But, Marx’s own analysis, in relation to the rise in the value of fixed capital and materials is also deficient. Marx identifies that, whilst the value of machinery rises absolutely, it falls relatively.
“If one worker is in charge of 1,800 spindles instead of driving a spinning-wheel, it would be quite ridiculous to ask why these 1,800 spindles are not as cheap as the single spinning-wheel.” (p 365)
But, if a spinning machine with 10 spindles is developed, its quite possible that, if it goes along with a fall in the value of wood and metal, and a rise in productivity in machine making, it might have a lower value than did the spinning-wheel previously. And, once developed, expanding this 10 spindle machine to a 20 or 50 spindle machine may involve virtually no additional materials, which may themselves have become cheaper, and further improvements in productivity can reduce the labour required to produce this 50 spindle machine below that required to produce the 10 spindle machine. And, the same kind of process can result in quick succession to a 500, 1,000 and 1,800 spindle machine being developed that has no greater value than did a spinning wheel, when production methods were more primitive. The main obstacle to such development was not in the machine technology, but in the need to develop steam power to provide the motive force to drive the machine.
Moreover, as Marx says,
“Instead of a simple and cheap instrument a collection of such instruments (even though they are modified) is used, and to that collection has to be added the whole part of the machinery which consists of the moving and transmitting parts; and also the materials used (like coal, etc.) to produce the motive power (such as steam).” (p 365)
Its not just that the materials used in the construction of machines and fixed capital become cheaper. Greater economy in the use of those materials also occurs, and new types of materials are used in the construction. For example, changes in the process of producing steel (the Bessemer process) enabled it to be produced much more cheaply. But, this cheaper steel then also replaces iron for the construction of rails etc., and is far more durable. To put it in a modern context, a smartphone has as much processing power, and greater functionality, than a 1970's mainframe computer. It is less than a 10,000th of the price of the former, and contains only a fraction of the materials.
Moreover, as Marx says, the machinery also comprises the motive power and transmission mechanism. The move from water-power to steam-power was made possible by the development of the steam engine, but once developed, the steam engine was continually developed so as to be both cheaper to produce, and cheaper to run. The use of multiple condensers involved little additional material in construction, more than offset by the fall in the value of materials, and increased productivity in machine production. But, it meant that a given amount of coal produced a much greater quantity of power capable of powering a much larger number of spinning machines etc.
As engineering improved, the possibility of producing more efficient boilers, able to operate at higher pressures, further raised the power to coal ratio. And, subsequently, steam power itself gives way to cheaper more efficient power from oil, gas and electric.
“There can be no doubt that machinery becomes cheaper, and this for two reasons: [1] The application of machinery to the production of raw materials from which the machinery is made. [2] The application of machinery in the transformation of these materials into machinery. In saying this, we already say two things. Firstly, that in both these branches, compared with the instruments required in the manufacturing industry, the value of the capital laid out in machinery also grows as compared with that laid out in wages. 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.” (p 366)
So, it is, in fact, quite possible that an 1800 spindle machine might have a lower value than previously did a spinning wheel, and yet, that the total value of such machinery is greater than was previously the total value of spinning wheels. This simply reflects the gigantic expansion of production that occurs under industrial capitalism, compared to handicraft production. Again to put this in a modern context, the value a modern PC, with more power and functionality than a 1970's mainframe costs around £500, whereas the 1970's mainframe cost around £2 million. But, the total installed base of PC's today amounts to tens of millions of machines, compared to at most a few hundred mainframe computers in the 1970's. The total value of PC's in use today, thereby, exceeds the total value of mainframe computers in use in the 1970's.
No comments:
Post a Comment