Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
It's basically "across society". I.e. what is the average amount of a labour required to produce x commodity in y society.
Reading Marx's 'Capital': Tips, Questions, Theory, Support and Bookclub Bunfight...
- Thread starter Riklet
- Start date
It's basically "across society". I.e. what is the average amount of a labour required to produce x commodity in y society.
Idaho
blah blah blah
So, sticking with the table, if I own a machine that I use to produce tables with only 10% of the labour time of a normal table - but has a similar exchange value as a normal table - what is the gap in value between exchange value and labour value (compared to the normal table)? Has my labour value increased, or is the exchange value wrong in some way?
shifting gears
Well-Known Member
Never mind that, I'm ringing the Luddites
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
Well this is the whole point of owning a machine, of course. Marx is quite into machines. There are several points to say about this:
1. There is value contained in the machine, from the workers who made it.
2. This value is then also transferred into the value of the commodity.
3. As the machine wears out, its value leaks into the commodities it produces. Then it will need replacing.
4. Capitalists are in a race to drive down wages and socially necessary labour time and they use machines to do that.
5. Initially your machine will put you at the front of the race, but this will not last.
6. Every other capitalist who can afford to buy the machine will do so, meaning that you will lose your advantage as the new socially necessary labour time becomes normal.
7. Other capitalists will develop machines that can reduce the socially necessary labour time even more. Then you will be at the back of the race because your competitors will buy the new machine whilst yours is still chugging along trying to reproduce its purchase cost in value.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Ok, I understand that, but this step:
Seems a very odd way of looking at it. Entropy is degrading the machine - its use value is evaporating, not moving into something else surely?
So how does this all work in industries where labour cost constitutes a tiny fraction of the cost, and machine cost is the most significant element? Perhaps in the future, the only element?
Seems a very odd way of looking at it. Entropy is degrading the machine - its use value is evaporating, not moving into something else surely?
So how does this all work in industries where labour cost constitutes a tiny fraction of the cost, and machine cost is the most significant element? Perhaps in the future, the only element?
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
What about repairs, maintainance, new parts, updates etc.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
It can seem odd, I get that. Marx is keen on the idea that the inner workings of capitalism are hidden and have to be unpicked and so the more usual ways of looking at things do get discarded sometimes.
If I buy a record and play it so many times that it wear out, then its use value has been destroyed. But that's not quite the same as machinery which is used as part of the means of production. Clearly the cost of the machine has to be factored in to the price of the commodity it is producing - that is standard accountancy I would think. And "depreciation" is also an standard accountancy term.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
Marx talks about the "rising organic composition of capital" and means exactly this (less labour, more machinery and means of production).
When this happens you get less surplus value (because that can only be produced by workers), so the rate of profit declines. This can lead to crisis.
There is an anecdote where Henry Ford junior shows the union rep a new automated production line for cars and asks how he is going to get the robots to pay union dues. The union rep replies by asking how Ford is going to get the robots to buy his cars...
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
I'm thinking of an axe whose head blunts and needs to be replaced and whose handle breaks and needs to be replaced.
You can even use the axe itself to make a new handle for the same tool, transferring some value from the head to the haft. But if someone with a special axe-making machine which they can afford and you can't produces many axes and you buy one, each of those axes has the same use value as yours but altogether that person is creating far more exchange-value than you with your one axe can do, and they certainly produce more surplus value with each extra axe they make with their axe machine (edit: axes they won't use, but will only sell)
I dunno, just woken up. I need to drink more tea before returning to this thread.
You can even use the axe itself to make a new handle for the same tool, transferring some value from the head to the haft. But if someone with a special axe-making machine which they can afford and you can't produces many axes and you buy one, each of those axes has the same use value as yours but altogether that person is creating far more exchange-value than you with your one axe can do, and they certainly produce more surplus value with each extra axe they make with their axe machine (edit: axes they won't use, but will only sell)
I dunno, just woken up. I need to drink more tea before returning to this thread.
Last edited:
Idaho
blah blah blah
Yes I agree that the cost of capital depreciation *should be factored into the price of goods produced. But to see labour value as an immutable force that flows from one thing to another seems a bit, er.. pre modern?
*(I'm sure it isn't always, and then we also have a potential difference between exchange value and price - but that is another bag of wasps).
*(I'm sure it isn't always, and then we also have a potential difference between exchange value and price - but that is another bag of wasps).
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The idea of making the customer pay is one that's now obsolete? Interesting.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Yes this part I very much understand and agree with. It's the more primal level "particle physics" of Marxism that seems wrong to me.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
So such activities just appear out of thin air? Repair maintainance workers don't need to be employed. Repair parts don't need to be produced.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
It's a model and you can subscribe to it or not.
In terms of physics I don't think it's sensible to say that machines decay just because of "entropy" though - there are clearly specific processes happening which are making them decay. Like, they will end up being useless twice as fast if the factory runs a night shift, for example.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Of course. But I don't see why it's useful to see that as labour value flowing into the goods themselves.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Value is a social relation. There are no strong readings of capital as arguing that value is physical, substantive. The whole point is that its social.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
I think bringing entropy in doesn't help, because we're not talking about using things till the end of their natural lifespan. we're talking (and so was Marx) about producing things to appropriate their value. The natural lifespan of a product vis-a-vis entropy has little to do with its value. Planned obsolescence as a way of controlling the availability of surplus value is far more important IMO. Capitalism isn't about using things till they break, it's about using things till someone can persuade you to by a new one.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Use value of prior labour is quite clearly embodied in machinery or there is no point in them.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
yeah if you take a machine apart for storage, mothball it, put it in petroleum jelly or however these preservatives work entropy is not going to affect it in a human lifetime meaningful way. It might be obsolete in 30 yrs time but it'd still work. Its the using of the machine that wears it down then surely
Idaho
blah blah blah
Now that starts to become a whole new dimension of calculations. Machines may not deteriorate twice as fast by being run twice as much. Some machines would deteriorate faster by being stopped and started. Some may have specific parts that wear out, but constitute a fraction of the total machine cost. The possibilities here are endless.It's a model and you can subscribe to it or not.
In terms of physics I don't think it's sensible to say that machines decay just because of "entropy" though - there are clearly specific processes happening which are making them decay. Like, they will end up being useless twice as fast if the factory runs a night shift, for example.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I must say, it's quite odd to see that a part of capital that was most far seeing and clear - modern really existing capital being obsessed with it - is pre-modern. The suggestion that machinery can develop to such an extent that value-producing labour-power has to 'step aside' is utterly central to today in any manner you which to examine it - economically, politically, socially.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
And what does it do in its operation? Bearing in mind it cannot impart it's own use value into other commodities it produces - that would be outrageously pre-modern.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Planned obsolescence is largely unplanned I would suggest. It's a result of the need to recoup capital costs at a pace that the market will pay for. I think Renault would love to be able to make cars that lasted 3 times longer than the other manufacturers, but how much is Joe public willing to spend on a car? How much manufacturing time, cost etc, not to mention marketing cost, etc would Renault be willing to gamble on producing a bomb proof super car that the public might not like, or liking, might not be willing to pay for?
The scale of large businesses are such that they only know years after the event whether they are profitable or bankrupt. They wouldn't even dare dream of the level of market control you suggest.
Idaho
blah blah blah
If you could just put your contempt for me aside for a moment (we can both just accept that it's there and not mention it). Could you explain your point a little bit more? I think it's an important one, but I don't understand it.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
FWIW I think you're wrong about this. Planned Obsolescence has been a conscious decision of manufacturers for decades. Plus if you want a car that lasts longer than a Renault, buy a Mercedes, or a Land Rover. People will pay extra for a longer lifespan.
Wayback Machine
Eta: it's quite blatant, even now
Diesel Car Scrappage Scheme 2017 | UK Government Scrappage Scheme <- just to be clear, this has fuck all to do with pollution and everything to do with propping up the motor industry.
Last edited:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What do you want explaining?
Idaho
blah blah blah
What do you mean by "controlling the availability of surplus value"?
I don't think we are disagreeing - in that we both agree that obsolescence is inbuilt. I think it's in the mechanism of how that happens that is in question. I need to understand what you mean better.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
Automation. It's a thing.
