c) Intensification Of Labour
In previous chapters, Marx described the way in
which capitalist industrialisation led to the lengthening of the
working day, almost without bounds. That was especially true with
the introduction of machinery, for the reasons just described.
However, this initial response could not continue.
“The immoderate lengthening of the
working-day, produced by machinery in the hands of capital, leads to
a reaction on the part of society, the very sources of whose life are
menaced; and, thence, to a normal working-day whose length is fixed
by law.” (p 385)
Capital's first response to the limitation of the
working day – besides simply trying to disregard it – is to bring
about an intensification of labour. That is to introduce speed-up so
that workers are forced to produce as much in 10 hours as they
previously did in 12 or 14. This is not to be confused with the
extraction of Relative Surplus Value. The latter arises from the
revolutionising of the production process, which increases
productivity. The intensification of labour, by contrast, is just
another form of Absolute Surplus Value production, making workers
more more intensively rather than extensively.
“Nevertheless the reader will clearly see,
that where we have labour, not carried on by fits and starts, but
repeated day after day with unvarying uniformity, a point must
inevitably be reached, where extension of the working-day and
intensity of the labour mutually exclude one another, in such a way
that lengthening of the working-day becomes compatible only with a
lower degree of intensity, and a higher degree of intensity, only
with a shortening of the working-day.” (p 386)
However, this extraction of Absolute Surplus
Value, via the intensification goes along with the turn of Capital
towards the extraction of Relative Surplus Value, and is, in large
part, a function of the introduction of machines to that end.
 |
| The extraction of Absolute Surplus Value by an unbounded extension of the working-day could not continue. It destroyed the working class. At the level of "Many Capitals", competition forced each Capital to exploit Labour as much as possible. This was not compatible with the interest of "Capital in General". The Capitalist State, through Factory Inspectors like Leonard Horner enforced a level playing field of a shorter working day. That shorter day also fitted in with the turn of Capital to an intensification of labour, and to Relative Surplus Value, via machinery. |
“So soon as the gradually
surging revolt of the working-class compelled Parliament to shorten
compulsorily the hours of labour, and to begin by imposing a normal
working-day on factories proper, so soon consequently as an increased
production of surplus-value by the prolongation of the working-day
was once for all put a stop to, from that moment capital threw itself
with all its might into the production of relative surplus-value, by
hastening on the further improvement of machinery. At the same time a
change took place in the nature of relative surplus-value. Generally
speaking, the mode of producing relative surplus-value consists in
raising the productive power of the workman, so as to enable him to
produce more in a given time with the same expenditure of labour.
Labour-time continues to transmit as before the same value to the
total product, but this unchanged amount of exchange-value is spread
over more use-value; hence the value of each single commodity sinks.
Otherwise, however, so soon as the compulsory shortening of the hours
of labour takes place. The immense impetus it gives the development
of productive power, and to economy in the means of production,
imposes on the workman increased expenditure of labour in a given
time, heightened tension of labour-power, and closer filling up of
the pores of the working-day, or condensation of labour to a degree
that is attainable only within the limits of the shortened
working-day. This condensation of a greater mass of labour into a
given period thenceforward counts for what it really is, a greater
quantity of labour. In addition to a measure of its extension, i.e.,
duration, labour now acquires a measure of its intensity or of the
degree of its condensation or density. The denser hour of the ten
hours’ working-day contains more labour, i.e., expended
labour-power. than the more porous hour of the twelve hours’
working-day. The product therefore of one of the former hours has as
much or more value than has the product of 1 1/5 of the latter hours.
Apart from the increased yield of relative surplus-value through the
heightened productiveness of labour, the same mass of value is now
produced for the capitalist say by 3 1/3 hours of surplus-labour, and
6 2/3 hours of necessary labour, as was previously produced by four
hours of surplus-labour and eight hours of necessary labour.” (p
386-7)
In other words, there are two complementary
processes going on. The introduction of machinery increases the
productivity of labour. That means the commodities required to
reproduce labour-power becomes cheaper, which means the Value of
Labour-power falls. That means less of the working day is required
for necessary labour, leaving a higher portion as surplus labour.
Relative Surplus Value rises.
At the same time, the kind of regularisation of
the work process that machinery introduces, i.e. a machine runs at
the same pace all day long, whereas a craftsman working with tools
operates at different speeds during the day, means the workers
themselves more resemble a machine, working at the same pace all day.
The more the worker becomes accustomed to that, the more they can
cope with the machine operating at a faster pace. That principle is
put on a scientific basis by the introduction of Taylorist,
scientific management. Moreover, while they may not be able to cope,
physically and mentally, with that pace for 12 hours a day, they may
for 10. So, as much work is done in 10 hours as previously in 12.
That was seen in Britain in 1974 during the 3 day
week, when as much output was more or less produced in 3 days as
previously was done in 5.
“The first effect of shortening the
working-day results from the self-evident law, that the efficiency of
labour-power is in an inverse ratio to the duration of its
expenditure. Hence, within certain limits what is lost by shortening
the duration is gained by the increasing tension of labour-power.
That the workman moreover really does expend more labour-power, is
ensured by the mode in which the capitalist pays him.” (p 387)
Marx says that this effect of shortening the
working day was more marked in those areas where machinery was not
dominant.
“Mr.
Robert Gardner reduced the hours of labour in his two large factories
at Preston, on and after the 20th April, 1844, from twelve to eleven
hours a day. The result of about a year’s working was that “the
same amount of product for the same cost was received, and the
workpeople as a whole earned in eleven hours as much wages as they
did before in twelve.” I pass over the experiments made in the
spinning and carding rooms, because they were accompanied by an
increase of 2% in the speed of the machines. But in the weaving
department, where, moreover, many sorts of figured fancy articles
were woven, there was not the slightest alteration in the conditions
of the work. The result was: “From 6th January to 20th April, 1844,
with a twelve hours’ day, average weekly wages of each hand 10s.
1½d., from 20th April to 29th June, 1844, with day of eleven hours,
average weekly wages 10s. 3½d.” Here we have more produced in
eleven hours than previously in twelve, and entirely in consequence
of more steady application and economy of time by the workpeople.
While they got the same wages and gained one hour of spare time, the
capitalist got the same amount produced and saved the cost of coal,
gas, and other such items, for one hour. Similar experiments, and
with the like success, were carried out in the mills of Messrs.
Horrocks and Jacson.” (p 388)
Shorter working hours create the conditions for
more intensive labour, and when those shorter hours are fully
established, capital introduces machinery to squeeze out even more
labour in a given time. That is done by gradually speeding up the
machines, and by increasing the number of machines each worker minds.
But, Capital also has to improve the machinery.
More labour cannot be squeezed out of workers in these diminished
work days, if the machines themselves break down, or are inefficient.
“One fact is sufficient to show how greatly
the wealth of the manufacturers increased along with the more intense
exploitation of labour-power. From 1838 to 1850, the average
proportional increase in English cotton and other factories was 32%,
while from 1850 to 1856 it amounted to 86%.” (p 392)
Marx details how this rose even more sharply
between 1856-62.
He quotes Ferrand,
“I have been informed by delegates from 16
districts of Lancashire and Cheshire, in whose behalf I speak, that
the work in the factories is, in consequence of the improvements in
machinery, constantly on the increase. Instead of as formerly one
person with two helps tenting two looms, one person now tents three
looms without helps, and it is no uncommon thing for one person to
tent four. Twelve hours’ work, as is evident from the facts
adduced, is now compressed into less than 10 hours. It is therefore
self-evident, to what an enormous extent the toil of the factory
operative has increased during the last 10 years.” (p 392-3)
Marx comments,
“There cannot be the slightest doubt that the
tendency that urges capital, so soon as a prolongation of the hours
of labour is once for all forbidden, to compensate itself, by a
systematic heightening of the intensity of labour, and to convert
every improvement in machinery into a more perfect means of
exhausting the workman, must soon lead to a state of things in which
a reduction of the hours of labour will again be inevitable. On the
other hand, the rapid advance of English industry between 1848 and
the present time, under the influence of a day of 10 hours, surpasses
the advance made between 1833 and 1847, when the day was 12 hours
long, by far more than the latter surpasses the advance made during
the half century after the first introduction of the factory system,
when the working-day was without limits.” (p 393)
No comments:
Post a Comment