Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 21:47:11 -0400 (EDT) From: louisgodena-AT-ids.net (Louis R Godena) Subject: M-I: Notes on Value (forward from moderator) The following message from Mark Jones <majones-AT-netcomuk.co.uk> bounced to the moderators (non-member submission). Louis Godena ______________________________________ >Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 01:52:23 -0700 >From: Mark Jones <majones-AT-netcomuk.co.uk> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320UK (Win16; I) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU >Subject: Notes on Value >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >Notes on Value and Accumulation [1979] > >The fundamental law of capitalist equilibrium is this: equilibrium >depends on the valorisation of surplus value as new capital. >Even if every possible constraint on the rate of accumulation is >assumed to be operating maximally, accumulation still has an >inherent tendency to destroy equilibrium. Time's arrow points in >one direction. >Assume a low secular rate of accumulation and technical >innovation. >Assume that most surplus value is unproductively consumed >(luxury production etc.). The rate of accumulation will be >governed by the rate of innovation (diffusion will be guaranteed >by competition). > >Other things being equal competition will equilibrate the rate of >productivity increase and the rate of accumulation. Assume that >such an equilibration has held good in the real history of the >capitalist mode of production, so that all its historical crises, >including imperialist wars, are no more than crises of >equilibration. > >Is it then possible to postulate a deeper 'teleological' process? > >The greater the rate of accumulation, the more technical and >social capacity capitalism has to create a reserve army of labour. >This is achieved by concentration, expulsion of live labour from >production and by cheapening products which constitute the cost >of variable capital (the wage)- the main means of smashing >subordinate social formations and 'freeing' new reservoirs of >proletarianised humanity. > >Regardless of the degree of violence and suffering entailed, the >process will always be successful, its degree and rapidity more or >less dependent on the rate of accumulation. (The higher the rate >of accumulation, the more violent and traumatic the process of >proletarianisation but equally, the more social reserves available >to capital to bear the political and social on-costs). > >Nature of the reserve army of labour: > >The creation of a reserve army of labour is the natural correlative >and consequence of the historical and spatial spread of capitalist >production. And it is a necessary condition of its existence. > >For if capitalist accumulation had leapt fully armed and developed >from the womb of history, with no need to develop from lower >to higher forms (manufacture to machinofacture etc.) and >capable of instantaneously filling the available social and >geographical space, commoditising social relations so that >undifferentiated general labour became at once the universal >norm, and all other dispossessed social classes were subsumed >into the proletariat, then accumulation would by definition be >impossible, except on the following conditions: > >1. The level of wages remain constant indefinitely (i.e., conditions >in the labour-market of the fully-employed economy did not >prevent profit-formation). > >2. There was a constant increase in the rate of relative surplus >value (a constant rate of surplus value would entail the creation >of unemployment). > >These conditions cannot be met. The rate of increase in the rate >of surplus value would be exponential; the price of stability >(equilibrium with full employment) would be a constantly >increasing rate of surplus value, in which the increments to the >rate of surplus value would feed on themselves. > >The reason for this is that the rising organic composition of >capital means that the profit rate must decline unless the rate of >relative surplus rises to compensate, and in conditions of >permanent full employment of the planet's entire proletariat the >rise in the rate of surplus value must be sufficient of itself to >account form any offsetting ris in the organic composition. > >The failure to meet these conditions takes the form of uneven >development- crisis in the form of growing sectoral imbalances, >with over-production and underconsumption existing siding by >side; these sectoral imbalances appear as the result of inadequate >technology, too low rate of innovation etc. (e.g. magnificent >productivity and output quality of Mercedes-Benz, but overall >car production technology too poor to satisfy real human >demand for mobility, or to reduce the cost of variable capital by >reducing transport costs). > >Thus, overproduction of Mercedes cars. > >Inevitably, therefore, capitalist accumulation is accompanied by >the creation of a reserve army of labour; the fault seems to be in >the low rate of technical change and the generally-inadequate >level of technology, registering in sectoral disequilibria (law of >uneven development). > >But in fact, the higher the rate of technical change and >productivity growth the worse the problems become, because >there is no optimal level of technique in production which can >allow for permanent equilibrium and full employment. > >Capitalist accumulation depends for its existence on a low level of >productivity and technology and historically-low levels of >accumulation. Low productivity, historically inadequate >technology and low rate of surplus value are the obverse of >profis, surplus value and accumulation. > >This in itself specifies the essentially transitional nature of >capitalist society. > >'The mode of production of society, which expresses its >existential needs, is its constitutive historical basis from which its >historical movement unfolds': Marcuse > >Adorno and Hegel initiated and repeated this. > >What is the class nature of machinery and technology? > >Horkheimer and Adorno in Dialectic of Enlightenment (mid- >1940s) identified bourgeois domination at the level of an all- >pervasive 'instrumental reason' whose 'adequate form' was the >factory system. > >Hegel in Phenomenology of Mind refers to the "object" >(Gegenstand) and "objectivity" (Gegenst=E4ndlichkeit) but not to >the "objectification" (Vergegenst=E4ndlichung) which Marx >deployed in the 1844 Manuscripts as the crucial step in >"inverting" Hegel and so clearing the way for the discussion of >material production, production as a social process of object >ification. > >Through the medium of objectivity the mind returns to itself, >becoming for itself: this is the essence of the Hegelian dialectic >(c.f. Kantian dialectic of transcendental subject and object). > >The object exists as a stage in the self-production of Mind. > >Thus for Hegel "objectivity" carries the negative significance of >being the "other" of Mind, an "other" which is to undergo self- >transcendence (to be "sublated" (aufgehoben in the Hegelian >terminology). > >For Marx, the object-world is primary; the autonomous existence >of objects makes possible the process of objectification, when, in >the process of social-production, use-values acquire a social >form as value: they objectify a social relation. > >Objectification is a social rather than an aprioristic or solipsistic >process. > >Oositing of objects by the mind - Hegel. > >Note: 1844 Mss were first published in Germany in 1932 (!) > >Necessary to consider Hegel's version of the "object", which has >the significance of -- that which stands over and against Mind >("Gegen-stand" = "against-Mind"). > >'For Hegel, "object" is not just house, chair, etc., but any >supposed "object" of a supposed "subject": as it is stripped of >this fetishistic appearance, the "object" of Mind turns, through >many moments, from the house of sense-certainty to the God of >religion, and finally the "object" turns (back) into Mind, which >recognises its other as in truth itself, thereby sublating "other- >ness" altogether. In this sense, "objectification" is itself >sublated' . > >Marx first uses the term "objectification" in the 1844 MSS , and >does so in the non-Hegelian sense of the objectification of >labour. Hegel comes near this in his section on Lordship and >Bondage. When he uses the derivative fremd (alien) to >characterise the relation of bondsman to lord: the bondsman's >consciousness 'trembles' (zittert) before 'the alien, external reality' >(das fremde Wesen) and in labour is confronted with an 'alien >meaning' (fremder Sinn) . In Soviet Marxism Marcuse moves >towards a convergence theory of the blocs: both participate in >the 'general trend of technical progress', which is progress >towards domination over both the natural world and the human >intersubjectivity (reduced to a social 'one-dimensionality'): > >Not only the application of technology but technology itself is >domination (of nature and men) - methodical, scientific, >calculated, calculating control. Scientific purposes and interests >are not foisted upon technology 'subsequently' and from the >outside; they enter the very construction of the technical >apparatus . > >>From this Marcuse concludes that it has become an ideological >absurdity to speak of advanced capitalist society being 'pregnant' >with socialism. > >Notes on war and crisis > >The function of war as the mechanism of unblocking logjammed >accumulation processes, is fundamental. > >International competition at both economic and political levels is >merely the appearance form of the accumulation process. The >barriers to accumulation are in every crisis of a twofold and >apparently opposite nature. On one side the TRPF [the Law of >the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall] results from basic >technical inadequacies in the social division of labour (some of >whose output effects are a combination of logjams and sectoral >overproduction (unrealisable new value) which all serves to >indicate new directions (outlets) for capital-flows and to mitigate >the rising organic composition of capital. > >The problem of sectoral overproduction is particularly visible and >leads to ideological resonances in the workers movement -- this >is to do with the 'cornucopia' effects of capitalist production, its >technical boundlessness and purely social limitations. > >Such perceptions are entirely illusory; sectoral overproduction is >the direct consequence of technical (not social) limitations. Such >limitations can be of a systemic, basic nature. (e.g. >overproduction of cars in the west is an index of the inefficiency >and low technical level of transport systems in general, in the >given historico-geographical contexts). > >Thus the primary problem is the inadequacy of the productivity of >labour and/or capital. Of course this inadequacy- which is >fundamental to and in a sense defines the nature of capitalism, >has an iterative, cyclical nature in which cause and effects are >interactive. > >This iterative 'stasis' is itself a factor leading to crises, which >represent the explosive resolution of problems which endlessly >compounded themselves, as inefficiencies in one place led to >stagnation in another which reinforced the original inefficiency. >There is an immanent circularity about the processes of science, >the inadequate, one-sided development of technology and >production, labour indiscipline, inflation etc. > >Notes on overproduction > >Crisis is the result of both under- and over-production. Crises >result from the overdevelopment of productive forces, technique, >productivity etc. relative to the overall social structure, >development of credit, banks, markets, distribution, of states, of >physical-resource inputs, all the constraining capital-flows, the >circuits of production/realisation. > >Result is overcapacity, falling plant utilisation levels etc., >coinciding with shortages and bottlenecks, both in the labour >markets (chronic shortage of skilled labour etc.), producer goods >and other industries. These secondary effects both compound >and protract the crisis, actually making it less explosive. > >The absolute overproduction of capital (inability of capital to >valorise) means that the productive power of capital and labour >has increased to a point where it cannot continue to produce at >all unless this same productive capacity is further sharply >increased. > >The problem [crisis] is faced now by the total social capital and >[it] is one of the average rate of surplus value- no longer just the >leading sectors. That is why the crisis is universal and general, >becoming the factor which constitutes capital as a social totality. > >Increasing productivity depresses the average rate of profit >especially when confined to leading sectors. The economists tend >to identify as causes such things as inflexibility in investment >decisions, lack of venture capital, slow innovations, immobility >of labour etc.; but these are all secondary questions, not >fundamental. > >Notes on wars > >Wars are the ultimate remedy available to capitalism for >unblocking the accumulation process. > >Marx, especially Engels, and Lenin identify this as a fundamental >characteristic of later capitalism and of imperialism. But the >systemic need for war forces a qualitative inner transformation >when war becomes impossible. From this point on, the >constraints and limitations on national sovereignty mean that, >while appearing to display historical continuity with an earlier >period when inter-imperialist rivalry was the dominant >appearance-form of capitalist reproduction, sovereignty is >nonetheless transformed. > >Note on socialist accumulation > >there is no such thing as autonomous socialist >accumulation. It has always taken the form either of primary >accumulation, which means catching up by means of the >planned [NB, significance of this for the concept of planning, and >debates on teleological, indicative etc. planning] deployment of >capitalist science and technology or it means a form of >competition with the imperialist world, in which therefore the >accumulation process of socialism, including accumulation of >science & tech, is over-determined by its imbrication into the >global process of value-production, whatever superficially >planned form it may take in the socialist countries themselves. > >This does not mean that planning & accumulation are >incompatible, or any other stupid value-judgment about the >'inadequacy' etc. of socialism, planning etc. > >But it means that the global accumulation process has not >ascended historically to the level where it can be directly human- >determined. But at the same time, the meaning of 'transition' is >that the law of value is also suspended by the competition of >capitalism with socialism. > >Accumulation has become hypertrophied in the post-1917 period, >first in the hypertrophied form of militarised accumulation whose >objective was war, second in the hypertrophied form of >militarised accumulation whose objective was war-avoidance. >Capitalism has become permanent crisis, or rather, sublated >crisis, permanent absence of crisis and permanent presence of >pre-crisis symptoms. > >Value in its pure form has never existed, historically. >Accumulation has always been dependent on plunder, state >action, war etc. But the suspension of precisely those factors (in >an absolute, not relative sense) undermines the working of value >even while it converts the appearance-forms into a more explicit >palimpsest or ersatz model of value, i.e., the failure to debouch >in wars leads to e.g. credit crises a more abstractly-classical >character. But the real content is voided; the very failure of >crises to mature properly reacts back upon and vitiates the >working of the law of value. > >Socialism on a world scale implies the termination of >accumulation, but termination as a process: process of socialist >construction. Why will socialist accumulation take place at all? >To take the most obvious question, why will it not collapse into >bureaucratic stagnation, in the absence of competing nations, >classes, capitals etc.? For e.g., how would the whole >development of microelectronics, so crucial to the future, have >occurred in the absence of such competition? The short answer is >because the self-evident problems left by capitalism will dictate a >necessary and urgent programme of recovery and development, >which will have a dynamic of its own, however temporary (but >decades rather than years). > >And this programme will have the inevitable eventual outcome of >a supersession of phenotype-based life-worlds, and of DNA- >based life. Termination of the mortality of the phenotype- >consciousness. Beyond this development, all speculation about >the meaning of accumulation, of any variety, is pointless. > >Elson book > >Jairus Banaji > >In Elson, Diane (ed) [1979] Value: the Representation of Labour >in Capital (London: CSE Books), pps 14-45: 'There are >countless references to the problems of scientific method >scattered across the pages of Marx's later work ... there is the >methodological reference that is basic to any understanding of >the architecture of "Capital", namely, the distinction Marx >repeatedly draws between 'capital in general' and 'many capitals'. >The former refers to the 'inner nature' of capital, to its 'essential >character'(Grundrisse p.414) and is also called 'the simple >concept of capital' (ibid.); by contrast, 'many capitals or >competition of capitals, entails a study of capital 'in its reality'. >(Grundrisse, p.684, note), or in its 'concrete' aspects as they >appear reflected on the surface of society, in the 'actual >movement' of capitals (Cap, III [1959, Moscow] p.25)' [17] > >BLPG [Brighton Labour Process Group, Conference of Socialist >Economists, moderator, Robin Murray, rapporteur, Barbara >Bradby] > >minutes of 27/1/77 > >Christian Palloix in some paper has a concept of core/context. > >Valorisation and the capitalist labour process the core, taking >place within the context of accumulation, and its facets >contextual (world economy, relation between departments, >relations with the socialist economies, with the state, between >the branches and fractions of capital). >The sort of question asked within this problematic is: what are the >conditions within the territory of accumulation which lead to >capitalist control in the labour process taking the form of neo- >Fordism (c.f. labour process as the real 'heart of the economy'). > >C.f. [K.Marx] Resultate. [991] > >BLPG say (but couldn't seem to agree on) that the labour process >of capital-in-general is simultaneously accumulation and >valorisation, just as it is simultaneously the production of use- >values and exchange-values. > >'Accumulation and its contradictory, indissoluble relation with >valorisation'. Compares 'abstract labour process' [?] with 'some >of the more concrete aspects of accumulation (imperialism, the >state etc.). [Murray] > >Single circuit/extended circuit (in time) [no such thing in reality, >surely?] Valorisation concerned with production of surplus >value, accumulation with the conditions for the expanded >reproduction of the process of valorisation. [it's right to point to >role of the state etc., but wrong to do so on the basis of a >distinction between 'accumulation' and 'expanded reproduction', >which are merely 2 forms of words describing the same thing. ] > >The point about 'departments': one of the requirements for >expanded reproduction is that there are the correct proportions >between departments I & II. All this has some value, but is >splitting hairs and indicates inability to see real and overriding >import of accumulation as the fundamental process. 'Any >process is simultaneously a process of production of surplus >value and part of the reproduction of the total social capital'. But >equally, individual processes are merely moments within the total >process, aliquot part of a single social capital which is capital-in- >general. see Resultate, [1061], Grundrisse [399, 604-10]. Law of >population. On the material (use-value) side of accumulation: >issues are the concentration of capital, and creation of a reserve >army. Surplus population. On the exchange-value side, see the >consequences of machinofacture reflected in rising organic >composition of capital, limits to wages governed by self- >expansion of capital. > >Dominance of capitalism in process of accumulation: no natural >law of population. Capitalism produces its own. Wages not >governed by natural law (subsistence) but moves between limits >set by the process of capitalaccumulation. See KM on Malthus. > >Accumulation often used for expanded reproduction. Chap 25, >vol I Capital. > >Marx on accumulation according to RM [Robin Murray] > >KM establishes drive to machinofacture as the adequate form for >self-expansion of cap, through increases in relative surplus value, >follows through this tendency to other spheres: rising organic >composition of capital, concentration and centralisation,, >increase in no. of workers & reserve army; circulation: >fixed/circulating capital, problem bet departments; total process: >value/price formation & tension bet, TRPF [tendency of profit- >rate to rise] , rise & expansion of credit. > >All these are elaborations of rise of machinofacture. Rising >organic composition of capital, TRPF, rise of credit, problems of >reserve army, expansion of credit are all indicators of the drive to >machinofacture, towards reducing necessary and including >surplus labour. Take any appearance, says KM,: interest, rent, >fixed and circulating capital- and I will show how they are all >derived from value arising in production. > >Accumulation then is a mapping from the sphere of expanded >reproduction of the capital/labour relation in production >(consequence of machinofacture) to the social whole. Extension >of surplus/necessary labour contradiction arising in production to >the spheres of circulation, extension of reserve army etc. Latter >phenomenon needs care in treatment: labour is inducted from >peripheries and pre-capitalist modes, etc., and also question of >role of family, women etc. > >BLPG [Brighton Labour Process Group] on capitalist >accumulation: > >-- They start from the labour process and tendency to >machinofacture. RM [Robin Murray] emphasises material basis >for rising organic composition of capital and technical >composition. > >Why does capitalism seek to replace people with machines? All >to do with the economy of time, with increasing productivity, >and the fact that increasing relative surplus value by introducing >machinery to substitute for workers does not increase the value >of living labour in relation to the value of material elements in >production. > >The question becomes, not whether organic composition of >capital is rising, but why it does not rise faster? Why is there any >human labour in production at all? Obviously this to do with the >value of machinery: it has to require less socially-necessary >labour time than that currently expended in the production >process itself. > >This in itself is a counter-tendency to rising organic composition >of capital and a dampener on the rate of accumulation. >Technically production could be more automated than it is, but >because it is a value system, the technical potential is not realised >in conditions where the only result would be an increase in >general social productivity. > >The substitution of machines for live labour will only occur if >another condition holds as well, i.e., when the value of >machinery deployed is less than the value of the live labour it >replaces. Because of this v[alue] will have to fall by more than >c[apital] increases. And this is true on a social and not merely on >an individual level. For the organic composition of capital is >merely the relation of necessary and surplus labour written at the >level of total social capital. > >Thus the potential range of transformation of materials as against >the limits of human labour power ensures that the rise in organic >composition of capital is possible and likely. The fact of value >analysis within firms ensures that only technical change which >increases organic composition of capital will be implemented. > >-- development of machinofacture > >At each stage, industrialised capital internalises a new part of the >economy and runs up against new limits, limits which appear in >the form of the market, and in the form of one stratum of labour. >Systemofacture and the development of machinofacture in the >processing and communicating of information is the latest stage >of the development of machinofacture. We must outline the >material economies brought about by these developments: saving >faux frais, gains from greater specialisation/division of labour. > >Consequences of development of Systemofacture: > >science & its separation [?] > >technical/clerical labour > >neo-Fordism > >extension of the economic 'range' of firms > >-- the main issue in accumulation: > >the contradiction between direct socialisation of labour, and value >[?!], or put another way, collective labour/the market. The >market is simultaneously the determining discipline on capital >(the bearer of the law of value) and a barrier (circulation involves >delay, faux frais, alien property of other capitals cannot be >directly co-ordinated). > >Capital, in trying to surpass this barrier (horizontal and vertical >integration) creates new tensions for there is now a larger >collectivised worker, directly planned and synchronised, which >makes even more severe demands on general social >synchronisation, the appearance of commodities on the market in >the right place, correct quantities, right time (kanban) - whether >these be labour or material inputs. Capital in surpassing the >barrier of the anarchy of capitalist production poses it again at a >higher, more sever level. > >The contradiction is plan/market, capitalist plan/capitalist market. > >Consider from point of view of reproduction of the material >conditions of everyday life. The market at first progressive vis a >vis pre-capitalist forms of social synthesis. But from viewpoint of >capital as planned synchronisation of collective labour, the >market is utterly inadequate. This due to alien property [?], >imperfections in information, of time and costs of circulation. >Each step forward in machinofacture can be read as the >internalising of the functions of the market within an individual >capital: thus it involves the direct socialisation of labour, i.e. >removal of the market and commodities as bearers of >commensuration process. > >But the market remains indispensable to capital. For value is its >raison d'=EAtre. Labour itself will always remain a commodity, and >surplus value will always have to be realised on the market. Just >as labour is a barrier to capital; (which tries to expel it from >production) but is the source of value, so the market is a barrier >and a necessity. > >-- contradictions of Systemofacture: > >growing problem of applying value to the internal, collective >economy of capital. To a degree it exercises still more effective >discipline in the new economy: core/periphery working-class, >desegregated combines with inter-departmental pricing >throughout, management buy-outs complementing growing role >of finance and venture capital, computers to do forecasts, >shadow-pricing, better information, communication, cutting >transport costs, expelling labour, reducing costs of fixed capital >at same time. On the other hand, general problem of relating >science to production, of making science a 'direct force of >production'. > >-- state-form and accumulation > >it helps produce items with low marginal costs, or low organic >composition of capital and not given to machinofacture >(domestic labour etc.). Effects co-ordination and synchronisation >of expanded reproduction. Provision of services geared to >control of labour. Ideological functions. Problem of disjunction >of state/world market; capital extends internally as part of >process of establishing a collective labourer at its highest level. >Problem however of disjunction between territorial states and >scope of international capital (50% US production outside US, >30% of world capitalist production by ?100 TNCs, etc.). >Capital's drive to establish reproduction of capital on a world >scale, and collective worker likewise. Impact on purely national >politics, social democracy etc. > >Should consider nature of world market, division of labour, >disposition of population, urbanisation etc. > >-- MJ note on state-form: > >The state is a particular form of the capital-relation, a form of the >universality of this relation, whose function is to secure the >universal conditions of existence of the reproduction of this >relation. This latter not a static but a dynamic process depending >on successful valorisation of capital. Reproduction is both of >value and use-value which together constitute capital relation. >The use-value of capital of is the totality of accumulated live and >dead labour. Valorisation process consists of the use of this use- >value. Reproduction of social capital (creation of new value) is >through the consumption of the the use-value of capital; the the >use-value of capital is therefore the presupposition for >reproduction. > > >Bibliography >Hegel, G.W.F. [1970] Werke vol III (Frankfurt-am-Main, >Suhrkamp) >Hegel, G.W.F. [1971] The Phenomenology of Mind (London, >Allen and Unwin) >Marcuse, Herbert [1968] Negations: Essays in Critical Theory >(London, Allen Lane The Penguin Press) >Marcuse, Herbert [1958] Soviet Marxism >Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick [1975] Collected Works Vol. >III (London, Lawrence and Wishart) >Slater, Phil [1977] Herbert Marcuse and the Analysis of the >Labour Process (unpub) > >Footnotess [omitted] > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005