tags : [[capitalism]] [[Marx]] [[political economy]]
source : marx_capital
My notes on Capital Vol. 1, indexed. These were originally not written as Roam files so forgive the messiness.
[[commodity]] : is a thing through which its qualities satisfy some human need
[[Use value]] : is the usefulness of a thing - The amount of [[labor]] that goes into making a commodity is unrelated to its usefulness - The usefulness of a commodity is conditioned by the physical properties of a commodity
[[Exchange value]] : is the use value relation of one commodity to another - Exchange value is intrinsic to a commodity - x amount of wheat could be exchanged for y amounts of silk - Exchange value expresses an equality relation
When looking at use values, commodities only differ in terms of quality, whereas with exchange value, commodities differ in terms of quantity
Commodities are different from other items because they contain within them human labor, i.e. they are made by humans
The labor contained in commodities is [[abstract labor]], which can be measured in time - “it took x hours to produce y products” I assume?
Marx says that a thing isn’t more valuable if some lazy worker takes more time to produce it, the exchange value is wrapped up in the total labor power of society. The total labor power of society is homogeneous and greater than one individual, and is manifested in the values of commodities. - The introduction of electric looms, Marx says, probably reduced the amount of [[socially necessary labor time]] to convert yarn into fabric by half. The product of the old hand loom worker’s value, then, dropped by half
The greater the amount of productivity, the less required socially necessary labor time
What distinguishes a commodity from any other item is that it contains usefulness to others, i.e. social value
So what is a [[commodity]]?
Commodities and labor contain within them a dual character
Division of commodities implies the existence of a [[division of labor]]
Labor, then, as the creator of use-values, as useful labor, is a condition of human existence which is independent of all forms of society; it is an eternal natural necessity which mediates the metabolism between man and nature, and therefore human life itself. (p. 133)
“Labor is the father of material wealth, the earth is its mother.” (p. 133)
Modes of labor are simply forms of expenditure of human labor power
Labor power must have attained a certain level of development before it can be expanded into certain forms
In civil society as a whole, at the standpoint of needs, what we have before is the composite idea which we call man. Thus this is the first time, and indeed the only time, to speak of man in this sense.
Commentary
This quote is interesting because it’s like an old-time equivalent of saying humanity is a social construct
Abstract labor (this quality of labor) forms the value of commodities. The fact that labor can be equated as such indicates this quality of labor
[[Commodities]] are commodities because they are “objects of utility and bearers of value”
Commodities take on a particular form (value form) that allows for their exchange, called money
Human labor alone doesn’t create value
Marx goes through a lot of different forms of exchanges to ultimately show that the fact that commodities can be exchanged shows that they have something common between them
[[Abstract labor]], as we’ve said, is a quantity of time put into the production of a commodity
[[Concrete labor]], in contrast, is a specific type of labor, such as tailoring or weaving. It is an expression of abstract labor
The fact that commodities are universally exchangeable explains why there is a single, special, socially accepted commodity that can be used to express this universal exchange: [[money]]
Capital begins with the circulation of commodities
Capital’s first appearance is that of money
The first distinction between money as money and money as capital is nothing more than a difference in their form of circulation.
p. 247
In contrast to the [[C-M-C exchange]] relation we saw in the last chapter, capital begins with [[M-C-M]]
C-M-C and M-C-M are both just two sides of the same coin
In C-M-C, the money is spent and leaves circulation
In M-C-M, the money is not spent so much as it is advanced
The point of M-C-M is exchange value
C-M-C results in commodities of equal value being circulated
M-C-M results in the opposite, the only difference is in magnitude
This change in magnitude results in [[surplus value]]
C-M-C exchange is done in order to satisfy needs, to consume. M-C-M is done in order to accumulate, and is endless, unlike C-M-C
Footnote 6 is very good
If at any point in the M-C-M relation, that money is then simply exchanged to purchase something, it no longer becomes capital
The simple circulation of commodities — selling in order to buy — is a means to a final goal which lies outside of circulation, namely the appropriation of use values, the satisfaction of needs. As against this, the circulation of money as capital is an ends of itself, for the valorization of value takes place only within this constantly renewed movement. The movement of capital is therefore limitless. (p. 301)
is that there are three parties involved but only one of them is ever aware of it
The standpoint of every party is completely relative. If I’m a capitalist and I buy commodities from A and sell to B, neither A nor B necessarily sees it as such
Both myself and A and B see these things as part of a series
From the perspective of trading [[use-values]], it could be said that
“exchange is a transaction by which both sides gain.” This isn’t he case for [[exchange value]]
The value of a commodity is expressed in its price before it enters circulation, and it is therefore a pre-condition of circulation, not a result. (p. 309)
commodities is necessarily and exchange of equivalents, and anything deviating from that is due to external factors.
commodities (?)
[[exchange value]]
commodities’ exchange in itself
sell anything that is superfluous
If one is compelled to sell a quantity of a certain product for 18 livres when it has a value of 24 livres, then, when one employs the same amount in buying, one will receive for 18 livres the same quantity of the product as 24 livres would have bought otherwise. (footnote 12, p. 312)
The formation of surplus-value, and therefore the transformation of money into capital, can consequently be explained neither by assuming that commodities are sold above their value, nor by assuming they are bought at less than their value. (p. 312)
market: [[labor power]]
their labor
power
only temporarily
[[capital]] is a new development, and, as Marx puts it, is not natural
commodity, must not be useful to the initial owner of the commodity
The capitalist epoch is therefore characterized by the fact that labor power, in the eyes of the worker himself, takes on the form of a commodity which is his property; his labor consequently takes on the form of wage labor. On the other hand, it is only from this moment that the commodity form of the products of labor become universal. (footnote 4)
the amount of socially necessary labor for production (and consequently, reproduction, in this case)
people have physical needs so as to reproduce their labor
sustain human life
“credit”, i.e. “all labor is paid for after it is ceased” (footnote 12). The worker advances the use of their labor power to the capitalist
The use of labor power is labor itself
p. 284 for three parts of labor
[[Labor]] (as far as Marx is concerned) is an exclusively human activity
We presuppose labor is a form in which it is an exclusively human characteristic. A spider conducts operations which resemble those of the weaver, and a bee would put many a human architect to shame by the construction of its honeycomb cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is that the architect builds the cell in his mind before he constructs it in wax. At the end of every labor process, a result emerges which had already been conceived by the worker at the beginning, hence already existed ideally. Man not only effects a change of form in the materials of nature; he also realizes his own purpose in those materials. And this is a purpose he is conscious of, it determines the mode of his activity with the rigidity of a law, and he must subordinate his will to it. (p. 332)
that has been extracted and ready for washing
Instruments of labor : things which a worker interposes between himself and
the object of his labor, serving as a conductor for labor
Tools, machines, etc.
It’s how things are made that can define different epochs
The least important commodities of all for the technological comparison of different epochs of production are articles of real luxury. (footnote 5)
tools
The writers of history have so far paid very little attention to the development of material production, which is the basis for all social life, and therefore of all real history. But prehistoric times at any rate have been classified on the basis of the investigations of natural science, rather than so-called historical research. Prehistory has been divided, according to the material used to make tools and weapons, into the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age.
object of labor : the material from nature upon which labor
is done
It appears paradoxical to assert, that uncaught fish, for instance, are a means of production in the fishing industry. But hitherto no one has discovered the art of catching fish in waters that contain none.
[[means of production]] : are both tine instruments of labor and the
object of labor
product : something that results from the labor process
May be used as raw material for another product, or may be consumed in the labor process
Grapes are raw material for wine
When a product becomes a means of production, it ceases to lose its
character of a product and functions as contributing to living labor
A spindle is only a means of spinning when used as such
A machine not active in the labor process is useless
The above labor process is abstract and doesn’t tell us under what
conditions the aforementioned products are made
The labor process under capitalism has two characteristics:
The worker works under the control of the capitalist
The product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the worker, who works to create that product
their [[use values]]
The capitalist is interested in them because they do have use value, but not to him directly
They are bearers of [[exchange value]], hence worth exchanging
The capitalist wants to produce a commodity greater in value than
the sum of the values of the commodities it took to produce it (namely labor-power)
that commodity, and the value of a commodity comes from the labor-time put into that commodity
The value of yarn includes the sum of the labor-time put into all the component parts of the yarn
If at the end of the day the capitalist, a yarn maker, buys $10 of
cotton, $2 of wage labor, and $3 for a spindle, he has not made a profit yet, as he cannot sell the yarn for $15
A service is nothing other than the useful effect of a use-value, be it that of a commodity, or that of the labor. (p. 353)
i.e. externalizes its use-value
At the micro level it would seem that the LTV doesn’t hold up. If a capitalist buys x amount of labor power from a worker and only produces enough to make back the capital he advanced, the capitalist makes no money. Marx goes on for quite a while about a capitalist who buys all the requisite parts of producing yarn, labor-power included, and if it only takes 6 hours to make back the initial investment, the capitalist has made no money. The “trick” of surplus value, as Marx puts it, comes from the greater process. The capitalist doesn’t buy just enough amount of labor power to produce a commodity, he buys a working day’s worth, or a working week’s worth, or a working month’s work. By purchasing more labor-power than is needed to simply produce value, the capitalist has thus created valorization for himself.
If we now compare the process of creating value with the process of valorization, we see that the latter is nothing but the continuation of the former beyond a definite point. If the process is not carried beyond the point where the value paid by the capitalist for the labor-power is replaced by an exact equivalent, it is simply a process of creating value; but if it is continued beyond that point, it becomes a process of valorization. (p. 357)
necessary for the production of a use-value
happen. Cotton must be of suitable quality, otherwise the spinner would spend more time than socially necessary to produce yarn, creating neither value nor money (i.e. at a loss)
labor-power of someone adequately skilled to produce value of “normal quality”
He must also ensure the conditions of work are sufficient
Waste must be reduced, as waste is lost labor
[[Slavery]] can be more expensive than free labor for this reason. Under slavery the only distinction between a worker and animal is the fact that a former can speak. Ultimately, since slaves aren’t as valued as free laborers, waste is allowed in the process
See footnote 18
See footnote 19 for a distinction between “skilled” and “unskilled”
labor
The reason why value is added when the process continues is because what the capitalist pays the worker is in terms of days. In Marx’s time, laborers were paid a daily rate. So Marx’s examples work out because he’s assuming the laborer gets paid a daily wage instead of an hourly one.
The value of the means of production is transferred to the product made by them
The specific act of labor (e.g. spinning) transfers the values of the raw material and the means of production into the new [[use-value]] (e.g. values of cotton + spindle = yarn)
We see then that a characteristic of labor is that it’s able to preserve value and create value
The value of the instruments of labor play into the value of the product
The instruments of production, much like human beings, have “lives” and lose [[use-value]] a little bit each time they are used
[[Means of production]] never transfer more value to the product than they themselves lose during the labor process
If an instrument of production has no value to lose, i.e. if it is not the product of human labor, it transfers no value to the product. (p. 368)
The part of [[capital]] which is turned into means of production that doesn’t undergo any quantitative alternation of value for the process of production is [[constant capital]]
The part of capital that is turned into [[labor-power]], since it undergoes an alteration of value in the process of production, reproduces the equivalent of its own value and produces an excess, a [[surplus-value]], which may vary, is called [[variable capital]]
[[Capital]] (C) has two components, as we’ve reviewed:
C = c + v initially
After the process of production is finished, we get C’ = (c + v) + s, where s is surplus-value.
v + s = u + Δu, where u is the part of capital which was converted into labor power
the time necessary for the production of a particular commodity.
The thing that distinguishes [[modes of production]] is how surplus labor is extorted from the worker
The rate of surplus value can be calculated as:
\[\frac{surplus\ labor}{necessary\ labor}\]
or:
\[\frac{s}{v}\]
Both express the same thing in different ways: the first is objectified labor, the second is living labor
This expression illustrates the degree of exploitation of labor-power by capital
In the example where C = 500, c = 410, v = 90, and s = 90:
\[\frac{s}{v}=\frac{90}{90}=100%\]
In all the examples that Marx gives leading up to p. 390 Marx assumes that price = value
Proportional Parts of the Product
:CUSTOMID: the-representation-of-the-value-of-the-product-by-corresponding-proportional-parts-of-the-product
Random note:
Marx’s analysis seems like it only makes sense in retrospect. Can we apply these methods to understand things as they are now, or do we have to wait until afterwards?
[[Supplemental]]
The value of labor power is assumed to be the same as any other commodity: the amount of [[socially necessary labor time]] it takes to produce it
The ratio of [[surplus labor]] can be calculated given the amount of necessary labor needed
Given a working day of 8 hours, and a necessary labor time of 6 hours:
\[\frac{surplus\ labor\ time}{necessary\ labor\ time} = \frac{2}{6} = \frac{1}{3}=\approx33%\]
The working day, therefore, is not constant, but does have a maximum limit
The capitalist has bought the labor-power at its daily value. The use-value of the labor-power belongs to him throughout one working day. He has thus acquired the right to make the worker work for him during one day. But what is a working day? at all events, it is less than a natural day. How much less? The capitalist has his own views of this point of no return, the necessary limit of the working day. As a capitalist. he is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital. But capital has one sole driving force, the drive to [[valorize]] itself, to create [[surplus-value]], to make its constant part, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus labor. Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks. The time during which the worker works is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labor-power he has bought from him. If the worker consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the capitalist.
Between equal rights, force decides.
Whenever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the worker, free or unfree, must add the labor-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra quantity of labor-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owner of the means of production.
When commodities must be produced for [[exchange value]] other modes of production are subsumed to them
Under [[capitalism]] [[surplus labor]] and [[necessary labor]] are mixed together, under feudalism this was not so: the peasant was able to work x hours for himself and y hours for his lord
Marx relays a long historical materialist account of corvee labor
According to a study quoted by Marx, it’s not unheard of for workers to take back some of their own time. This is at a loss to the capitalist
Note: this is what we’d now call time theft
Look for something about tragedy of the commons!
Extension of the Working Day, From the Middle of the Fourteenth to the end of the Seventeenth Century
:CUSTOMID: the-struggle-for-a-normal-working-day.-laws-for-the-compulsory-extension-of-the-working-day-from-the-middle-of-the-fourteenth-to-the-end-of-the-seventeenth-century
Given a working day of 12 hours, say 9 of them are [[necessary labor]] and 3 are [[surplus labor]]:
The fact that [[necessary labor]] is variable leads to:
By making necessary labor more efficient the value of labor-power decreases
In reducing the amount of necessary labor and increasing surplus labor, the capitalist in the long term plays himself because as his method becomes socialized then he has no advantage over any other capitalist, and cannot sell his commodities at a lower price
The capitalist only cares about surplus value, and the realization of surplus value
There is an apparent contradiction in that the capitalist, who creates commodities with the intention of realizing their exchange value, only seeks to lower that exchange value
The objective of the development of the productivity of labor within the context of capitalist production is the shortening of that part of the working day in which the worker must work for himself, and the lengthening, thereby, of the other part of the day, in which he is free to work for nothing for the capitalist.
Capitalist production only shows up at scale
the average amount of necessary labor that is generated on the whole
[[Capitalism]] requires the simultaneous employment of a large number of workers
Co-operation is when numerous workers work together side by side in accordance with a plan
12 workers can accomplish on average 12 times the amount of labor that one worker can
Many men may be organized in different parts of the labor process, organized together
Co-operation allows for a shortening of necessary labor. 100 men working for 12 hours could “extend” the working day to 1200 hours
Workers working together reveals the special productive power of labor
Workers cannot cooperate without them being brought together
More workers means more money the capitalist must pay out
A single violin player is his own conductor: an orchestra requires a separate one.
[[Manufacturing]] arises out of the bringing together of independent craftsmanship
[[Manufacturing]] differs from regular handicrafting in that multiple kinds of craftsmen are brought together with the purpose of assembling one type of commodity
[[Manufacturing]] can also arise from the taking of a workshop where one commodity is produced
The dividing up of work is more efficient
Ultimately [[manufacturing]] comes out of a mode of production with independent trades and the cooperation of those tradesmen
Manufacturing benefits from cooperation uniquely because it allows complex tasks to be broken down and handled by one worker
Manufacture is characterized by the differentiation of the instructions of labor — a differentiation whereby tools of a given sort acquire fixed shapes, adapted to each particular application — and by the specialization of those instruments, which allows full play to each special tool only in the hands of a specific kind of worker.
The manufacturing period simplifies, improves and multiplies the implements of labor by adapting them to the exclusive and special functions of each kind of worker. It thus creates at the same time one of the material conditions for the existence of machinery, which consists of a combination of simple instruments.
The subdivided operations of [[manufacturing]] can be carried on as though they were a simple trade itself, or where specialized workers cooperate together under the direction of a single capitalist
Watchmaking is an example of heterogeneous manufacture, since it involves highly skilled workers all making one commodity, i.e. watches
Organic manufacture produces articles that go through connected phases of development, and are gradually put together at independent processes
In this kind of manufacturing the time between each process is shortened as much as possible so as to increase productive power
This organic manufacture also implies a [[division of labor]] in society. Many commodities that feed into one another can be broken up socially
Direct mutual interdependence compels each worker to sped no more than the necessary amount of time on each specialized part, creating regularity, uniformity, and intensity greater than in handicraft or simple cooperation
By combining workers in such a way the deficiencies of specialized work become perfections of general work
Manufacture creates so-called unskilled laborers, a class of workers who work in a process of production which can be done by anyone
The foundation of every [[division of labor]] which has attained a certain degree of development, and has been brought about by the exchange of commodities, is the separation of town from country. One might well say that the whole economic history of society is summed up in the movement of this antithesis.
there are also divisions of labor with in society, for similar reasons
See: cattle breeders → tanners (produce leather) → shoemakers
What connects independent laborers and specialized workers in
manufacture is that they are creating commodities, however the latter isn’t creating an entire commodity by himself, unlike the shoemaker
pre-capitalist social formation that benefits capitalism uniquely
It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of a single human being.
[[Mill]] should have said, “of any human being not fed by other people’s labor”, for there is no doubt that machinery has greatly increased the number of distinguished idlers.
Machinery in capitalism is above all an attempt to cheapen commodities by shortening the part of the working day in which the worker works for himself, and lengthen the part for which he gives to the capitalist
The difference between a simple machine and a complex machine (such as a steel furnace or factory machinery) is the historical element
Screws, wedges, wheels, etc. have been around for forever, but factory machinery hasn’t
Machinery replaces human work
Some machines are powered by humans and the energy they put into them powers the machine, or they are powered by electricity
Machines, such as windmills, were used prior to capitalism but didn’t spur on a change in the mode of production
Horsepower is the most useless form of power because it’s costly
Machinery presupposes a [[division of labor]]. Machinery does not create a division of labor, a division of labor creates machinery
It’s not labor, but the instrument of labor that serves as the starting point of the machine.
[[Machines]] only expand the use of the tool
Machinery causes a rise in productivity of labor, but doesn’t necessarily cause a rise in value
Machinery, like other forms of constant capital, create no value, but yield its own value to what it produces
The amount of value transferred to the product by a machine is proportional to its own value
The less value it gives up, the more productive it is
As long as the labor spent on a machine is such that the portion of its value added to the product remains smaller than the value added by the worker to the product with his tool, there is always a difference of labor saved in favor of the machine. The productivity of the machine is therefore measured by the human labor-power it replaces.
I think this means that as long as the machine adds less value to the product than the worker does with his tools, the machine is saving labor
If the capitalist replaces 150 men with a machine, and that machine costs as much as it does for a year’s worth of [[wages]] for those workers, the capitalist is still only paying for the labor that went into that machine
The labor objectified in machines is smaller than the living labor it replaces
Less labor must be expended in producing the machinery than is displaced by the employment of that machinery in order for it to be profitable
The actual wage of the worker can sink below or rise above the value of his labor power, but the difference between the quantity of labor needed to produce a machine and the total quantity of labor replaced by it remains constant
The field of application for machinery would therefore be entirely different in a communist society from what it is in bourgeois society.
Takeaway: given a value of labor at x
, machinery is only worthwhile if it replaces labor at a value less than x
In some parts of England, where machines or constant capital could be employed, living labor is still employed because the capitalist can pay them for such a small portion of their labor that the use of machinery would increase that cost production
Therefore we see the use of machinery as a way of getting around paying higher wages
capitalism
because it allows them to make labor power more productive. In the long run though, their machinery will become more commonplace and the competition between commodities will equalize
wants to increase profits by replacing men with machinery. The use of machines allows the capitalist to extract more surplus value, but the fact that workers produce surplus labor stands in opposition to that
As a result, the capitalist expands the number of working hours
Ultimately the use of machines, which should reduce the working day,
only increase it
exclusive with the extension of the working day
to find ways to be more and more productive
productive
century factories became significantly more productive while involving less workers
for the worker
The dual characteristics of factories:
“combined co-operation of many orders of workpeople, adult and
young, in tending with assiduous skill a system of productive machines continuously impelled by a central power“ (the subject of the factory is mechanical automation)
organs, acting in uninterrupted concert for the production f a common object, all of them being subordinate to a self-regulated moving force“ (its use as capital)
counted as a class separate from workers in factories (see footnote
another dig at Proudhon (see footnote 4)
Marx delineates between increased productivity due to development of
social process of production, and the exploitation by the capitalist of that development
Factory work exhausts the nervous system to the uttermost; at the same time, it does away with the many-sided play of the muscles, and confiscates every atom of freedom, both in bodily and intellectual activity. Even the lightening of the labor becomes an instrument of torture, since the machine does not free the worker from the work, but rather deprives the work itself of all content. Every kind of capitalist production, in so far as it is not only a labor process but also capital’s process of valorization, has this in common, but it is not the worker who employs the conditions of his work, but rather the reverse, the conditions of work employ the worker.
their humanity by causing them to work in abhorrent conditions and drudgery
workers, since machines are employed to replace workers
Machinery
:CUSTOMID: the-compensation-theory-with-regard-to-the-workers-displaced-by-machinery
The bourgeois economists describe the replacement of laborers with machines as “the freeing” of their labor / capital
The only freeing that goes on however is the conversion between variable capital and constant capital
The displacement of workers by machines removes a certain amount of money from the economy, so to speak. Marx says that if $1500 in wages is removed by the replacement of workers, that $1500 is lost because workers cannot spend that $1500 on other commodities
This seems like a contradiction of sorts
When machinery replaces laborers, that labor expended is diminished on the whole
The general growth of industry corresponds to a general growth in demand for labor
Since every article produced by a machine is cheaper than a similar article produced by hand, we deduce the following absolute law: if the total quantity of the article produced by machinery is equal to the total quantity of the article previously produced by a handicraft or by manufacture, and now made by machinery, then total labour expended is diminished. The increase in the labour required to produce the instruments of labour themselves, the machinery, coal, etc. must be less than the reduction in labour achieved by the employment of machinery; otherwise the product of the machine would be as dear as, or dearer than, the product of the manual labour. But as a matter of fact, the total quantity of the article produced by machinery with a diminished number of workers, instead of remaining equal to the total quantity of the hand-made article that has been displaced, exceeds this by far.
commodities and industries pop up as a result; namely luxury commodities
augmentation of surplus-value, is that it simply increases the number of substances which society (capitalist and “their dependents) can consume
of cars. Similarly, the demand for cars increases the demand for iron, and so on.
working class to be employed unproductively*
Machine Production. Crises in the Cotton Industry
:CUSTOMID: repulsion-and-attraction-of-workers-through-the-development-of-machine-production.-crises-in-the-cotton-industry
employed in said factories
The employment of machinery is a change in the C = c + v
relation
If I, a capitalist, want to keep C
the same but reduce v
, they
can increase c
with machinery
to dominate foreign markets using this newfound factory revolution
Britain’s conquest of India produced a source of cotton, for example
Colonization produces a source for new raw materials in the core
Industrialization brings with it cycles of depression, prosperity,
crisis
From 1770 to 1815 this trade was depressed or stagnant for 5 years only. During this period of 45 years the English manufacturers had a monopoly of machinery and of the markets of the world. From 1815 to 1821 depression; 1822 and 1823 prosperity; 1824 abolition of the laws against Trades’ Unions, great extension of factories everywhere; 1825 crisis; 1826 great misery and riots among the factory operatives; 1827 slight improvement; 1828 great increase in power-looms, and in exports; 1829 exports, especially to India, surpass all former years; 1830 glutted markets, great distress; 1831 to 1833 continued depression, the monopoly of the trade with India and China withdrawn from the East India Company; 1834 great increase of factories and machinery, shortness of hands. The new poor law furthers the migration of agricultural labourers into the factory districts. The country districts swept of children. White slave trade; 1835 great prosperity, contemporaneous starvation of the hand-loom weavers; 1836 great prosperity; 1837 and 1838 depression and crisis; 1839 revival; 1840 great depression, riots, calling out of the military; 1841 and 1842 frightful suffering among the factory operatives; 1842 the manufacturers lock the hands out of the factories in order to enforce the repeal of the Corn Laws. The operatives stream in thousands into the towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, are driven back by the military, and their leaders brought to trial at Lancaster; 1843 great misery; 1844 revival; 1845 great prosperity; 1846 continued improvement at first, then reaction. Repeal of the Corn Laws; 1847 crisis, general reduction of wages by 10 and more per cent. in honour of the “big loaf”; 1848 continued depression; Manchester under military protection; 1849 revival; 1850 prosperity; 1851 falling prices, low wages, frequent strikes; 1852 improvement begins, strikes continue, the manufacturers threaten to import foreign hands; 1853 increasing exports. Strike for 8 months, and great misery at Preston; 1854 prosperity, glutted markets; 1855 news of failures stream in from the United States, Canada, and the Eastern markets; 1856 great prosperity; 1857 crisis; 1858 improvement; 1859 great prosperity, increase in factories; 1860 Zenith of the English cotton trade, the Indian, Australian, and other markets so glutted with goods that even in 1863 they had not absorbed the whole lot; the French Treaty of Commerce, enormous growth of factories and machinery; 1861 prosperity continues for a time, reaction, the American Civil War, cotton famine: 1862 to 1863 complete collapse.
advantageous to manufacturers
didn’t absorb nearly that much of the capital in the cotton trade
shortage here?
competition and this gave the cotton capitalists a reason to shrink their wages, employ machinery, and employ “innovative” ways to cheat workers out of wages
Handicrafts, and Domestic Industry
:CUSTOMID: the-revolutionary-impact-of-large-scale-industry-on-manufacture-handicrafts-and-domestic-industry
Division of Labor
:CUSTOMID: a-overthrow-of-co-operation-based-on-handicrafts-and-on-the-division-of-labor
replaces individual reapers)
stage → factory stage
Industries
:CUSTOMID: b-the-impact-of-the-factory-system-on-manufacture-and-domestic-industries
ubiquitous
who support the factory in things like warehouses
workers and 9000 workers outside of the factory (“outworkers”)
infectious diseases, and often transmit those downstream
to perform excessive amounts of physical labor, and drunkenness is common
are commonly employed, and work as long hours (if not longer) than adults
machines, just women and children
ground to dust, and “immorailty” abounds
Large-Scale Industry. The Hastening of this Revolution by the Application of the Factory Acts to those Industries
:CUSTOMID: e-transition-from-modern-manufacture-and-domestic-industry-to-large-scale-industry.-the-hastening-of-this-revolution-by-the-application-of-the-factory-acts-to-those-industries
It’s weird how clothesmaking was so gendered, even in factories
It’s because they could pay workers less!
The decisively revolutionary machine, the machine which attacks in an equal degree all the innumerable branches of this sphere of production, such as dressmaking, tailoring, shoe-making, sewing, hat-making, and so on, is the sewing-machine.
such:
Children who are too young are removed from the workforce
The wages of those who work with the machines rises
The new machine minders are exclusively girls and women
Competition is crushed, mass unemployment follows
Starvation increases!
The introduction of the Factory Acts spurs on the mechanization
revolution by increasing the demand for machines
industries suffer greatly, as they depend on unlimited exploitation of cheap labor
costs did not rise and output increased, unlike what the capitalists of that industry had been saying
their workers meals, yet they still managed to figure it out!
capitalist to innovate and concentrate, and those who cannot keep up are blown away*
demand everywhere, because it allows for sudden large ordering, and removes “seasonal” work (or otherwise makes it more demanding)
(see: cotton production)
Extension of Factory Legislation in England
:CUSTOMID: the-health-and-education-clauses-of-the-factory-acts.-the-general-extension-of-factory-legislation-in-england
worker!
too)
avoidable (shock!)
they’re actually useful to the children in producing worthwhile workers
labor characteristic of manufacture, but reproduces it more intensely
endowment of skills on to workers
old to do the work they are thrown out with no transferable skills
society itself. Where peasants usually made their own shoes before, a shoe industry perfects shoemaking, and takes that away from the general population
Modern industry never views or treats the existing form of a production process as the definitive one. its technical basis is therefore revolutionary, whereas all earlier modes of production were essentially conservative.
The division of mental and manual labor becomes a hostile antagonism
A reminder about productive labor
The old definition of productive labor doesn’t hold up individually, so let’s zoom in!
“Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is, by its very essence, the production of surplus-value.”
Productive labor, generally, is when work (or more specifically, a worker) works towards the self-valorization of capital
Absolute Surplus-Value is the surplus-value generated by the worker working past the certain point by which he’d need to sustain himself
Relative Surplus-Value is the surplus-value created by the shortening of necessary labor. If the day is already divided into necessary labor and surplus labor, relative surplus-value is the value generated by shortening the amount of necessary labor needed
To summarize:
This distinction can only be made within the capitalist mode of production
In order to change relative surplus value, there must be a change in intensity or productivity of labor (assuming wages don’t fall below the value of labor power)
Without superfluous time there cannot be surplus value
There are no natural barriers to someone imposing the labor necessary to maintain there own existence onto another
Historically (and in general I guess) the productivity of labor remains limited by natural conditions
Also historically, at first the bountifulness of nature fuels development, but later, it’s the productivity of labor
The quantity of surplus labor generated will vary according to natural conditions
It is the necessity of bringing a natural force under the control of society, of economizing on its energy, of appropriating or subduing it on a large scale by the work of the human hand, that plays the most decisive role in the history of industry.
The result of differences in the natural conditions of labor is this: the same quantity of labor satisfies a different mass of requirements in different countries, and consequently under otherwise analogous circumstances, the quantity of necessary labor-time is different.
Surplus labor is not an innate quality of human labor (as Proudhon asserts)
Marx criticizes John Stuart Mill for thinking that surplus value is exclusive to the capitalist mode of production
After this proving clearly that capitalist production would still continue to exist even if it did not exist, Mill now proceeds, quite consistently, to show that it would not exist even if it did exist.
If the value of labor power is determined by the value of the means of subsistence habitually required by the average worker, then the quantity of the means of subsistence required can be treated at a constant magnitude
The cost of labor power is:
Marx makes the following assumptions in this chapter:
To reiterate, relative magnitudes of surplus value and the price of labor power are determined by:
The Productivity of Labor Variable
:CUSTOMID: the-length-of-the-working-day-and-the-intensity-of-labor-constant-the-productivity-of-labor-variable
Constant; The Intensity of Labor Variable
:CUSTOMID: the-length-of-the-working-day-and-the-productivity-of-labor-are-constant-the-intensity-of-labor-variable
of the Working Day Variable
:CUSTOMID: the-productivity-and-intensity-of-the-labor-constant-the-length-of-the-working-day-variable
Marx deduces the following laws:
The shortening of the working day follows or precedes a change in the productivity and intensity of labor
The lengthening of the working day risks increasing the value of labor power
Intensity of Labor
:CUSTOMID: simultaneous-variations-in-the-duration-productivity-and-intensity-of-labor
of the working day
:CUSTOMID: diminishing-productivity-of-labor-with-simultaneous-lengthening-of-the-working-day
simultaneous shortening of the working day
:CUSTOMID: increasing-intensity-and-the-productivity-of-labor-with-simultaneous-shortening-of-the-working-day
Decreases amount of necessary labor
If the whole length of the working day were to shrink to just its necessary component, surplus labor would vanish
The more the working day can be shortened, the more the intensity of labor can increase
\[\frac{Surplus\ value}{Variable\ capital}(\frac{s}{v})=\frac{Surplus\ value}{Value\ of\ labor\ power}=\frac{Surplus\ labor}{necessary\ labor}\]
\[\frac{Surplus\ labor}{Working\ day}=\frac{Surplus\ value}{Value\ of\ the\ product}=\frac{Surplus\ product}{Total\ product}\]
\[\frac{Surplus\ value}{Value\ of\ labor\ power}=\frac{Surplus\ labor}{Necessary\ labor}=\frac{Unpaid\ labor}{Paid\ labor}\]
Capital, therefore, is not only the command over labor, as Adam Smith thought. It is essentially the command over unpaid labor.
Labor is a special commodity in that it has no existence before it is actuated
The value of labor is not determined by what it produces
Either the worker receives x pay for y hours of labor, and equivalents have been exchanged, or he receives less than x pay for y hours of labor
We must remember that the value of the commodity is determined by the amount of [[socially necessary labor]] it contains
The worker is selling labor power, not labor itself
The money-relation conceals the uncompensated labor of the wage-laborer
We see, further: the value of 3 shillings [the value of labor which creates a value of 6 shillings], which represents the paid portion of the working day, i.e. 6 hours of labor, appears as the value or price of the whole working day of 12 hours, which thus includes 6 hours which have not been paid for. The age-form thus extinguishes every trace of the division of the working day into necessary labor and surplus labor, into paid labor and unpaid labor. All labor appears as paid labor. Under the corvee system it is different. There the labor of the serf for himself, and his compulsory labor for the lord of the land, are demarcated very clearly both in time and space. In slave labor, even the part of the working day in which the slave is only replacing the value of his own means of subsistence, in which he therefore actually works for himself alone, appears as labor for his master. All his labor appears as unpaid labor. In wage-labor, on the contrary, even surplus labor, or unpaid labor, appears as paid. In the one case, the property-relation conceals the slave’s labor for himself; in the other case the money relation conceals the uncompensated labor of the wage laborer.
Marx remarks that much ink has been spilled at answering this very question. The reason for it being so is obvious, though!
From the worker’s standpoint:
From the capitalist’s standpoint:
Under wage labor, all labor seems to be for the worker, when indeed some of it is for the capitalist
It is important to note that at the end of the day the worker is paid for their necessary labor (?). Wages are paid out just enough to keep workers alive and reproducing
The sale of labor power takes place for definite times
The laws laid out in chapter 17 can also be used to describe the change in wages
In Marx’s time workers were paid daily, so the hourly wage would be calculated as a day’s wage / hours worked, such was the price of 1 working hour
Daily and weekly wages may remain the same while the price falls constantly, or vice versa
In 1860 there were riots against the imposition of hourly labor
If hourly labor isn’t fixed, then the capitalist can really get away with sneakily stealing surplus-value
If the ratio is daily value over working hours in a day, then as the denominator of that fraction increases so must the numerator to keep up with equivalents
In general, the longer the hours, the lower the wage
The lower the price of labor, the greater the quantity of labor is required
The low level of the price of labor acts as a stimulus to the extension of labor time
In finding the differences in wages between nations we must be reminded of the fact that wages are determined by the value of labor power
Price of necessities of life
Cost of training workers
Part played by women and children
Productivity of labor
Extensive and intensive magnitude of labor
Every country has a certain average intensity of labor
Relative value of money will be less in a country with less developed capitalist production
Note: nominal wages are labor power expressed in money. Real wages are the means of subsistence placed at the disposal of the worker
Wages in England at the time were much lower than on the continent, but labor was more intense
Relative price of labor varies to the inverse of the average intensity of labor
Marx comes right out of the gate mentioning that the production process is continuous
NOTE: recall that Harvey mentions that Capital is something constantly in motion
No society can go on producing (i.e. reproduce itself) unless it constantly reconverts a part of its products into means of production
If production has a capitalist form, reproduction does also
Capital doesn’t become capital until money constantly functions as capital
Variable capital is a particular historical form of appearance of a labor fund
If the capitalist doesn’t reproduce his capital he’ll be left without anything!
After a while the capital that the capitalist possesses is ONLY the surplus value extracted
The perpetuation of the worker is absolutely necessary for the worker
The worker leaves the process with a source of wealth but with nothing else to show for it
What was the starting point for capitalist production is a characteristic result of it: production converts material wealth into capital, and the worker leaves with a source of wealth, but unable to reproduce that wealth for himself
The worker engages in two kinds of consumption
In the former he belongs to capital, and the latter he belongs to himself, i.e. in the former case it allows the capitalist to continue to live, and in the latter case it allows himself to live
Individual consumption is what a worker needs to reproduce himself, and is seen as incidental to the labor process. Therefore individual consumption is just a facet of productive consumption
If a worker consumes more than he “needs”, this is called unproductive consumption
It is productive to the capitalist because it is the production of a force which produces wealth for other people (i.e. capitalists)
The capitalist class sees itself as the owners of skilled workers, as they see it as a form of variable capital
It is no accident that workers and capitalists confront each other in the market; capitalist society forces workers to do so!
Inversion which Converts the Property Laws of Commodity Production into Laws of Capitalist Appropriation
:CUSTOMID: the-capitalist-production-on-a-progressively-increasing-scale.-the-inversion-which-converts-the-property-laws-of-commodity-production-into-laws-of-capitalist-appropriation
Accumulation of capital: The employment of surplus-value as capital, i.e. its re-conversion into capital
If all that was left at the end of the labor process were surplus value, capital could never accumulate. A part of the surplus product is required for the transformation of capital
Surplus value can only be transformed into capital because the surplus product already comprises the material components of a new quantity of capital
Simple reproduction continues and continues, “changing into a spiral”
If a capitalist spends $10,000 of capital on an investment, and that returns $2,000, then that $2,000 is reinvested, which may beget $400, which may beget $80. This is the accumulation of capital
We can ask where the $10,000 comes from, but it is of no matter. The $2,000 comes from unpaid labor
“The working class creates by the surplus labor of one year the capital destined to employ additional labor in the following year.”
First mention of dialectics?
The property rights of capitalism are the rights to unpaid labor
The result of commodity production is:
Property laws are therefore based on commodity production
an Increasing Scale
:CUSTOMID: the-political-economists-erroneous-conception-of-reproduction-on-an-increasing-scale
Bourgeois economists would have you believe its everyone’s right to be a capitalist!
Hoarding is not the same as capital accumulation
The accumulation of commodities in great masses is the result of either a bottleneck in circulation or over-production
Bourgeois economists would have you believe also that all surplus-value is transformed into variable capital. This is not so, obviously
Discussion point: Capital at the end of the day doesn’t just become wages, as that would imply that all the capital laid out is equitably consumed by workers
Theory
:CUSTOMID: division-of-surplus-value-into-capital-and-revenue.-the-abstinence-theory
Accumulation is the conquest of the world of social wealth. It is the extension of the area of exploited human material and, at the same time, the extension of the direct and indirect sway of the capitalist.
Division of Surplus Value into Capital and Revenue, Determine the Extent of Accumulation, etc.
:CUSTOMID: the-circumstances-which-independently-of-the-proportional-division-of-surplus-value-into-capital-and-revenue-determine-the-extent-of-accumulation-etc.
Reminder: the rate of surplus-value depends on the degree of exploitation of labor power
The tendency of capital is to force the cost of labor to zero
See footnote 41 on a wrong prediction by Engels
The less the worker consumes, the less their wages ought to be
Note: the two primary creators of wealth are labor and land
At some point the accumulation of capital is able to augment beyond its own seemingly fixed limits
Supplemental: MR Online | Notes on Marx’s “General Law of Capitalist Accumulation”
“Composition of capital” can be understood in two senses:
The [[organic composition of capital]] is the value-composition of capital as determined by its technical composition
Growth of capital implies growth of variable capital
Capitalist accumulation can outpace the growth of adding workers to capital. It’s possible that the demand for labor power surpasses the rate of growth of capital
The more or less favorable circumstances in which wage-laborers support and multiply themselves in no way alter the fundamental character of capitalist production.
Accumulation of capital is therefore multiplication of the proletariat.
First mention of “proletariat”
If the price of labor power rises resulting from the accumulation of capital, the following are implied:
The rate of accumulation is the independent variable in all of this. Other factors, such as wages, are dependent on this
The relation between capital, accumulation, and the rate of wages is nothing other than the relation between the unpaid labor which has been transformed into capital and the additional paid labor necessary to set in motion this additional capital. It is therefore in no way a relation between two magnitudes which are mutually independent, i.e. between the magnitude of the capital and the numbers of the working population; it is rather, at bottom, only the relation between the unpaid and the paid labor of the same working population.
Industrial Reserve Army
:CUSTOMID: the-progressive-production-of-a-relative-surplus-population-or-industrial-reserve-army
Much like any other commodity, capitalism is able to produce a surplus of laborers
This surplus labor-power is called the reserve army of labor
This reserve army of labor allows capital to command large amounts of labor without disrupting the production process
The economic periods are cyclical: production at high pressure, crisis, stagnation, average activity
As the productivity of labor increases, capital increases its supply of labor more quickly than its demand for workers
The general movements of wages are generally regulated by the expansion and contraction of the reserve army of labor
Wages do not depend on the size of the reserve army (i.e. population size) but depend on capital’s valorization requirements, i.e. the demand for labor
Employed workers are in competition with unemployed workers
We have seen how money is transformed into capital; how surplus-value is made through capital, and how more capital is made from surplus-value. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalist production; capitalist production presupposes the availability of considerable masses of capital and labor-power in the hands of commodity producers. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn around in a never-ending circle, which we can only get out of by assuming a primitive accumulation… an accumulation which is not the result of the capitalist mode of production but its point of departure.
In actual history, it is a notorious fact that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, in short, force, play the greatest part.
side note: laborers are neither means of production in and of themselves (in that case they would be slaves), nor do they own the means of production
capitalism was born out of the ruin of feudalism
the worker was able to become a worker only after:
capitalism arises out of the abolition of feudalism and the waning of city-states
capitalism first started appearing in Italy, but Marx calls what happened in England the “classical” form of capitalism
Rendering context...