conversion of necessary labour into surplus-labour, it by no means suffices for capital to take over the labour-process in the form under which it has been historically handed down, and then simply to prolong the duration of that process. The technical and social conditions of the process, and consequently the very mode of production must be revolutionised, before the productiveness of labour can be increased. By that means alone can the value of labour-power be made to sink, and the portion of the working day necessary for the reproduction of that value, be shortened.

The surplus-value produced by prolongation of the working day, I call absolute surplus-value. On the other hand, the surplus-value arising from the curtailment of the necessary labour-time, and from the corresponding alteration in the respective lengths of the two components of the working day, I call relative surplus-value.

In order to effect a fall in the value of labour-power, the increase in the productiveness of labour must seize upon those branches of industry whose products determine the value of labour-power, and consequently either belong to the class of customary means of subsistence, or are capable of supplying the place of those means. But the value of a commodity is determined, not only by the quantity of labour which the labourer directly bestows upon that commodity, but also by the labour contained in the means of production. For instance, the value of a pair of boots depends not only on the cobbler’s labour, but also on the value of the leather, wax, thread, &c. Hence, a fall in the value of labour-power is also brought about by an increase in the productiveness of labour, and by a corresponding cheapening of commodities in those industries which supply the instruments of labour and the raw material, that form the material elements of the constant capital required for producing the necessaries of life. But an increase in the productiveness of labour in those branches of industry which supply neither the necessaries of life, nor the means of production for such necessaries, leaves the value of labour-power undisturbed.

The cheapened commodity, of course, causes only a pro tanto fall in the value of labour-power, a fall proportional to the extent of that commodity’s employment in the reproduction of labour-power. Shirts, for instance, are a necessary means of subsistence, but are only one out of many. The totality of the necessaries of life consists, however, of various commodities, each the product of a distinct industry; and the value of each of those commodities enters as a component part into the value of labour-power. This latter value decreases with the decrease of the labour-time necessary for its reproduction; the total decrease being the sum of all the different curtailments of labour-time effected in those various and distinct industries. This general result is treated, here, as if it were the immediate result directly aimed at in each individual case. Whenever an individual capitalist cheapens shirts, for instance, by increasing the productiveness of labour he by no means necessarily aims at reducing the value of labour-power and shortening, pro tanto the necessary labour-time. But it is only in so far as he ultimately contributes to this result, that he assists in raising the general rate of surplus-value. The general and necessary tendencies of capital must be distinguished from their forms of manifestation...
If one hour’s labour is embodied in sixpence, a value of six shillings will be produced in a working day of 12 hours. Suppose, that with the prevailing productiveness of labour, 12 articles are produced in these 12 hours. Let the value of the means of production used up in each article be sixpence. Under these circumstances, each article costs one shilling: sixpence for the value of the means of production, and sixpence for the value newly added in working with those means. Now let some one capitalist contrive to double the productiveness of labour, and to produce in the working day of 12 hours, 24 instead of 12 such articles. The value of the means of production remaining the same, the value of each article will fall to ninepence, made up of sixpence for the value of the means of production and threepence for the value newly added by the labour. Despite the doubled productiveness of labour, the day’s labour creates, as before, a new value of six shillings and no more, which, however, is now spread over twice as many articles. Of this value each article now has embodied in it 1/24th, instead of 1/12th, threepence instead of sixpence; or, what amounts to the same thing, only half an hour’s instead of a whole hour’s labour-time, is now added to the means of production while they are being transformed into each article. The individual value of these articles is now below their social value; in other words, they have cost less labour-time than the great bulk of the same article produced under the average social conditions. Each article costs, on an average, one shilling, and represents 2 hours of social labour; but under the altered mode of production it costs only ninepence, or contains only 1½ hours’ labour. The real value of a commodity is, however, not its individual value, but its social value; that is to say, the real value is not measured by the labour-time that the article in each individual case costs the producer, but by the labour-time socially required for its production. If therefore, the capitalist who applies the new method, sells his commodity at its social value of one shilling, he sells it for threepence above its individual value, and thus realises an extra surplus-value of threepence. On the other hand, the working day of 12 hours is, as regards him, now represented by 24 articles instead of 12. Hence, in order to get rid of the product of one working day, the demand must be double what it was, i.e., the market must become twice as extensive. Other things being equal, his commodities can command a more extended market only by a diminution of their prices. He will therefore sell them above their individual but under their social value, say at tenpence each. By this means he still squeezes an extra surplus-value of one penny out of each. This augmentation of surplus-value is pocketed by him, whether his commodities belong or not to the class of necessary means of subsistence that participate in determining the general value of labour-power. Hence, independently of this latter circumstance, there is a motive for each individual capitalist to cheapen his commodities, by increasing the productiveness of labour.
Nevertheless, even in this case, the increased production of surplus-value arises from the curtailment of the necessary labour-time, and from the corresponding prolongation of the surplus-labour. Let the necessary labour-time amount to 10 hours, the value of a day’s labour-power to five shillings, the surplus labour-time to 2 hours, and the daily surplus-value to one shilling. But the capitalist now produces 24 articles, which he sells at tenpence a-piece, making twenty shillings in all. Since the value of the means of production is twelve shillings, 14 2/5 of these articles merely replace the constant capital advanced. The labour of the 12 hours’ working day is represented by the remaining 9 3/5 articles. Since the price of the labour-power is five shillings, 6 articles represent the necessary labour-time, and 3 3/5 articles the surplus-labour. The ratio of the necessary labour to the surplus-labour, which under average social conditions was 5:1, is now only 5:3. The same result may be arrived at in the following way. The value of the product of the working day of 12 hours is twenty shillings. Of this sum, twelve shillings belong to the value of the means of production, a value that merely re-appears. There remain eight shillings, which are the expression in money, of the value newly created during the working day. This sum is greater than the sum in which average social labour of the same kind is expressed: twelve hours of the latter labour are expressed by six shillings only. The exceptionally productive labour operates as intensified labour; it creates in equal periods of time greater values than average social labour of the same kind. (See Ch. I. Sect 2. p. 44.) But our capitalist still continues to pay as before only five shillings as the value of a day’s labour-power. Hence, instead of 10 hours, the labourer need now work only 7½ hours, in order to reproduce this value. His surplus-labour is, therefore, increased by 2½ hours, and the surplus-value he produces grows from one, into three shillings. Hence, the capitalist who applies the improved method of production, appropriates to surplus-labour a greater portion of the working day, than the other capitalists in the same trade. He does individually, what the whole body of capitalists engaged in producing relative surplus-value, do collectively. On the other hand, however, this extra surplus-value vanishes, so soon as the new method of production has become general, and has consequently caused the difference between the individual value of the cheapened commodity and its social value to vanish. The law of the determination of value by labour-time, a law which brings under its sway the individual capitalist who applies the new method of production, by compelling him to sell his goods under their social value, this same law, acting as a coercive law of competition, forces his competitors to adopt the new method. The general rate of surplus-value is, therefore, ultimately affected by the whole process, only when the increase in the productiveness of labour, has seized upon those branches of production that are connected with, and has cheapened those commodities that form part of, the necessary means of subsistence, and are therefore elements of the value of labour-power.

The value of commodities is in inverse ratio to the productiveness of labour. And so, too, is the value of labour-power, because it depends on the values of commodities. Relative surplus-value is, on the contrary, directly proportional to that productiveness. It rises with rising and falls with falling productiveness. The value of money being assumed to be constant, an average social working day of 12 hours always produces the same new value, six shillings, no matter how this sum may be apportioned between surplus-value and wages. But if, in consequence of increased productiveness, the value of the necessaries of life fall, and the value of a day’s labour-power be thereby reduced from five shillings to three, the surplus-value increases from one shilling to three. Ten hours were necessary for the reproduction of the value of the labour-power; now only six are required. Four hours have been set free, and can be annexed to the domain of surplus-labour. Hence there is immanent in capital an inclination and constant tendency, to heighten the productiveness of labour, in order to cheapen commodities, and by such cheapening to cheapen the labourer himself.

The value of a commodity is, in itself, of no interest to the capitalist. What alone interests him, is the surplus-value that dwells in it, and is realisable by sale. Realisation of the surplus-value necessarily carries with it the refunding of the value that was advanced. Now, since relative surplus-value increases in direct proportion to the development of the productiveness of labour, while, on the other hand, the value of commodities diminishes in the same proportion; since one and the same process cheapens commodities, and augments the surplus-value contained in them; we have here the solution of the riddle: why does the capitalist, whose sole concern is the production of exchange-value, continually strive to depress the exchange-value of commodities?
Straight forward as can be, right? Capitalism revolutionizes the mode of production, driving the costs of production of the necessities of life down, diminishing thereby the value of labor-power, and since commodities exchange at their value, more or less, at least in the abstract, and because labor-power is compelled to present itself as a commodity for exchange, its value, as expressed in the wage, declines, and it takes less time for the laborers to reproduce the value equivalent to their wage.

Got it.

Indeed, that is exactly what occurred in the last part of the 19th century, in the period from 1868-1895, and mistakenly known as the "Long Depression." In fact, it was no depression at all, but the dramatic movement of capital in the cycles of expansion and severe contraction. Nevertheless, capital accumulated throughout the entire period, and capitalist wealth increased. Prices entered a sustained decline. Capital did not.

Average annual production worker earnings during the Long Deflation, 1868-1895, declined some 12 percent in money terms. In real terms, adjusted for deflation, the earnings increased 42 percent as the prices for consumer goods plummeted by more than one-third.

Marx restricts the origin of relative surplus value to the fall of the value of labor power, brought about by increasing productivity in production of "necessities," and stating:
But an increase in the productiveness of labour in those branches of industry which supply neither the necessaries of life, nor the means of production for such necessaries, leaves the value of labour-power undisturbed.
Now there is a level of uncertainty as to what constitutes the "necessaries" and/or "the means of production for such necessaries," an uncertainty that needs to be engaged....later. Here and now, however, Marx demonstrates the advantage to all capitalist production inherent in advancing the productivity of labor. That advantage is the reduction in the cost , and the ability to arbitrage the variance between the commodity's individual value and its social value through the price mechanism.
This is a distribution of, an allocation from, the total surplus value thrown into the market and is not the actual increase in relative surplus value extracted from more productive labor.

The improvement in the productivity of labor does not automatically, necessarily, and without exception, deliver greater relative surplus value. If labor power, no matter how productive, cannot create more value in an hour than the value equal to an hour (a tautology, no?), and if the value of labor power does not fall relative to, not the mass of capital animated, but its own previous rate of compensation, and does not reduce the time necessary for reproducing the value of the wage, then the time required for the reproduction of the labor power remains undisturbed, as does the portion of the working day dedicated to surplus, regardless of the relative decline of the mass of the labor power absorbed in the valorization process.

What occurs in the markets through the price mechanism, is the distribution of the total surplus; it is the arbitrage, the redistribution, until the increased productivity of labor becomes the "new normal" for production.

The unpaid portion of the labor time must rise, that ratio must be altered, while the value of product remains the same (or expands). And that is something quite different from simply reducing the mass of the value of the labor-power employed, and with that, and in exactly the same ratio, the value of the product.

Except......

5. Eat That Contradiction

Marx, however, has to account for the compulsion of capital, the inherent tendency of capital to replace living labor with objectified labor; to expand the inanimate, non-value producing element of the capital relation. This is what the bourgeoisie must do, after all, being capitalists.. Having organized the means of production as private property, their class property, the expansion of their wealth, the accumulation of capital in all its forms requires the expansion of the means of production as capital, as commodities themselves.

He finds the compulsion for accumulation in the necessity for expanding value, and he finds the expansion of value locked in the extraction of relative surplus value. That extraction of relative surplus value is the "real subsumption of labor" by capital.

In Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 15, Marx writes:
Machinery produces relative surplus-value; not only by directly depreciating the value of labour-power, and by indirectly cheapening the same through cheapening the commodities that enter into its reproduction, but also, when it is first introduced sporadically into an industry, by converting the labour employed by the owner of that machinery, into labour of a higher degree and greater efficacy, by raising the social value of the article produced above its individual value, and thus enabling the capitalist to replace the value of a day’s labour-power by a smaller portion of the value of a day’s product. During this transition period, when the use of machinery is a sort of monopoly, the profits are therefore exceptional, and the capitalist endeavours to exploit thoroughly “the sunny time of this his first love,” by prolonging the working-day as much as possible. The magnitude of the profit whets his appetite for more profit.
"To replace the value of a day's labour power by a smaller portion of the value of a day's product," in this manner is not the extraction of greater relative surplus value, when the total value itself drops proportionately to the labor-power deployed. It is again the redistribution of the total surplus value thrown into the markets by all producers, and the "exceptional" profits disappear as soon as the enhanced productivity of labor becomes standard. Then there is no arbitrage to be conducted between the individual and social value of the commodity:
As the use of machinery becomes more general in a particular industry, the social value of the product sinks down to its individual value, and the law that surplus-value does not arise from the labour-power that has been replaced by the machinery, but from the labour-power actually employed in working with the machinery, asserts itself.

6. And This One

Marx sees another source for the accelerated extraction of surplus value through the application of machinery in the intensification of labor.
Generally speaking, the mode of producing relative surplus-value consists in raising the productive power of the workman, so as to enable him to produce more in a given time with the same expenditure of labour. Labour-time continues to transmit as before the same value to the total product, but this unchanged amount of exchange-value is spread over more use-value; hence the value of each single commodity sinks. Otherwise, however, so soon as the compulsory shortening of the hours of labour takes place. The immense impetus it gives the development of productive power, and to economy in the means of production, imposes on the workman increased expenditure of labour in a given time, heightened tension of labour-power, and closer filling up of the pores of the working-day, or condensation of labour to a degree that is attainable only within the limits of the shortened working-day. This condensation of a greater mass of labour into a given period thenceforward counts for what it really is, a greater quantity of labour. In addition to a measure of its extension, i.e., duration, labour now acquires a measure of its intensity or of the degree of its condensation or density. The denser hour of the ten hours’ working-day contains more labour, i.e., expended labour-power than the more porous hour of the twelve hours’ working-day. The product therefore of one of the former hours has as much or more value than has the product of 1 1/5 of the latter hours. Apart from the increased yield of relative surplus-value through the heightened productiveness of labour, the same mass of value is now produced for the capitalist say by 3 1/3 hours of surplus-labour, and 6 2/3 hours of necessary labour, as was previously produced by four hours of surplus-labour and eight hours of necessary labour.

Marx has dropped the determining condition for expanding relative surplus value, the reduction in the value of the commodities that make up the value, the necessary time for reproducing the laborer.

Marx also moves away from time as the determinant of value with this exposition. There is a "condensation of a greater mass of labour into a given period." There is the "increased expenditure of labour in a given time." There is a "closer filling up of the pores..." Labor becomes "denser," and "the product [of the denser labor] has more value than the product [of the less dense labor]." "The same mass of value is now produced for the capitalist say by 3 1/3 hours of surplus-labour, and 6 2/3 hours of necessary labour as was previously produced by four hours of surplus-labour and eight hours of necessary labour."

How is this possible? Marx is not discussing complex labor. Marx is discussing a change in the level of effort such that 1 hour of labor is now equal to 1.2 hours of labor. Time here is derivative, and is no longer determining.

"This condensation of a greater mass of labour into a given period thenceforward counts for what it really is, a greater quantity of labour." If this is the case then how is labor being measured? Labor-time, including socially necessary labor time, ceases to become the axis of value, and Marx has taken us to point where perhaps joules, or kilowatt hours are underpinning the exchange of values.

Capital's markets are blind, more or less, to everything save time; the time of production, the time of circulation, the turnover time. As Marx's so accurately observed in 1847, time is everything, man is but time's carcass. Level of effort, human labor, does not, or does not for long in the world of capital, determine the pace of production. The pace of production determines the level of effort.

Capital, objectified labor manifested as machinery determines the velocity, the pace, the rate of value production The objectified labor ignores or eliminates, or abstracts the differences in strengths, talents, skills of the individual workers; liquidating those individual characteristics in the continuous flow of a production process.

In Chapter 12, Marx writes:
The exceptionally productive labour operates as intensified labour; it creates in equal periods of time greater values than average social labour of the same kind.
But we know that this is not the case. In fact, in Chapter 17, Marx is writing this:
Increased intensity of labour means increased expenditure of labour in a given time. Hence a working-day of more intense labour is embodied in more products than is one of less intense labour, the length of each day being the same. Increased productiveness of labour also, it is true, will supply more products in a given working-day. But in this latter case, the value of each single product falls, for its costs less labour than before; in the former case, that value remains unchanged, for each costs the same labour as before.

Costs whom the same labor as before? Certainly not the capitalist. Marx stipulates that the times of production are equal, and when production times are equal and a greater quantity of commodities are produced, the costs to the capitalist of the new value supplied by living labor do not change, and the costs of the labor embodied in each unit drop.

Does it "cost" the worker more? More effort is required, but how is that made manifest in the markets? By a higher wage? No, the whole point of "speed up"-- of intensifying the production process is to produce greater numbers of commodities without increasing labor costs.
Here we have an increase in the number of products, unaccompanied by a fall in their individual prices: as their number increases so does the sum of their prices. But in the case of increased productiveness, a given value is spread over a greater mass of products. Hence, the length of the working-day being constant, day's labor of increased intensity will be incorporated in an increased value, and, the value of money remaining unchanged, in more money. The value created varies with with the extent to which the intensity of labour deviates from its normal intensity in the society. A given working day therefore no longer creates a constant, but a variable value; in a day of 12 hours of ordinary intensity, the value created is, say 6 shillings, but with increased intensity, the value created may be 7,8, or more shillings. It is clear that, if the value created by a day's labour increases from, say, 6 to 8 shillings then the two parts into which this value is divided, viz., the price of labour power and surplus-value, may both of them increase and simultaneously, and either equally or unequally. Here the rise in the price of the labour power does not necessarily imply that the price has risen above the value of labour power. On the contrary the rise in price may be accompanied by a fall in value. This occurs whenever the price of labour power does not compensate for its increased wear and tear.

Marx here has brought us back to the case where labor power is not compensated at its value, at the cost of its reproduction, which however, is exactly the case that Marx has to put to one side to begin his critique of exchange value, of capitalist commodity production, of surplus value.

Accelerating the production process by improving labor productivity so that less time is required for the production of any single commodity, is indistinguishable from speeding the pace of production by increasing the speed of the existing machinery. Constant capital, "c," increases, relative to labor power. More "c" is converted into a greater number of commodities. Labor time per unit of "c" is diminished. The increased portion of surplus value claimed in both processes is a result of the variation between the commodity's individual value, and its social value

Indeed, Marx recognizes this "arbitrage" at work with intensified labor, writing:
If the intensity of labour were to increase simultaneously and equally in every branch of industry, then the new and higher degree of intensity would become the normal degree of intensity would become the normal degree for the society, and would therefore cease to be taken account of.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

S.Artesian
August 13, 2016


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ambiguities in Surplus Value
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:26 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
I'll risk completely missing the point and offer-up my response, particularly to this

[quote2="Arty"]Time here is derivative, and is no longer determining.[/quote2]

Time was never determining, labour time is what is determining.

[quote2="Capital"]For the labour spent upon them [commodities] counts effectively, only in so far as it is spent in a form that is useful for others.[/quote2]

I also disagree quite heartily with the below statement and I have already proven it to be false and will go in to more detail if you like.

[quote2="Arty"]Accelerating the production process by improving labor productivity so that less time is required for the production of any single commodity, is indistinguishable from speeding the pace of production by increasing the speed of the existing machinery.[/quote2]

If I am working with tools and my nose itches and I stop working for a second to scratch it, that second was not spent labouring and is a second in which labour time is not embodied in the commodity. If I am working with machinery I can not stop to itch my nose because I might lose my hand or ruin the production process in some manner that will lead to my firing, this second has been saved and represents more intense labour which can only be observed through the piece-wage as Marx points out and I have demonstrated above.

You know which form of work best represents the "absolute" intensity of labour? The relay system. You clock in, perform a single operation for 3 minutes, immediately clock back out, let someone else do the next step, clock back in 4 minutes later to do another 3 minute operation etc. Every single second you are clocked in is because you are actually, genuinely, labouring, not scratching your nose, not talking to your co-worker, not taking your 10 minute break, not taking a ****, not engaging in any single other human activity other than productive labour. Productive labour is the only thing that serves as the content of value.

This is what Marx means when he talks about "filling up of the pores of the working-day." The working day is riddled with pores, sometimes you have to sneeze or cough or get something out of your eye etc. Machinery forces those pores to be filled to some degree by eliminating the ability to ever stop working once the production process has started.

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ambiguities in Surplus Value
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 9:00 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 619
Has thanked: 17 time
Have thanks: 25 time
Quote:
You know which form of work best represents the "absolute" intensity of labour? The relay system. You clock in, perform a single operation for 3 minutes, immediately clock back out, let someone else do the next step, clock back in 4 minutes later to do another 3 minute operation etc. Every single second you are clocked in is because you are actually, genuinely, labouring, not scratching your nose, not talking to your co-worker, not taking your 10 minute break, not taking a ****, not engaging in any single other human activity other than productive labour. Productive labour is the only thing that serves as the content of value.


Don't think you've proved anything, except word play "time" vs "labor-time" when the reference is to Marx's own observation, a correct one, that all economy is the economy of time.

As for intensity of labor, those aren't examples Marx gives. He gives examples of workers having to tend more machinery, take extra steps. How does that differ from improved productivity of labor? How is it recognized in the markets as representing the "same value" as before, without the value on each individual unit declining?

Marx wants to show us how 10 hours of labor produces the same value as 12 hours of labor, without any empirical demonstration of what happens to "v," the rate of surplus value, or the total surplus value and how that differs from increases in productivity.

An assembly line that requires 10 workers to each make 8 welds on an auto frame operates at 20 frames per hour. The line is sped up to 25 frames an hour. Does the value, the labor-time embedded in each unit decline or not? Marx says no; the 25 frames have the same value embedded in them as the 20. But now a robot is introduced, and the chassis/frame connections are redesigned. Only 40 welds per unit are required, 4 robots are used and the line speeds up to 80 units an hour. Two workers now observe the monitors on the self-monitoring robots that screen for flaws, missed welds, and at the same time test the welds with ultrasound.

Is the work of these two workers more intense than that of the ten? If so, does the value embedded in the frames remain the same? Increase? Or decline?

This is about the necessary time for reproduction-- that's the determining part. If the line speeds up, the price per unit will decline (FFS, anybody who watches production rates for textiles, garments, food processing,electrical components can see, has seen that).

Speed up is exactly that, reducing the labor time embedded in each unit, increasing the "c" that a worker processes during overall working day. Same-same as improving the productivity of labor. The market does not distinguish between the two. The market cannot distinguish between the two.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

Design By Poker Bandits  

suspicion-preferred