Theories of Surplus Value, Part III, Chapter 23 - Part 5

Marx says, 

“Further, one factor in the cheapening of machinery apart from that of its elements, is the cheapening of the source of the motive power (the steam-boiler, for example) and of the transmission mechanism. Economy of power. But this results precisely from the fact that to an increasing extent the same motor can drive a larger system of machines. The motor becomes relatively cheaper (or its cost does not grow in the same ratio as the increase in the size of the system in which it is employed; the motor becomes more expensive as its power grows, but not in the same degree in which it grows); even when its cost increases absolutely, it declines relatively.” (p 366) 

But, as described above, this does not take fully into account that not only does the fuel for the motor become cheaper, but improvements in efficiency reduce the actual quantity of fuel consumed. For example, between 1980 and 2000, global GDP rose seven times faster than oil consumption, reflecting the fact that machines burning oil to provide the energy for production, as well as the processes using oil for the production of petrochemicals, became that much more efficient. 

Marx's comment, therefore, 

“It is therefore self-evident or a tautological proposition that the increasing productivity of labour caused by machinery corresponds to increased value of the machinery relative to the amount of labour employed (consequently to the value of labour, the variable capital).” (p 366-7) 

does not necessarily follow. The mass of machinery, and fixed capital, relative to labour undoubtedly rises, and this is the basis of the phenomenal rise in productivity and output. However, whilst it may be the case that the value of fixed capital rises relative to labour, particularly in the short-term, it does not necessarily follow that it does in the longer-term. That is because a) the materials used to construct and power the machinery becomes progressively cheaper, b) rising productivity reduces the labour required to produce the machines, c) technological improvements reduce the quantity of materials required to produce and power machines. 

Marx's argument, in relation to why the value of materials in production rises, fails for similar reasons. He says, 

“It is obvious that the quantity of raw material must increase proportionally with the productivity of labour; that is, the amount of raw material must be proportionate to that of labour.” (p 367) 

Except it isn't. In Capital III, Chapter 6, Marx explains, for example, how, with production on a larger scale, it becomes possible to reduce the amount of waste material used in production. Production on a larger scale facilitates the development of whole industries that utilise the waste of other industries as bi-products, for their own production. If we take a huge industry such as the oil industry, not only does the refining process produce petrol, but, via several stages, what is left over from a previous stage becomes the raw material of a further stage, and, in addition to petrol etc. derived from the crude oil, parts of the residual are used in the petrochemicals industry for the production of fertiliser etc. as well as plastics. 

Back To Part 4

Forward To Part 6