Chapters 12-14

Discussion

chapter 12:

- assume the length of the working day given, then for a given no. of labour powers, the surplus value extracted in that day cannot increase unless the balance between necessary and surplus labour time is altered. not considering the capitalist paying less than the value of labour power, so this can only occur by a lowering of the value of labour power, i.e. the value of the means of subsistence for said labour power. surplus value from lengthening the working day is "absolute surplus value", that from shortening necessary labour time is "relative surplus value".

- this is only possible under our assumptions by an increase in the productiveness of labour, which is only possible by revolutionising the labour process.

- an increase in productivity only affects the value of labour power if the commodity produced is a means of subsistance for labour power, and reduces this value only in the proportion to the extent it plays in that subsistence, e.g. if a commodity which constitutes half of the total value of the means of subsistence halfs its value, then the total value of labour power falls by one quarter.

- reduction in overall value of labour power may not be the aim of an individual capitalist, but that is still what is achieved. though competition isn't going to be analysised here as it is best left until after we understand the inner workings of capital, it is the laws of competition which force the individual capitalist to increase productivity. e.g. 1 hr's labour = 6p, the 6s is produced in an hour. suppose 12 articles are produced in 12hrs under current conditions of labour, the value of the means of production used in each = 6p, then each article = 1s. if some capitalist doubles productivity, producing 24 articles in 12 hrs, then the value of the means of production remaining the same, the value of each article falls to 9p - the same value is created in 12hrs as before, but now spread over more articles. the value of each article is now less than its social value, but real value is not individual but social, so if sold at the same price as before, the surplus value realised in the sale of each article rises by 3p. but now we have twice as many articles so need twice the demand, so it is best to sell the article for below its social but above its individual value. that way the individual capitalist gets extra surplus value regardless of whether the article in question forms part of the means of subsistence or not.

- for the individual capitalist, this extra surplus value vanishes as soon as the new level of productivity becomes the societal norm.

- the value of commodities is in inverse ratio to the productiveness of labour, as the value of labour power depends on these commodities. relative surplus value is directly proportional to this productiveness. hence constant striving for greater productiveness and cheapening of commodities.

chapter 13:

- as already mentioned, capitalism only really begins with the employment of relatively large numbers of labourers by a single capitalist. numerous labourers working together in the same or different connected processes is called co-operation.

- without altering the system of working, the employment of large numbers at once produces several advantages: labour becomes stamped automatically as average labour (differences between labourers in 1 group of twelve working for 1 master will even out more than in pairs of the same labourers employed by 6 different masters - in the latter scenario, some would get more than average value, some less); the means of production required to not increase in proportion to the number employed (e.g. less is required for a workshop for 20 than for five workshops holding four each) lowering ratio of constant to variable capital; many hands make light work - both in terms of mechanical strength and being to an extent omnipresent (one builder can't be working on all four sides of a building at once, several can); for complicated work, individual tasks can be apportioned out; more can be completed in a given time frame, important for e.g. gathering crops before they rot; allows work over an extended space e.g. dams and bridges are tricky to complete on your own. all this means that the combined working day produces, relative to a sum of equal isolated working days, a greater amount of products.

- since the capitalist needs the money for wages at the start of the process (under our assumptions) then the extent of co-operation is dependent on the amount of capital he has available for purchasing labour power - the the extent to which he has control over the means of subsistence of the labourers. this also applies to the amount available for constant capital, since the more labour powers employed, the more means of production are required. in other words, there is a minimum amount of capital required to turn isolated processes in a single social one.

- combined labour requires some kind of directing authority. once this becomes a function of capital, it acquires specific charictaristics. since the aim is to get the greatest possible surplus value, it is therefore to exploit the labour powers as much as possible, so the more labour powers employed, the greater the labourers resist, and the more capital has to combat this by applying counter-pressure. to the labourer co-operation is not his own act but brough about externally by the capitalist, so the connection with others appears ideally in the shape of the preconceived plan of the capitalist and practically as the powerful will of another subjecting their activity to its aim. the 2 fold nature of the process (production of use-values and of surplus-value) leads it to be despotic. the task of supervison is then passed to a specific type of waged labourer.

- since once they have sold their labour power, the labourer is no longer its owner, and the labourer only enters co-operation after the sale when they are but modes of existence of capital, the productive power of the labourer appears as the productive power of capital. their power is only possible under conditions provided by capital, so it appears to be a power of capital.

- previous forms of co-operation were based on common ownership of means of production or relations of domination and servitude. so co-operation is both the starting point of capitalist production and the first change effected on the labour process turning into a social one.

chapter 14

- co-operation based on division of labour as found in manufacture arises in two ways: 1) bringing together in one workshop different handicrafts required to produce one article, so other aspects of the crafts are lost, but those used are improved ; 2) the employment of many performing the same handicraft, and subsequent splitting of the handicraft into its component stages. either way we get a productive mechanism with human parts. the process is still dependent on the skill of the individual worker.

- each labourer doing only one task achieves several things: their whole body becomes tool for the task, perfects it through constant repetition and passes skills down through generations; the tools become specialised, as what was once used for several different stages is now used for only one (creating one of the material conditions of machinery); the gaps in the working day caused by changing of tools and place are reduced. on the down side, doing the same thing over and over and over again is boring and turns your brain into porridge.

- manufacture has two forms, heterogeneous and serial. the first arises from the mechanical fitting together of partial products (though it is a matter of chance whether the labourers are all brought together in one workshop - swiss watch manufacturers saved on workshops by having labourers work at home). the second consists of a series of connected processes formed on the same material, e.g. making needles. this way stages previously successive in time are now simultaneous but side by side in space. only possible by riveting each labourer to a single fractional detail.

- each labourer produces the raw material for the next, and the time for each stage is known by experience. the whole mechanism then becomes based on the assumption that a given result will be achieved in a given time, allowing processes to continue uninterrupted, simultaneously and side by side. the direct dependence of the workers on each other compels them to spend now more time than necessary, so that labour becomes more continuous, uniform, regular, ordered and intense than otherwise. the rule of taking no longer than socially necessary is a technical law of the process of production, rather than a result of competition as it appears in the production of commodities generally.

- since different tasks take different lengths of time, more labourers are required for some operations than for others, so we get a quantitative as well as qualitative division of labour, and the scale of production can only be increased by a proportional increase in all these groups (though some such as supervision don't require a proportional increase). these groups can have internal structures of cooperation (he gives an e.g. of glass manufacture where there are groups of 5 labourers each performing a different subtask at the furnace mouth). manufacture can also develop into combinations of manufacture e.g. producing the raw material or instruments for its main process, or an article for which the main product forms the raw material.

- machinery was used sporadically in the manufacturing period, giving us the science of mechanics, but otherwise the machinery of the period was the collective labourer. by habit the labourer bacame a never failing instrument whose connection to the whole mechanism compelled them to work with the regularity of a machine.

- differences in the complexity of tasks meant more or less training was required, so the values of labour powers were different giving us wage scales. all processes require some simple process anyone can do, hence the "unskilled", where absence of development becomes a specialty as opposed to specialty at the expense of all other development. the "skilled" require less training than the individual artificer, the "unskilled" none at all, in both cases the value of labour power falls and so surplus value increases.

- separation of labour in society into different industries comes about from two directions: physiological differences in the tribe/family with labour apportioned accordingly,

and independent communities with different means of production and so different products coming into contact with each other and exchanging. in the first what was once dependent grows more independent until exchange is the only connection to the whole, in the second what was independent becomes an interdependant branch of the whole by exchange. there is also the separation of town and country, but he's not dealing with it here. the greater the relative density of the population, the greater the division of labour in society.

- a certain degree of division of labour in society is necessary for the development of capitalism and so division of labour in manufacture, but the latter then develops and multiplies the former. industries producing the instruments of labour become more differentiated. if 1 industry previously connected to others is seized by manufacture, those others become more independent; if one stage in a process of production is seized, the other processes break off and become independent. territorial divisions of labour increase, the colonial system and opening of world markets fuel this. how division of labour seizes every sphere of society to sort humanity and develop only one faculty at the expense of all others will not be addressed here.

- but the division of labour in society differs in kind as well as degree from that in manufacture. in the former the products of each division are all commodities, and is brought about by the sale and purchase of products from different branches, with many different independent producers. in the latter the products are not commodities, it is brought about by the sale of the labour powers of many to a single capitalist with the number employed determined by the iron law of proportionality. though inner relations settle the social division of labour into a regular system of spontaneous growth, the demand for particular use-values and the law of value determining how much time society can spare for each commodity, the tendency to equilibrium is only a reaction to the constant upsetting of this equilibrium. in the workshop there is the undisputed authority of the capitalist, in society the only recognised authority is that of competition.

- the bourgeois mind praises control of the division of labour in the workshop and condemns it in society. in a society with capitalist production we have anarchy in the social division of labour and despotism in the workshop.

- the minimum number of labourers required for a process is determined by the existing proportion of the division of labour, but the advantages of further division can only be obtained by adding multiples of all the detail groups. an increase in variable capital requires an increase in constant capital at a faster rate than the increase in number of workers due to the increase in productive power obtained by the further division of labour - the quantity of means of production consumed rises in the same ratio as the productive power. so the minimum amount of capital required nust keep increasing - the transformation of the social means of production and subsistence into capital must keep extending.

- at first the worker sold his labour power as he did not have the means of production himself, but now his labour power refuses its services unless sold to the capitalist as it can only be exercised in the environment provided by him. while the individual labourer loses many facets of intelligence by doing only one task, that which is lost is concentrated in capital (as it has all the other workers' focussed skills). the worker is confronted with the intellectual potencies of the process of production as the property of another and a ruling power. capital represents the collective worker by cutting the individual worker down to a detail worker - a process taken further in industry by making science a productive force separate from labour. manufacture encourages the reduction of thought by the worker during the production process.

- once manufacture finds the best form of division of labour, it holds on to it until the instruments of labour are changed. decomposing handicrafts and forming a qualitative gradation and quantitative proportion in the social process of production. by creating deffinite division of labour in society it develops new productive forces. it is a particular method of getting surplus value - augmenting the self-expansion of capital at the expense of the labourer by crippling labour and creating new conditions for the lordship of capital over labour.

- the fall development of manufacture was held back by the resistance of skilled workers. since handicrafts were the foundation of the mechanism, it had no bframework but the labourers themselves, preventing capital from become the complete master of the whole workers' time. this prevented it truly revolutionising production and at a certain stage in its development this base came into conflict with the requirements of production created by manufacture itself.

- workshops creating the intruments of labour in turn created machines which finally swept away the handicrafts as the regulating principal of social production. this simultaneously removed both the technical reason for the annexation of the labourer to a detail function and the fetters this laid on the dominion of capital.