I'm glad you used the example of cotton spinning as an analogy, Julio, because It something I have an inkling of knowledge about. I keep a poster of Crompton's spinning mule on my wall and I feel as though I "discovered" Dorning Rasbotham's "Thoughts on the Use of Machines in the Cotton Manufacture" and its resonance in subsequent mythology of capital. I also feel rather possessive about Sydney Chapman whose The Lancashire Cotton Industry was highly regarded by Alfred Marshall and formed the basis for his subsequent theory of the hours of labour. So, yes, bring on the cotton!
Alf Hornborg wrote a paper a few years ago on "the industrial revolution as time-space appropriation and environmental load displacement" that I would like to quote you the abstract from to save me the trouble of paraphrasing: Using historical statistics on inputs of land and labor embodied in cotton > and wool production, respectively, estimates are made of the amount of > British land and labor that were ‘saved’ by displacing fibre production to > North America. By comparing inputs of land and labor in the textile exports > of England with those in some commodities imported from its colonial > periphery, and juxtaposing these data with exchange rates, estimates are > also made of unequal exchange. Using such methods, it is possible to bring > together the Marxist concern with unequal exchanges of labor time, on one > hand, with the more recent concern with ecological footprints, on the other. Now Marx argued that increased labour productivity,as a result of the use of machines decreased the value (that is the embodied labour time) per item produced while increasing the proportion of "dead labour" (in the form of machinery) relative to living labour. Or, to use Allyn Young's terminology more roundabout production. But Hornborg's analysis suggests something radically different going on in Lancashire *and Dixie*, more akin to the production of "surplus profit" than of relative surplus value. Rather than reducing the total labour time (including that implied in differential land rent) incorporated into each unit of output, the cotton-spinning machines (and their metropolitan localization) enforced a regime of unequal exchange that enabled the cotton manufacturers to not have to pay for the labour incorporated in the raw materials. That is to say, the regime of unequal exchange was an "external economy" as Marshall defined it and as Chapman, Pigou and John Maurice Clark elaborated. It seems to me that we have to disabuse ourselves of the myth of "economies of scale." Beyond the modest savings from spreading set up costs, there is no such thing. Most so-called economies of scale are simply ways to externalize part of the cost of production -- that is to take advantage of external economies, one of the most pernicious of is unequal exchange. Fossil fuels are almost the ideal "externalizers" in that their carbon dioxide emissions are utterly innocuous on a small scale as they can be readily reabsorbed by vegetation and oceans. It's only globally and in the very long-term that their effects are potentially catastrophic (and in the long run were all dead). But again, even the destructive effects of externalities are, up to a point, a bonus from the perspective of individual capitals because they add to the aggregate of "value" (labour time) without augmenting the workers' collective wealth and thus undermining the necessity of their continuing to work. Waste solves the problem of superfluity. Waste is what keeps the social forces created through the organization capital from "blowing the foundation sky-high." On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Julio Huato <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom wrote: > > > Although I can't eliminate uncertainty and won't try, I suspect there is > > indeed a "fundamental and unsolvable" problem with so-called renewable > > energy sources that arises from the nature of "embodied energy." > > Do you mean unsolvable under capitalism or unsolvable under any other > possible social arrangement? > > > Currently, the cost of wind and solar infrastructure depends on cheap > > inputs of fossil fuels in their manufacture and construction. Wind and > > solar built by wind and solar would be much more expensive than wind and > > solar built by coal and petroleum. However, if that problem was solved it > > would give rise to yet another problem: the low cost of renewable energy > > inputs would then be available to subsidize unconventional fossil fuel > > extraction just as today the availability of cheap natural gas makes tar > > sands oil economically feasible. > > Tom, > > This strikes me as odd. I understand the issue of scale, which you > adequately raise. A procedure that dominates locally does not > necessarily scale up globally. But stating things this way does not > account for the cumulative punch that a new method of production > gathers once it establishes itself locally. Let me use a historical > analog to wrap my mind around this: > > Producing textiles with the aid of spinners is one thing, but making > spinners with the aid of machines is not to be taken for granted. > Mechanizing the making of spinners must prove to be more efficient (in > the capitalist sense) than manufacturing (in the literal sense) the > spinners. And then mechanizing the making of spinner-making machines > would be a higher round altogether, and so on, which must -- similarly > -- demonstrate its superiority in practice. Clearly, as mechanization > expands concentrically, it has to overcome specific obstacles each > time. > > However, there's a certain virulence here: Each time mechanization > advances locally, the marginal product of (living) labor (power) tends > to increase. Thus, it becomes increasingly expensive to have workers > do what machines can do at a lower cost. Thus, once mechanization > sets in, it becomes a sort of a juggernaut that keeps swallowing the > farther links of the increasingly "roundabout" (Allyn Young) > production processes. It all hinges on the nonrivalry of machines and > machine complexes, industrial plants, etc. (so-called "scale > economies"), which -- as Marx notes -- allows for labor cooperation to > expand spectacularly. (Cooperation = the sharing of means of > production by workers.) > > Now, it is not at all clear to me why renewable energy sources are not > akin to mechanization. The key to understanding this is, IMO, the > fact that the definition of wealth (use value) is an arena of the > class struggle. People are pushing back against the prevailing > definition of wealth under the aegis of capital, a definition of > wealth that shortchanges labor and the natural conditions for life in > the planet. This is something we owe to the environmental movement. > If this persists, oil production and consumption are going to become > increasingly costly for the capitalists as much as they are already > costly for the rest of us. Thus, renewable sources become cheaper by > comparison, not only as inputs in other processes, but also as inputs > in the production of its own inputs, which turns the process into a > juggernaut similarly to mechanization and automation. No? > > Tom replies to raghu on the commensurability of labor and environmental > costs: > > > No [I am not assuming that they are commensurable], I am assuming that > > it is currently very difficult to estimate the magnitude of these costs > and > > that this difficulty is made worse by the impulse to do the accounting in > > monetary units, which essentially ratifies the fetishization of the > social > > relations underlying the commodity form. > > I agree with Tom that these costs are very difficult to estimate. > However, I think they are commensurable in principle. Cf. my > discussion with Fred. The natural environment is all about us, about > what it means to us. With our actions and omissions, we are making it > clear how much we value a product we may call: "sustainable > interaction with the rest of nature." And doing it with money is fine > as a starting point. Except that we should push politically, so that > money (or any other financial claim for that matter) increasingly > internalizes these costs and makes it less necessary to impute them. > > >From another post, Tom: > > > surplus value but in my view is compatible with it. My premise is that > what > > Marx called "surplus value" is what neoclassical welfare economics calls > > "externalities" in the form of "uncompensated services" and "uncharged > > disservices" and that a fuller appreciation of the accumulation process > can > > be gained by looking beyond the extension and intensification of direct > > labor services. > > Yes, absolutely. IMO, the clearest way to note this is by tracing the > modern literature on growth accounting, from Denison to Solow to > Griliches to Jorgenson, etc. FWIW. > > Disclosure: I have not read Sachs' paper. > _______________________________________________ > 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
