In a message dated 7/13/2010 9:23:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) writes: SECTION 5 THE CAPITALISTIC CHARACTER OF MANUFACTURE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- (Note: The title is extremely revealing)
An increased number of labourers under the control of one capitalist is the natural starting-point, as well of co-operation generally, as of manufacture in particular. But the division of labour in manufacture makes this increase in the number of workmen a technical necessity. (Note: what makes the increase in the number of workers necessary is not capital as a social power but the technical aspect of division of labor). 1). The minimum number that any given capitalist is bound to employ is here prescribed by the previously established division of labour. On the other hand, the advantages of further division are obtainable only by adding to the number of workmen, and this can be done only by adding multiples of the various detail groups. But an increase in the variable component of the capital employed necessitates an increase in its constant component, too, in the workshops, implements, &c., and, in particular, in the raw material, the call for which grows quicker than the number of workmen. The quantity of it consumed in a given time, by a given amount of labour, increases in the same ratio as does the productive power of that labour in consequence of its division. Hence, it is a law, based on the very nature of manufacture, that the minimum amount of capital, which is bound to be in the hands of each capitalist, must keep increasing; in other words, that the transformation into capital of the social means of production and subsistence must keep extending. [39] (Note In the last sentence above Marx speaks of the "very nature of manufacture" and in the following sentence below he speaks of "a form of existence" or mode of existence of capital. Or what is the same capital as a mode of accumulation.) 2). In manufacture, as well as in simple co-operation, the collective working organism is a form of existence of capital. The mechanism that is made up of numerous individual detail labourers belongs to the capitalist. Hence, the productive power resulting from a combination of labours appears to be the productive power of capital. Manufacture proper not only subjects the previously independent workman to the discipline and command of capital, but, in addition, creates a hierarchic gradation of the workmen themselves. While simple co-operation leaves the mode of working by the individual for the most part unchanged, manufacture thoroughly revolutionises it, and seizes labour-power by its very roots. (Note: I read the above as follows: In manufacture, as well as in simple co-operation, the collective working organism is a form of existence of capital. The mechanism that is made up of numerous individual detail labourers IS OWNED BY the capitalist, BUT THE MECHANISM IS NOT CAPITAL. Hence, the productive power resulting from a combination of labours ONLY appears to be the productive power of capital. THE MECHANISM IS Manufacture proper . . . . WHICH, not only subjects the previously independent workman to the discipline and command of capital, but, in addition, creates a hierarchic gradation of the workmen themselves. While simple co-operation leaves the mode of working by the individual for the most part unchanged, manufacture thoroughly revolutionises it, and seizes labour-power by its very roots.) 3). It converts the labourer into a crippled monstrosity, by forcing his detail dexterity at the expense of a world of productive capabilities and instincts; just as in the States of La Plata they butcher a whole beast for the sake of his hide or his tallow. Not only is the detail work distributed to the different individuals, but the individual himself is made the automatic motor of a fractional operation, [40] and the absurd fable of Menenius Agrippa, which makes man a mere fragment of his own body, becomes realised. [41] If, at first, the workman sells his labour-power to capital, because the material means of producing a commodity fail him, now his very labour-power refuses its services unless it has been sold to capital. Its functions can be exercised only in an environment that exists in the workshop of the capitalist after the sale. By nature unfitted to make anything independently, the manufacturing labourer develops productive activity as a mere appendage of the capitalist’s workshop. [42] As the chosen people bore in their features the sign manual of Jehovah, so division of labour brands the manufacturing workman as the property of capital. (Note: "If, at first, the workman sells his labour-power to capital, because the material means of producing a commodity fail him, now his very labour-power refuses its services unless it has been sold to capital. Its functions can be exercised only in an environment that exists in the workshop of the capitalist after the sale." Under point 2). Marx speaks of "the collective working organism is a form of existence of capital" and in my mind this begs the question: "What is the collective working organism" if not means of production + the human? Means of production + the human = division of labor. This formula becomes a form or mode of existence of capital but in and of itself is no more capital than "the man in moon." Thus, I tend to locate the source or genesis of antagonism in property rather than means of production. On the other hand the contradiction between old and new means of production is the self contained inherent movement of human beings in the environment of earth, struggling and developing the means to reproduce our self affirming life activity. Finally Marx speak of the appearance of the free laborer in the 15 th century. One might call this the beginning of capitalism but no one can call this the emergence of the capitalist mode of commodity production as a system. WL. (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
