On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > What do you mean by saying "displace" instead of "save". > > I would think that machinery reduces the amount of labor time needed to > produce a commodity. >
Although that is indeed the standard view, I don't believe it is demonstrated. Machinery does reduce the amount of labor time the capitalist has to pay for but it does so at least in part by shifting social and environmental costs off the employer's balance sheet. What is uncertain is whether the direct labor costs of production are lowered more or less than the collateral damage of the externalized environmental and social costs. I'm beginning to suspect that there is no global saving of labor, only a * shifting* of labor costs. Marx's analysis, while insightful, is *from the perspective of capital: "*The persons exist for one another merely as representations of, and therefore, as owners of, commodities. In the course of our investigation, we shall find, in general, that the characters who appear on the economic stage are but the personifications of the economic relations that exist between them." When Marx talks about "value" (i.e., exchange value) he is not talking about something universal and transcendent, he is talking about a *theatrical performance*. > As Marx puts it: "Like every other increase in the productiveness of > labour, machinery is intended to cheapen commodities, and, by shortening > that portion of the working-day, in which the labourer works for himself, > to lengthen the other portion that he gives, without an equivalent, to the > capitalist. In short, it is a means for producing surplus-value." > > > ... > > > I repeat machines DO NOT *save* labor. Nor do they *substitute* for > labor. > > The consumption of fuel does that. The machine merely facilitates the > > substitution of (massive amounts of cheap) fuel for labor. And the fuel > is > > cheap because it's full cost is not incorporated into its price. > > Human power is very expensive, and most human work isn't power intensive, > instead it depends on human decision making. > > > ... > > > Here's the embarrassing part: S & K's "mathematical model" is, > essentially, > > a mechanical analogy that "abstracts from" (ignores) basic mechanical > > principles. A complex machine is a combination of simple machines. The > > mechanical efficiency of the complex machine is calculated by multiplying > > together the mechanical efficiency of the parts. Mechanical efficiency > is * > > always* less than 1. Therefore, ceteris paribus, the more complex the > > machine the less efficient it becomes mechanically -- that is to say the > > more waste heat and wear it generates. > > Modern computers are very complex, but consume little energy. > > > The bottom line is that S & K's paper is ecologically vacant. > > The paper is just proposing a simple solution to a complex program. > Basically, the idea is to tax the savings of old people which would put > their retirement years at risk and transfer it to the young who don't want > to work or get an education. > > > -- > Ron > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
