It was concentration and centralisation of means of production which enables a technical division of labour, which makes possible machine production. Marx compares agriculture in Britain and France. In the former, land ownership is concentrated. That enables agricultural labour to be based on a division of labour, and, in turn, the introduction of machinery. In France, land ownership remained diffuse, with smaller scale production, no division of labour or use of machinery.
“For M. Proudhon the concentration of the instruments of labour is the negation of the division of labour. In reality, we find again the reverse. As the concentration of instruments develops, the division develops also, and vice versa. This is why every big mechanical invention is followed by a greater division of labour, and each increase in the division of labour gives rise in turn to new mechanical inventions.” (p 129)
I have also set out why this is based on Marx's analysis of the long wave cycle and Law of the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. The expansion of markets gave rise to the potential for large-scale capitalist production, in the towns. At first, as described above, the demand for labour is met by the influx from rural areas. But, this limited supply enabled workers to demand high wages, and only work several days per week. The introduction of a technical division of labour raises productivity, but, to satisfy the demands of capital for labour, and so reduce these wages, capital must introduce labour-saving machines.
The machines have several effects. They raise productivity much higher, and so reduce the demand for labour, weakening the position of workers, and reducing wages. They cheapen output, expanding the market. For spinning machines, they cause a glut of yarn, throwing many spinners out of business. They cause an increased demand for cotton, wool, flax etc., leading to increased production in those areas, stimulating further development of division of labour and machines. As capital and labour is released that stimulates a further social division of labour, as new types of commodity are produced.
“The invention of machinery brought about the separation of manufacturing industry from agricultural industry. The weaver and the spinner, united but lately in a single family, were separated by the machine. Thanks to the machine, the spinner can live in England while the weaver resides in the East Indies. Before the invention of machinery, the industry of a country was carried on chiefly with raw materials that were the products of its own soil; in England – wool, in Germany – flax, in France – silks and flax, in the East Indies and the Levant – cottons, etc. Thanks to the application of machinery and of steam, the division of labour was about to assume such dimensions that large-scale industry, detached from the national soil, depends entirely on the world market, on international exchange, on an international division of labour. In short – the machine has so great an influence on the division of labour, that when, in the manufacture of some object, a means has been found to produce parts of it mechanically, the manufacture splits up immediately into two works independent of each other.” (p 129)
No comments:
Post a Comment