Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 20:01:15 -0800
From: James Miller <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: mass


TECHNICAL COMPOSITION OF CAPITAL

   Regarding the measurement of the material means of
production in relation to the living labor which is
incorporated in them, I put forward the idea that this
ratio can be quantitatively expressed as: tons of means
of production per worker. Although, as Juan has pointed
out, many new innovations in productive technology do
not result in a gain in the mass of the productive
machinery, I think that on the average, technological
progress produces a gain in mass of equipment per worker.
   Marx had this to say on the subject (discussing the
increase in the mass of the machinery as well as the
cheapening of its individual compenents):
   "Secondly, what becomes cheaper is the individual
machine and its component parts, but a system of
machinery develops; the tool is not simply replaced
by a single machine, but by a whole system, and the
tools which perhaps played the major part previously,
the needle for example (in the case of a stocking-loom
or a similar machine), are now assembled in thousands.
Each individual machine confronting the worker is in
itself a colossal assembly of instruments which he
formerly used singly, e.g. 1,800 spindles instead of
one. But in addition, the machine contains elements
which the old instrument did not have. Despite the
cheapening of individual elements, the price of the
whole aggregate increases enormously and the [increase
in] productivity consists in the continuous expansion
of the machinery." (_TSV III, Chap 23, Part 2)
   When thinking about the expansion of the means of
production in relation to living labor, we have to
take into account the growth of the power supply and
all the components required for its generation and
transmission. Also the communications and transport
infrastructure, both within the individual industrial
facilities, as well as among them. Further, there are,
as Marx says, qualitatively new elements incorporated
into the productive apparatus as productivity develops.
Since WWII we have seen the introduction of computers
into production as well as into commerce, finance, etc.
They add to the quantitative mass of the means of
production (though not a whole lot in terms of weight),
as well as to the diversity of its structure.
   Juan, I think, is not exactly in accord with me on
this. Neither he nor John have responded directly to
the question of the measurement of the technical
composition of capital as "tons per worker." Juan,
however, did say this: "this composition lacks in the
real world an immediate quantitative expression that
can be placed into an equation, and therefore into a
model."
   A while ago, I agreed with him on that. Now I have
changed my mind. Both the productivity of labor and the
technical composition of capital are material relations.
Productivity is measured as "material output per worker
hour." At first glance, this seems like a simple
quantitative expression, since it is assumed that the
workers are producing the same object, and all that is
needed is to measure the changing output per worker
hour of one and the same product. This might be good
enough for short-range measurements, but in the long
term there are many substantive qualitative changes
in the material output of the labor process. The
changes in the productivity of labor cannot be assessed
over the long term by measuring the change in the
output of buggy whips and hula hoops, century after
century. (I exaggerate here a bit to make the point.)
   Thus, we are faced with the same problem in
measuring the productivity of labor as in measuring
the technical composition of capital. There are many
qualitative changes in both, that, as Juan indicated,
make quantification difficult. Juan even went so far
as to say that the evolution of the technical compo-
sition of capital "can only be apprehended in a very
rough way, after it has gone through a quite
substantial change, and even then, in a non-
quantifiable unit."
   We all make mistakes. I have already admitted my
most recent one. Now Juan has made one here as well,
in spite of the sharpness which he has shown in his
appreciation of Marx. To say that the change in the TCC
can be "apprehended" by means of a "non-quantifiable
unit" is either a meaningless statement, or a self-
contradictory one. If the word "apprehended" had any
meaning, it would be "measured." But if it means
"measured," then the statement is self-contradictory,
because measurement means quantification, and he says
that only "non-quantifiable" units can be used. If,
on the other hand, "apprehended" does not mean
"measured," the sentence has no meaning. But I could
be wrong here. We'll see what Juan says.
   In any case, the growth of the material means of
production in relation to the workers functioning
within them is a quantitative phenomenon, and without
this growth, there can be no talk of a rising organic
composition of capital, or of a tendency of the rate
of profit to fall. It's true that the tendency of the
rate of profit to fall is a value relation, not a
technical relation, but the rising value of the means
of production is a function of their rising mass. In
general, it takes more labor time to build something
large and complex than it takes to build something
small and simple, and the evolution of the productive
apparatus is from the small and simple to the larger
and more complex.
   Regarding this relation between value and mass,
Marx argued, "this change in the technical composition
of capital, this growth in the mass of the means of
production, as compared with the mass of the labor
power that vivifies them, is reflected in its value-
composition by the increase of the constant constituent
of capital at the expense of its variable component."
(_Capital_, V. I, Chap. 25, Sec. 2)

ENGELS

   Regarding the difference in the views expressed by
Marx and Engels regarding the change in the ratio of
fixed capital to circulating constant capital as value-
fractions of the product of labor, it was mentioned
earlier that this difference was not unequivocal. There
are different courses of development among different
branches of industry regarding the evolution of this
ratio. In some branches of industry, very little raw
material is used, and the value of fixed capital assumes
a growing fraction of the value-product. This applies to
the computer hardware industry, for example.
   In the manufacture of airplanes, raw material tends
not to grow as much as fixed capital because each part
is subjected to many mechanized labor processes in order
to assure its precise dimension, quality, etc. In the
steel industry, on the other hand, there is a massive
increase of raw material (coal, coke, iron ore) with
a relatively modest increase in the fixed capital.
   In mining and agricultural raw material production,
there are no raw materials at all, as inputs. The growth
here is almost exclusively an increase in the fixed
capital, and in the auxiliary materials as well (fuel,
etc.). On the other hand, there seems to be  more
growth in raw material than in fixed capital in the
textile industry, since the spinning and weaving have
been computerized, which does not add that much to
the fixed capital either in terms of weight or in
terms of value, yet it greatly increases the material
output of textiles.
   Regarding the growth of fixed in relation to
circulating constant capital, another feature that
has to be considered is durability. As Marx pointed
out, "all other circumstances being equal, the degree
of fixity [ratio of fixed to circ. constant cap.]
increases with the durability of the instrument of
labor. It is this durability that determines the
magnitude of the difference between the capital-
value fixed in instruments of labor and that part
of its value which it yields to the product in
repeated labor processes." (_Cap._, V. II, Chap.
8, Sec. 1, 4th page)
   Only if one can measure the effect of the durability
of fixed capital can one see how this affects the
growth of the fixed part in relation to the circulating
constant part of capital. And the durability of fixed
capital is at basis a technical question. Thus it is
that, in many ways, the issue that seemed to show a
difference between Marx and Engels is one that can
only be confirmed one way or another by empirical
studies. If the durability of fixed capital can be
greatly enhanced, this might well overcompensate for
any relative increases in the growth of the value of
raw materials in the value composition of the product.

MORAL DEPRECIATION

   John and Juan have been discussing the moral
depreciation of capital recently. This is a question
that forms part of the broader issue of the cheapening
of the elements of constant capital, and particularly
the cheapening of the elements of fixed capital. In
discussing the moral depreciation of capital, we must
have recourse to the effects of competition, since,
if there were no competition, capitalists would use
up all the value represented in their machinery before
purchasing replacements. But competition forces them
to constantly reevaluate their production costs, and
find ways to lower them. They do this, among other
ways, by taking advantage of new productive technology
when it becomes available, or at some point thereafter.
   To replace a given machine before it is used up
materially signifies a waste of labor, specifically
the labor that went into making the machine. Part of
that labor turns out to have been wasted. The decision
to replace a particular piece of equipment at any given
time is the result of calculations made by accountants
who can determine the optimum time for replacement.
Their calculations are based on analysis of current
prices and productivity of machines of the type under
consideration. They have to find out at what point
savings in production costs can be realized by
replacing this particular unit of productive equipment.
They also have to factor in the costs of ripping out
the old machine and installing and setting up the new
one, which in some cases are considerable. (See for
example the revolution in technology in the steel
industry ten to fifteen years ago.)
   When new equipment comes on the market, those who
can most readily adopt it first soon gain an advantage
over their competitors in terms of lower production
cost. They can undersell. So they junk the old
equipment, even though it's not completely worn out.
   John though there might be some connection between
moral depreciation and the turnover of fixed capital.
As I understand it, Marx analyzed turnover by describing
a cyclical capital replacement process which takes place
on a given technological basis, so that given machines
are replaced by new ones of the same quantity and quality.
   But this is only the initial step of the investigation.
Among other things, you have to take into account the
technological revolutions in the means of production
that constantly reformulate the structure and function
of the productive apparatus. Technological changes tend
to disrupt the "normal" turnover cycle, since they
introduce qualitatively new elements into the process
of production. And it must be kept in mind that technical
change comes from the progress of science and engineering,
and the growth of these areas of knowledge is not
governed by the immanent laws of capitalist production.
   No one can predict in advance what new machines
might be on the market ten years from now, how much they
will cost, or how effective they might be in increasing
productivity. A lot of industrial research and development
is kept secret. But the closer you get to the debut of
the latest wonder machine, the more is generally known
about it. This is what keeps the accountants jumping, as
they try to find out as much as they can about what's
in the works. Sometimes a little insider information
gives an edge to the company that gets on the inside
track.

ERNST, BURFORD AND CONDIT

   I just downloaded my e-mail and wanted to make a few
comments on new posts.
   Re: John Ernst's post of Nov. 26. He gives a numerical
example in which the surplus value increases from 100 to
1920, without any change in the new labor added. This
seems extremely peculiar to me. Where did this new value
come from? With no change in the rate of surplus value,
the surplus value will be 100 in both cases.
   Also, John again says that: "...we still face a
difficulty. In the above model, the constant capital
inputs grew at a rate slower than that of the quantity
of output." What he means by this is that the productivity
of labor increased 10 times (from 90 to 900), while the
value of the constant capital only increased by 9.8 times
(from 100 to 980). I explained in a previous post what is
wrong with this procedure, but John has so far not
responded to what I said.
   In John's example the organic composition of capital
(as measured by falue fractions of the product) increases
from 100 c/100 v to 970 c/100 v. This would bring about
a substantial fall in the rate of profit, if we use Marx's
method. I don't understand why John thinks otherwise.
   A couple of times recently John has said something to
the effect that "the whole business about comparing the
growth of material inputs with that of outputs has taken
us nowhere." True enough, John seems not to be going
anywhere. But I hope he will talk to me a little more
about the concepts I've raised in this post, and in the
last two, and maybe we can make some progress.
   Re: Chris Burford's comments. I appreciate Chris's
interest in the discussion. He wanted to know what I think
John's problem is. I think it has something to do with the
effects of bourgeois conceptions of value which have worked
their way into academic Marxism, and into John's methodology
as well. Juan has talked a lot about this, and while I think
Juan is on the right track, I don't want to follow this line
of criticism myself. I think it's better to focus on the
specific points of disagreement, and by that means, help
to clarify Marx's theory step by step.
   Re: Tom Condit's message. I appreciate Tom's feeling of
frustration for not having time to read everything in this
dispute. It's hard for me to keep up with it as well. Plus
there are a lot of other interesting threads to follow.
   Tom says that the technical composition of capital should
not be seen as strictly "tons per worker," but that "mass"
should be "treated in a much more metaphorical way." Well,
as you see here, I don't entirely disagree with this.
Indeed, there is more to the growth of the means of
production than just physical weight. You have also the
extension of complexity, and the evolution of increasingly
elaborate and more variegated organizational forms. But
physical weight increases as well, and can serve as an
index of the growth of the TCC, though not a mathematically
precise one. (Juan's comments on this show the difficulties
we face in arriving at a method that will provide a truly
comprehensive measurement.)
   Tom pointed to the trickery involved in the fulfillment
of production quotas in the USSR under Stalin, where the
output of products was measured by weight, and if you made
an armchair out of iron weighing 300 pounds, that went ten
times as far toward meeting your quota than a wooden one
weighing 30 pounds. Such lunacy has nothing to do with a
scientific analysis of the growth of the technical
composition of capital. So basically I agree with Tom
here, who's trying to get at the same point in a different
way--the difficulties involved in measuring the TCC. Yet
using the term "social mass" as a substitute for "weight"
(of the means of production) doesn't seem to me to provide
a better way of making the necessary quantitative measurement
of the TCC. Plus you would run the terminological risk of
confusing the social with the material (in value theory).
   One final point. This debate about the TCC is about
the prerequisites for the theory of the tendency of the
rate of profit to fall. One cannot deal intelligibly, or
intelligently, with the TRPF unless the fundamental value
issues are clarified first.

Jim Miller
Seattle       


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------