M-TH: Re: fixed capital
Jerry quotes from Capital II: For instance, consider the following, from Ch. 8 , on the subject of labour expended on the repair of fixed capital: "The fixed capital however requires also a positive expenditure of labour for its maintenance in good repair. The machinery must be cleaned from time to time. It is a question here of additional labour without which the machinery becomes useless, of merely warding off the noxious influences of the elements, which are inseparable from the process of production; hence it is a question of keeping the machinery literally in working order. It goes without saying that the normal durability of fixed capital is calculated on the supposition that all the conditions under which it can perform its functions normally during that time are fulfilled, just as we assume, in placing a man's life at 30 years on the average, that he will wash himself. It is here not a question of replacing the labour contained in the machine, but of constant additional labour made necessary by its use. It is not a question of labour performed by the machine, but of labour spent on it, of labour in which it is not an agent of production but raw material. The capital expended for this labour must be classed as circulating capital, although it does not enter into the labour-process proper to which the product owes its existence. This labour must be continually expended in production, hence its value must be continually replaced by that of the product. The capital invested in it belongs in that part of circulating capital which has to cover the unproductive costs and is to be distributed over the produced values according to an annual average calculation." and asks: So: is labour that is expended on the repair of constant fixed capital to be classified as part of [constant] circulating capital or part of variable capital? Furthermore, how can labour be "classed" as [constant] circulating capital? What then of the difference between "dead" and "living" labour? Marx is definitely talking about labour here, not labour-power. It's labour not *constituting* circulating capital, but as *expended on* keeping the fixed capital working. When he writes "the capital invested in it belongs in that part of circulating capital which has to cover the unproductive costs", he could have expanded it to say: "the capital spent on the labour-power needed to produce this labour" etc. Writing "the capital invested in it (the labour)" is a bit elliptical. It's an unproductive but necessary cost. As Jerry says: it becomes a little bit more complex when we discuss the distinction between [constant] fixed and "fluid" capital in Vol. 2 of _Capital_. but this is a case in which the commodity/capital/labour/labour-power relationships are made opaque by operating in the murky depths of the sphere of production rather than in the open sunshine of the marketplace. Cheers, Hugh --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: fixed capital?
Russ's point is that everything flows/panta rhei, except very occasionally and under pretty strong constraints. Not so much that, but I'll grant I've learnt one hell of a lot from this little exchange. What I was thinking of was that if capital is the social relationship between people mediated between the relationship between things could itever be fixed. I hadn't seen it in terms of the value relationship per so though- great thing about these lists is that a single mail can shed new light on shady ignorance. Buy gold (and a safe to keep it in, and a cutter to chop it up with, and a gun to defend it with)! Cheers, Hugh Sound fiscal advice for crisis perhaps, but if one looks at gold over the last 50 years it has performed miserably when compared to stocks and shares. Any comments on i-tulip.com though Hugh? And on the front page of the FT (a mere 20p for at the uni shop!) there's talk of a shift from .coms back to Blue Chips. Is this the Last Minute for the .coms? Russ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: fixed capital
Yes, but it becomes a little bit more complex when we discuss the distinction between [constant] fixed and "fluid" capital in Vol. 2 of _Capital_. For instance, consider the following, from Ch. 8 , on the subject of labour expended on the repair of fixed capital: "The fixed capital however requires also a positive expenditure of labour for its maintenance in good repair. The machinery must be cleaned from time to time. It is a question here of additional labour without which the machinery becomes useless, of merely warding off the noxious influences of the elements, which are inseparable from the process of production; hence it is a question of keeping the machinery literally in working order. It goes without saying that the normal durability of fixed capital is calculated on the supposition that all the conditions under which it can perform its functions normally during that time are fulfilled, just as we assume, in placing a man's life at 30 years on the average, that he will wash himself. It is here not a question of replacing the labour contained in the machine, but of constant additional labour made necessary by its use. It is not a question of labour performed by the machine, but of labour spent on it, of labour in which it is not an agent of production but raw material. The capital expended for this labour must be classed as circulating capital, although it does not enter into the labour-process proper to which the product owes its existence. This labour must be continually expended in production, hence its value must be continually replaced by that of the product. The capital invested in it belongs in that part of circulating capital which has to cover the unproductive costs and is to be distributed over the produced values according to an annual average calculation." So: is labour that is expended on the repair of constant fixed capital to be classified as part of [constant] circulating capital or part of variable capital? Furthermore, how can labour be "classed" as [constant] circulating capital? What then of the difference between "dead" and "living" labour? Jerry --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: fixed capital?
Russ writes: This commoditiness is social, it is not in the object itself. It extends only so long as the object is _available_ for exchange. Robinsonades are always useful here: when a buccaneer steals some treasure it is still a commodity, but when he buries his treasure it ceases to be one. When Crusoe digs it up it does not become a commodity. Only when Crusoe returns with his new found booty to a system of commodity exchange does it become once more a commodity. Fine. And it's the same with factories I guess. But I wonder whether, from a Marxist angle, if this is all an absurdity: can capital _ever_ be truely fixed? The reason he called it fixed was that unlike labour-power it wasn't a factor in the variance between M' and M''. Fixed capital just passes on its value to the commodity it's applied to, it adds nothing new. So it's only fixed in terms of generating value. Variable capital, on the other hand, exchanges value for the commodity labour-power, employs the labour-power and bingo out the other side comes more value than was put in, because the value of the labour-power employed was less than the value of the labour the labour-power employed was able to add to the commodities in question. C' with a given value becomes C'' with a greater value, and the solution to this magical equation, where something appears to come from nothing is in the exchange of labour-power with capital. The capital invested in labour-power actually buys the right to the labour produced by the labour-power, hence the value coming out is more than the value put in, hence the capital invested here appears to be variable. Cheers, Hugh --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: fixed capital?
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:25:56 +0100 Hugh Rodwell said: ... And it's the same with factories I guess. But I wonder whether, from a Marxist angle, if this is all an absurdity: can capital _ever_ be truely fixed? The reason he called it fixed was that unlike labour-power it wasn't a factor in the variance between M' and M''. Fixed capital just passes on its value to the commodity it's applied to, it adds nothing new. So it's only fixed in terms of generating value. Minor point, but you're thinking of constant capital here, not fixed capital alone. Constant divides into fixed and circulating capital; fixed capital is that which lasts for more than one production cycle, and therefore passes on only part of its value each time. Walter Daum Variable capital, on the other hand, exchanges value for the commodity labour-power, employs the labour-power and bingo out the other side comes more value than was put in, because the value of the labour-power employed was less than the value of the labour the labour-power employed was able to add to the commodities in question. C' with a given value becomes C'' with a greater value, and the solution to this magical equation, where something appears to come from nothing is in the exchange of labour-power with capital. The capital invested in labour-power actually buys the right to the labour produced by the labour-power, hence the value coming out is more than the value put in, hence the capital invested here appears to be variable. Cheers, Hugh --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: fixed capital?
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:25:56 +0100 Hugh Rodwell said: ... And it's the same with factories I guess. But I wonder whether, from a Marxist angle, if this is all an absurdity: can capital _ever_ be truely fixed? The reason he called it fixed was that unlike labour-power it wasn't a factor in the variance between M' and M''. Fixed capital just passes on its value to the commodity it's applied to, it adds nothing new. So it's only fixed in terms of generating value. Minor point, but you're thinking of constant capital here, not fixed capital alone. Constant divides into fixed and circulating capital; fixed capital is that which lasts for more than one production cycle, and therefore passes on only part of its value each time. Walter Daum Of course, Walter's right. Into the corner with the pointy hat, Hugh! It was the phrasing of Russ's point that got me off on that tack: And it's the same with factories I guess. But I wonder whether, from a Marxist angle, if this is all an absurdity: can capital _ever_ be truely fixed? I automatically contrasted variable with its opposite -- constant -- and forgot the different use Marx makes of "fixed", following bourgeois usage (ie fixed vs circulating capital) as Walter points out. Russ's point is that everything flows/panta rhei, except very occasionally and under pretty strong constraints. I was pointing to the fixity of constant capital vs the apparent mutability of variable capital. constantnothing comes of nothing variablesomething comes of nothing spontaneous generation which is the point of the cycle we're at at the moment with the IT bubble doing a sort of Big Bang in reverse -- we're in the super-expansion phase, it'll soon be just plain old expansion, very briefly (if at all), then the bang itself, then silence. Buy gold (and a safe to keep it in, and a cutter to chop it up with, and a gun to defend it with)! Cheers, Hugh --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
