Co-operation
“A
greater number of labourers working together, at the same time, in
one place (or, if you will, in the same field of labour), in order to
produce the same sort of commodity under the mastership of one
capitalist, constitutes, both historically and logically, the
starting-point of capitalist production.” (p 305)
At first,
capitalist production varies only quantitatively from handicraft
production. A number of workers are employed by a single capitalist,
first through the putting-out system, whereby material is provided to
workers to work up in their cottages, and then by bringing them
together in factories. The mass of surplus value increases because
it is extracted from a greater number of workers. But, the
labour-power of workers is not homogeneous. Taken as a whole, an
average can be calculated, but this implies that some workers will be
more productive than the average, and others less.
If a group
of workers is taken as the basis, these differences are averaged out,
so that any one group will be much the same as another. Marx quotes
Edmund Burke on this point.
"“Unquestionably,
there is a good deal of difference between the value of one man’s
labour and that of another from strength, dexterity, and honest
application. But I am quite sure, from my best observation, that any
given five men will, in their total, afford a proportion of labour
equal to any other five within the periods of life I have stated;
that is, that among such five men there will be one possessing all
the qualifications of a good workman, one bad, and the other three
middling, and approximating to the first, and the last. So that in so
small a platoon as that of even five, you will find the full
complement of all that five men can earn.” (E. Burke, 1. c., pp.
15, 16.)” (Note 1, p 306)
If say 12
workers are employed by a single capitalist, then by definition,
taken as a whole, they produce at the average level, because the
average is their total output divided by 12. The differences between
them are cancelled out. But, if the same 12 were employed by 6
capitalists, employing 2 workers each, it would be surprising were
that to be the case. One capitalist might employ the 2 most
productive workers, and another the 2 least productive workers.
The total
product of these 12 workers would still have its value determined by
the average of the socially necessary labour-time required for its
production (i.e. the time taken by all 12, divided by 12), but the
individual value of the production of capitalist 1, would be below
this level, and that of Capitalist 2 above it.
“If one
workman required considerably more time for the production of a
commodity than is socially necessary, the duration of the necessary
labour-time would, in his case, sensibly deviate from the labour-time
socially necessary on an average; and consequently his labour would
not count as average labour, nor his labour-power as average
labour-power. It would either be not saleable at all, or only at
something below the average value of labour-power. A fixed minimum of
efficiency in all labour is therefore assumed, and we shall see,
later on, that capitalist production provides the means of fixing
this minimum. Nevertheless, this minimum deviates from the average,
although on the other hand the capitalist has to pay the average
value of labour-power. Of the six small masters, one would therefore
squeeze out more than the average rate of surplus-value, another
less. The inequalities would be compensated for the society at large,
but not for the individual masters. Thus the laws of the production
of value are only fully realised for the individual producer, when he
produces as a capitalist, and employs a number of workmen together,
whose labour, by its collective nature, is at once stamped as average
social labour.” (p 306-7)
Capitalist
production brings other changes as a consequence of bringing larger
numbers of workers together. Buildings, stores, and tools are now
shared for the total production, and therefore, used more
efficiently, what orthodox economics calls “Economies of Scale”.
“A room
where twenty weavers work at twenty looms must be larger than the
room of a single weaver with two assistants. But it costs less labour
to build one workshop for twenty persons than to build ten to
accommodate two weavers each; thus the value of the means of
production that are concentrated for use in common on a large scale
does not increase in direct proportion to the expansion and to the
increased useful effect of those means. When consumed in common, they
give up a smaller part of their value to each single product; partly
because the total value they part with is spread over a greater
quantity of products, and partly because their value, though
absolutely greater, is, having regard to their sphere of action in
the process, relatively less than the value of isolated means of
production.” (p 306-7)
So, the
value of Constant Capital in the product falls, and the value of the
product itself falls. This is before any further advantages arising
from large numbers of workers assisting in each others production.
It provides capitalist production with a huge advantage over
handicraft production, spelling the end of the latter.
There are
many tasks which can only be done if a large number of workers
combine their efforts. For example, lifting some heavy or large
object. Moreover, it is apparent that, in co-operating, to achieve
this task the combined power of all these workers is greater than the
sum of their individual efforts. This fact has meant that
co-operative labour has been a feature of human activity from the
beginning of Man's history. I have described some examples of this
elsewhere –
The Economics Of Co-operation.
In orthodox
economics, this feature is known as Increasing Returns To Scale.
“In
such cases the effect of the combined labour could either not be
produced at all by isolated individual labour, or it could only be
produced by a great expenditure of time, or on a very dwarfed scale.
Not only have we here an increase in the productive power of the
individual, by means of co-operation, but the creation of a new
power, namely, the collective power of masses.” (p 308-9)
“Hence it is that a dozen persons working together will, in
their collective working-day of 144 hours, produce far more than
twelve isolated men each working 12 hours, or than one man who works
twelve days in succession. The reason of this is that man is, if not
as Aristotle contends, a political, at all events a social animal.”
(p 309)
The natural
extension of this principle of co-operative labour is the division of
labour, so that one overall task is divided into a series of
subordinate tasks, which different workers or groups of workers
perform.
“For
instance, if a dozen masons place themselves in a row, so as to pass
stones from the foot of a ladder to its summit, each of them does the
same thing; nevertheless, their separate acts form connected parts of
one total operation; they are particular phases, which must be gone
through by each stone; and the stones are thus carried up quicker by
the 24 hands of the row of men than they could be if each man went
separately up and down the ladder with his burden.” (p 309)
Here, each
worker performs the same task in sequence, thereby reducing the time
required, which means reducing the value of the end product. But,
the division of the task could also mean its division into different
tasks.
“It is
owing to the absence of this kind of co-operation that, in the
western part of the United States, quantities of corn, and in those
parts of East India where English rule has destroyed the old
communities, quantities of cotton, are yearly wasted.” (p 310-11)
The irony is
that in the USSR, which was supposed to be a highly planned economy,
where, therefore, such co-operation should have been highly
developed, such wastage was massive. In agriculture, huge quantities
rotted for lack of adequate storage, or transport to take it to
market at the right time. In fact, the market proved far better at
organising such co-operation than did attempts at detailed planning.
“On the
one hand, co-operation allows of the work being carried on over an
extended space; it is consequently imperatively called for in certain
undertakings, such as draining, constructing dykes, irrigation works,
and the making of canals, roads and railways. On the other hand,
while extending the scale of production, it renders possible a
relative contraction of the arena. This contraction of arena
simultaneous with, and arising from, extension of scale, whereby a
number of useless expenses are cut down, is owing to the
conglomeration of labourers, to the aggregation of various processes,
and to the concentration of the means of production.” (p 311)
This is one reason why, early on, when small capitals are inadequate
to take on the scale of such undertakings effectively, it is the
State which does so. It is one reason, as Marx and Engels described,
for the development of the bureaucratic-collectivist state of the
Asiatic Mode Of Production, which arises to undertake huge hydraulic
and irrigation works. Similarly, the State took responsibility at
the outset of the Industrial Revolution for road building. It has
done so for the Space Industry, for Nuclear Power etc.
“Whether
the combined working-day, in a given case, acquires this increased
productive power, because it heightens the mechanical force of
labour, or extends its sphere of action over a greater space, or
contracts the field of production relatively to the scale of
production, or at the critical moment sets large masses of labour to
work, or excites emulation between individuals and raises their
animal spirits, or impresses on the similar operations carried on by
a number of men the stamp of continuity and many-sidedness, or
performs simultaneously different operations, or economises the means
of production by use in common, or lends to individual labour the
character of average social labour whichever of these be the cause of
the increase, the special productive power of the combined
working-day is, under all circumstances, the social productive power
of labour, or the productive power of social labour. This power is
due to co-operation itself. When the labourer co-operates
systematically with others, he strips off the fetters of his
individuality, and develops the capabilities of his species.” (p
311-12)
No comments:
Post a Comment