Class 7 Spanish

Once you have translated a line of English text, replace the English text with the new translation.
Please do not change the time codes.

Class 7

0:00:18.339,0:00:23.460
I think you see how, concepts that are launched
at one point in the text then

0:00:23.460,0:00:31.669
actually become the simple basis for
an advance of an argument at a later point in the text.

0:00:31.669,0:00:38.420
Now, if you remember, Marx starts off with a theory of the commodity.

0:00:38.420,0:00:48.220
And so, the first question is: What fixes the value,
or how does he define, the value of the commodity?

0:00:48.220,0:00:52.780
So, how did he define it? What's the value of a commodity?

0:00:52.780,0:00:55.790
Socially necessary labour time, okay?

0:00:55.790,0:01:04.320
So, the value is socially necessary labour time.

0:01:12.360,0:01:18.220
Now if you go back to the passages where he talked about
socially necessary labour time,

0:01:18.220,0:01:26.650
you'll find this immediately followed,
and this is back on page 130-131.

0:01:26.650,0:01:33.090
It's immediately followed
by a discussion of

0:01:33.090,0:01:41.369
the impact of changing productivity
upon the value of commodities.

0:01:41.369,0:01:54.070
So, the question is: What does rising productivity
do to the value of commodities?

0:01:54.070,0:02:03.930
-Lowers them. So, it lowers the unit value of commodities.

0:02:11.329,0:02:24.139
We then combine that with a discussion
of the value of labour power.

0:02:28.199,0:02:35.199
What was it that fixed the value of labour power?
» STUDENT: The time necessary to reproduce the labourer.

0:02:37.999,0:02:44.999
» HARVEY: Can you be a bit more elabourate?
It's not just simply the time necessary to reproduce.

0:02:44.999,0:02:51.489
» STUDENT: The value of labour power is the means of subsistence required…

0:02:51.489,0:02:53.480
» HARVEY: It's the value

0:02:53.480,0:02:58.379
of the means of subsistence needed to reproduce
the labourer at a given standard of living.

0:02:58.379,0:03:10.459
So, it's the value of that bundle of commodities
that the labourer needs to survive.

0:03:21.379,0:03:30.659
Now, when he was discussing this,
he pointed out that that value varies a great deal,

0:03:30.659,0:03:35.129
according to the conditions of class struggle,
the degree of civilization in a country.

0:03:35.129,0:03:41.819
So, the bundle commodities was not constant
across space and time.

0:03:41.819,0:03:46.269
But then he said: At a given society, a given time,

0:03:46.269,0:03:50.229
we know what that bundle is
and therefore we have a datum

0:03:50.229,0:03:57.219
which we can establish, which is
the value of labour power.

0:03:57.219,0:04:13.639
But then what he does is to go one step further,
and say this:

0:04:13.639,0:04:20.639
We're not simply dealing with this historical
and moral element.

0:04:21.349,0:04:28.349
So, you go to page 276,

0:04:29.569,0:04:33.360
and then you'll find a little short paragraph down there,

0:04:33.360,0:04:37.400
where he gives a definition, which we've given:
"The value of labour-power

0:04:37.400,0:04:43.609
can be resolved into the value of
a definite quantity of the means of subsistence.

0:04:43.609,0:04:54.7299
It therefore varies with the value of the means of subsistence, i.e.
with the quantity of labour-time required to produce them."

0:04:54.729,0:05:05.039
So, what happens to the value of this bundle of commodities
when there's rising productivity?

0:05:05.039,0:05:06.159
-Falls.

0:05:06.159,0:05:22.249
Therefore, the value of labour-power declines,

0:05:22.249,0:05:28.919
not in terms of what people are physically receiving, you still
get the same bundle of commodities.

0:05:28.919,0:05:36.159
But they just cost you much less.
The value has gone down.

0:05:36.159,0:05:43.649
Now, that happens as a connection between these two,

0:05:43.649,0:05:47.680
but there's a funny thing about this connection:

0:05:47.680,0:05:57.280
Does any increase in productivity do this?
» STUDENT: Just the increase in the goods that go into the…

0:05:59.949,0:06:04.169
» HARVEY: Just in, what we'll call,

0:06:04.169,0:06:12.789
this only operates with respect to what we'll call wage goods, i.e.
those which enter into this bundle of commodities.

0:06:12.789,0:06:20.030
So, an increase in productivity in
making mink coats for the bourgeoisie doesn't do it.

0:06:20.030,0:06:27.030
The increase in productivity, which makes a Lexus
cheaper doesn't do it.

0:06:27.169,0:06:34.939
So, for anything that goes into this bundle
of commodities, which is affected by this,

0:06:34.939,0:06:40.729
generates, therefore, a lower value of labour power.

0:06:40.729,0:06:47.729
Now, how does Marx define the rate of exploitation?

0:06:48.319,0:06:55.319
What is the rate of exploitation?
» STUDENT: The ratio of the surplus worker's time to necessary worker's time.

0:06:56.680,0:07:02.620
» HARVEY: Okay.

0:07:02.620,0:07:06.509
Simply put: S over V.

0:07:06.509,0:07:12.289
What happens to 'S over V' as 'V' goes down?

0:07:12.289,0:07:19.289
The rate of exploitation increases.

0:07:31.629,0:07:37.740
Of course, what he does in this section,
is to start out by saying:

0:07:37.740,0:07:44.159
'Well, imagine that the working day is fixed,

0:07:44.159,0:07:48.309
that you can't change the length of the working day
anymore', and we'll remember,

0:07:48.309,0:07:55.109
the previous chapter took up the question of limits.
What are the limits

0:07:55.109,0:08:00.129
on the mass of the surplus-value
which the capitalist can gain?

0:08:00.129,0:08:06.579
And those limits are fixed by two things:
(1) the rate of surplus-value

0:08:06.579,0:08:10.669
and (2) by the number of labourers you employ.

0:08:10.669,0:08:20.560
So, if the number of labourers you employ, is fixed,
and the length of the working day is fixed,

0:08:20.560,0:08:28.889
then the only way you can hope to increase
the rate of exploitation and the rate of surplus-value,

0:08:28.889,0:08:35.910
is by decreasing the amount you spend on 'V'.

0:08:35.910,0:08:43.850
He starts off this section, by saying 'Well, we know that capitalists

0:08:43.850,0:08:48.790
are very anxious to reduce wages as much as they can.'

0:08:48.790,0:08:53.720
We just heard, right?

0:08:53.720,0:08:59.320
'But I'm not going to consider that case.'

0:08:59.320,0:09:04.089
So, he sets up an argument which is again, based

0:09:04.089,0:09:10.780
on the propositions of political economy
about a perfectly functioning world.

0:09:10.780,0:09:16.230
So, he says on page 431:

0:09:16.230,0:09:26.350
'I know that capitalists will try to reduce wages below value.'

0:09:27.160,0:09:35.590
He says, but "the surplus labour would in this case be
prolonged only by transgressing the normal limits;

0:09:35.590,0:09:42.500
its domain would be extended only by a usurpation of part
of the domain of necessary labour-time.

0:09:42.500,0:09:49.500
Despite the important part which this method plays in practice,
we are excluded

0:09:52.030,0:10:00.960
from considering it here by our assumption that all commodities,
including labour-power, are bought and sold at their full value."

0:10:00.960,0:10:03.100
Now, this again, is another instance,

0:10:03.100,0:10:08.300
and we've come across them many times in 'Capital'
and we're going to come across them again,

0:10:08.300,0:10:16.630
where Marx, in order to make his argument, stays within
the assumptions of a perfectly functioning, political-economic system,

0:10:16.630,0:10:24.850
as depicted by the political economists
of the 18th and early 19th centuries.

0:10:24.850,0:10:28.810
As we've already discussed, the reason he does
that is because he wants to say:

0:10:28.810,0:10:35.270
'Even if their system worked, according to their utopian plans,

0:10:35.270,0:10:43.720
we would get a very different result
than that which Adam Smith predicted.'

0:10:43.720,0:10:49.220
So, he's being very rigorous about staying within these assumptions.

0:10:49.220,0:10:56.710
But he's saying: 'Look, we can't get this effect
of an increased rate of exploitation,

0:10:56.710,0:11:08.830
simply by combining the argument about the value of the commodity
with the argument about the value of labour power.'

0:11:12.630,0:11:19.480
Now, this immediately raises some very interesting questions.

0:11:19.480,0:11:30.640
Which Marx does not, at this point,
immediately take up.

0:11:30.640,0:11:39.600
For example, let's suppose there is a dramatic increase in productivity,

0:11:39.600,0:11:47.920
and wage goods come way, way down in value.

0:11:47.920,0:11:59.310
What would happen, if you gave
a bit of that saving to the working class?

0:11:59.310,0:12:11.340
You could actually increase the rate of exploitation,
while increasing the physical living standard of the workers.

0:12:11.560,0:12:18.350
Now, this is a very, very important element in the argument,

0:12:18.350,0:12:24.140
because one of the things people'll always say
to you is 'Marx is always talking about an increasing rate of exploitation,

0:12:24.140,0:12:28.830
but, my god, look how well off the working class
are now, in terms of the products they've got

0:12:28.830,0:12:35.150
as opposed to what they had 150 years ago.

0:12:35.150,0:12:42.810
So, his thesis about an increasing rate of exploitation is obvious nonsense.'

0:12:42.810,0:12:46.800
Well, the answer to that is: It's not obvious nonsense at all.

0:12:46.800,0:12:55.740
It's perfectly feasible, within a capitalist system,
that increasing productivity, produces

0:12:55.740,0:13:02.490
such an increase in the quantities of commodities which are available,

0:13:02.490,0:13:08.980
That a certain segment has to go to the working-class,
otherwise you wouldn't have a market,

0:13:08.980,0:13:14.350
and that segment that does go to the working
class is, of course,

0:13:14.350,0:13:18.080
one of the great ways in which you can pull
the working class

0:13:18.080,0:13:24.460
into support for capitalism, by saying 'Look
you're getting better off all of the time,

0:13:24.460,0:13:30.030
you have more goods now that you had 30, 40 years ago.'

0:13:30.030,0:13:37.270
Now, whether that sharing of the gains of productivity
actually occurs,

0:13:37.270,0:13:43.920
depends on class struggle, of course. Like the length of the working day.
Marx does not

0:13:43.920,0:13:47.020
actually introduce that here. But,

0:13:47.020,0:13:57.080
elsewhere in 'Capital' and elsewhere in his writings,
he does, in fact, entertain this possibility.

0:13:57.080,0:14:03.620
But, historically, I think there's a very
interesting thing we have to look at.

0:14:03.620,0:14:13.370
You look at the history of American labour,
up until around 1970.

0:14:13.370,0:14:26.340
American labour always benefited by an increase in its living standards,
as it shared somewhat in rising productivity.

0:14:26.340,0:14:34.870
And in fact, a typical trade union bargaining thing
in the 1960's was precisely

0:14:34.870,0:14:40.510
to say to the unions: 'You agree to these means
by which we will increase productivity,

0:14:40.510,0:14:46.860
and we'll agree to give you more money,
so that you get more in the marketplace.'

0:14:46.860,0:14:51.800
So, it's a kind of productivity-sharing agreement.

0:14:51.800,0:14:55.670
Since the 1970's, all of the data in this country show,

0:14:55.670,0:14:59.200
not necessarily globally, but in this country show,

0:14:59.200,0:15:06.140
that the working class has not benefited from gains in productivity,
hardly at all.

0:15:06.140,0:15:16.890
In other words, real wages have remained pretty stagnant,
for the last 20, 30 years, a little bit increased in the 1990's.

0:15:16.890,0:15:22.910
But, pretty much stagnant, which means that
the working class has not shared

0:15:22.910,0:15:29.770
in the benefits that come from rising productivity.
So, guess who has taken it all?

0:15:29.770,0:15:35.000
Well, you know hedge-fund folk
and all the rest of it.

0:15:35.000,0:15:40.299
So we get an incredible increase
in inequality over the last 30 years

0:15:40.299,0:15:51.270
which is partly an indicator of the fact that the working class in this country
has not benefited from this, at all.

0:15:51.270,0:15:55.629
Again, that has a lot to do with the state
of class struggle, how class struggle is being

0:15:55.629,0:15:59.530
set up, and all the rest of it.
Marx does not deal with that in this chapter,

0:15:59.530,0:16:04.640
but it is implicit in the analysis and I think
it's very important at this point in the

0:16:04.640,0:16:14.700
argument to insert it as part and parcel
of what is possible here.

0:16:14.700,0:16:17.700
So the proposition would simply be this:

0:16:17.700,0:16:21.450
It is entirely feasible

0:16:21.450,0:16:27.820
for there to be an increase in the physical
living standards of the working-class,

0:16:27.820,0:16:34.480
at the same time as there'd be an increase
in the rate of exploitation.

0:16:34.480,0:16:41.600
Bear that proposition in mind.

0:16:41.600,0:16:46.120
Secondly, there's another issue, which he does raise in this chapter,

0:16:46.120,0:16:54.430
but which I want to suggest might have a slightly different answer.

0:16:54.430,0:16:59.360
What happens when somebody increases productivity?

0:16:59.360,0:17:04.910
An individual capitalist increases the productivity

0:17:04.910,0:17:12.449
in shoe production and the value of the shoes
goes down and this is what workers need.

0:17:12.449,0:17:13.910
See what happens.

0:17:13.910,0:17:17.610
An individual capitalist does something,

0:17:17.610,0:17:22.690
which is a benefit to the whole working-class,
to the whole capitalist class, sorry.

0:17:22.690,0:17:27.829
It's a benefit to everybody in the capitalist class.

0:17:27.829,0:17:39.390
Because the value of labour power goes down, because shoes are cheaper,
all capitalists can pay less value.

0:17:39.390,0:17:46.660
So, he raises the question: Why would an individual capitalist
do something which is

0:17:46.660,0:17:53.330
for the benefit of the whole capitalist class?

0:17:53.330,0:18:00.250
I mean, maybe they're endowed with incredible
class consciousness, when they do this.

0:18:00.250,0:18:04.160
But at some point they're likely to get really
teed off, in the sense that they'll say 'well,

0:18:04.160,0:18:09.280
look, I'm putting in all this effort in innovating
and raising productivity.

0:18:09.280,0:18:13.310
Everybody's benefiting, you're all sitting
around doing nothing,

0:18:13.310,0:18:17.010
you're playing what's called the free rider game.

0:18:17.010,0:18:20.690
You're, all the rest of you, you're doing nothing.

0:18:20.690,0:18:28.920
I mean even you people making mink coats are benefiting from this.

0:18:28.920,0:18:32.080
So, why would I as an individual capitalist do that?

0:18:32.080,0:18:39.080
What is the incentive for me? Well, yes, I can
pay my labourer just a little bit less,

0:18:39.440,0:18:41.930
because shoes are a bit cheaper.

0:18:41.930,0:18:46.669
But it's it's a very small amount of gain
I get for a large amount of effort.'

0:18:46.669,0:18:50.720
So, Marx is going to talk about,

0:18:50.720,0:18:58.100
how is it that individual capitalists
are persuaded to do this.

0:18:58.100,0:19:06.790
And his answer is going to be based
on something that we have come up against before,

0:19:06.790,0:19:15.530
which is the idea of the coercive laws of competition.

0:19:16.080,0:19:27.919
Now, Marx is very restrained about
how to look at competition, throughout 'Capital'.

0:19:27.919,0:19:37.380
In part, I think, because he wants to view it, a bit like demand and
supply, as something that equilibrates the system,

0:19:37.380,0:19:43.660
rather than being fundamental to the character
of the system.

0:19:43.660,0:19:59.920
So what he does, is to then immediately introduce
the idea that we have to look at the rules of competition.

0:19:59.920,0:20:08.090
So, on 433, he says:

0:20:08.090,0:20:12.930
"It is not our intention here to consider the way in which
the immanent laws of capitalist production

0:20:12.930,0:20:17.700
manifest themselves in
the external movement of the individual capitals,

0:20:17.700,0:20:20.800
assert themselves as the coercive laws of competition,

0:20:20.800,0:20:25.759
and therefore enter into the
consciousness of the individual capitalist as the motives

0:20:25.759,0:20:27.799
which drive him forward,

0:20:27.799,0:20:29.130
this much is clear:

0:20:29.130,0:20:35.280
a scientific analysis of competition is possible
only if we can grasp the inner nature capital,…"

0:20:35.280,0:20:40.120
That is, you got to understand what it is that
competition is going to do,

0:20:40.120,0:20:45.210
if you can't understand what competition is
going to do, you can't understand

0:20:45.210,0:20:51.310
why a capitalist society tolerates or likes competition.

0:20:51.310,0:20:52.730
And as he says:

0:20:52.730,0:20:56.920
This "scientific analysis … is possible only
only if we can grasp the inner nature of capital,

0:20:56.920,0:20:59.040
just as the apparent motions

0:20:59.040,0:21:03.040
of the heavenly bodies are intelligible only to someone
who is acquainted with their real motions,

0:21:03.040,0:21:06.330
which are not perceptible to the senses."

0:21:06.330,0:21:13.150
Again, there's a notion here, which goes back a bit,
close to fetishism, right? That, there's a disguise,

0:21:13.150,0:21:18.230
but if we just look at competition in itself,
we're gonna miss the point,

0:21:18.230,0:21:25.230
it's disguising something else. What is it disguising?

0:21:27.770,0:21:34.770
What it is disguising, he points out on page 434-435, is this:

0:21:36.850,0:21:44.040
Socially necessary labour time is a social average.

0:21:44.040,0:21:51.040
So the value of commodities is a social average.

0:21:51.970,0:21:55.610
And at any one particular moment,

0:21:55.610,0:22:04.560
some capitalists will be working above that average
and some will be working below that average.

0:22:04.560,0:22:08.350
Those who'll be working below that average,

0:22:08.350,0:22:16.810
will be selling at the average but producing at below average,
therefore they'll be getting a little bit more surplus-value.

0:22:16.810,0:22:22.280
Those selling above will be getting less surplus-value than the social average.

0:22:22.280,0:22:26.710
So, there's a distinction:

0:22:26.710,0:22:30.380
Everybody's selling at the social average, but [there are] those
who are producing above the social average

0:22:30.380,0:22:34.210
and those who are producing below the social average.

0:22:34.210,0:22:41.250
And if you go back to those passages about
socially necessary time and productivity,

0:22:41.250,0:22:53.170
Marx introduces the question: What happens when you get hand loom weavers
against power loom weavers?

0:22:53.170,0:23:00.160
The productivity of the power loom weavers is
immensely greater,

0:23:00.160,0:23:04.830
so what happens to value? Well, value starts to come down

0:23:04.830,0:23:08.530
and eventually, of course, the hand loom weavers
are gonna be driven out of business

0:23:08.530,0:23:13.390
because they can't compete anymore.

0:23:13.390,0:23:20.670
But notice what happens in the midst of this process;
let's suppose the social average,

0:23:20.670,0:23:22.880
we're doing it in a graph kind of form,

0:23:22.880,0:23:33.870
at any one particular moment, the social average is -that-.
Ten units to produce a widget or whatever.

0:23:33.870,0:23:41.050
Let's suppose I come up with a superior way of making widgets.

0:23:41.050,0:23:48.040
Then I'm still going to sell at -this average-
but I'm going to produce at -this one here-,

0:23:48.040,0:23:58.920
So what I get is an extra piece of surplus-value.

0:23:58.920,0:24:02.140
But then what happens?

0:24:02.140,0:24:07.730
At some point maybe I start to produce a lot
more widgets because I've gotten so productive,

0:24:07.730,0:24:16.980
so I will start to try to outcompete everybody else
and extend my market by bringing the value down,

0:24:16.980,0:24:21.220
-this- is the original time,
to time 2.

0:24:21.220,0:24:24.830
In which case I'm still getting extra,

0:24:24.830,0:24:30.039
but I'm now outcompeting everybody else, so
anybody else who is producing much above that,

0:24:30.039,0:24:34.309
is beginning to get into competitive trouble.

0:24:34.309,0:24:38.130
What do you do if you're in competitive trouble?

0:24:38.130,0:24:43.420
You say: 'What on earth is my competitor doing
that allows my competitor to go into

0:24:43.420,0:24:46.600
the market and produce so cheaply?

0:24:46.600,0:24:51.950
Oh, they've got a new machine!
Okay, I can get a new machine.'

0:24:51.950,0:24:58.030
So what my competitor does is then say 'Ah!
I'm gonna follow you into your technological innovation,

0:24:58.030,0:25:00.179
I'm going to come down to -here-.'

0:25:00.179,0:25:06.890
And pretty soon, everybody is down to -here-;
the value's -here- and

0:25:06.890,0:25:12.670
my surplus-value has disappeared, my extra surplus-
value has disappeared.

0:25:12.670,0:25:19.270
So, what Marx says about this, is that there
is a form of surplus-value,

0:25:19.270,0:25:25.050
driven in this way by the coercive laws of competition,

0:25:25.050,0:25:31.620
which is ephemeral. It only lasts as long as I'm ahead of the pack,

0:25:31.620,0:25:43.380
in terms of my production technique, my organizational technique,
but it will disappear as soon as everybody catches up with me.

0:25:43.380,0:25:48.600
And this is what individual capitalists are after when they innovate.

0:25:48.600,0:25:52.960
They're not after -this form- of surplus-value at all,
they would have the 'surplus rider' problem,

0:25:52.960,0:25:55.080
they would probably stop it.

0:25:55.080,0:26:08.860
But they are after -this-. Because as an individual capitalist,
I can get this ephemeral kind of surplus-value,

0:26:08.860,0:26:16.400
just for a while, by having a superior technology.

0:26:16.400,0:26:22.960
But, notice something immediately. I then think to myself:

0:26:22.960,0:26:27.260
'Well there's something about a superior technology
that was extremely advantageous to me, so

0:26:27.260,0:26:31.399
I'm going to find another superior technology.'

0:26:31.399,0:26:39.170
And pretty soon my competitors, well most will get on the
idea and say superior technology seems a pretty good idea.

0:26:39.170,0:26:42.350
So I'm going to get superior technologies.

0:26:42.350,0:26:51.400
So what the coercive laws of competition tend to do,
is to generate leapfrogging innovations

0:26:51.400,0:27:00.570
in which there is a competitive fight
to try to get the most superior technology,

0:27:00.570,0:27:04.820
in that search for this ephemeral form

0:27:04.820,0:27:09.350
of surplus-value which gives me windfall profits, if
you want to call it that.

0:27:09.350,0:27:18.110
Ephemeral, excess surplus-value just for that period of time.

0:27:18.110,0:27:22.409
Here's a very happy coincidence:

0:27:22.409,0:27:34.200
The individual motivation of the capitalist,
driven by the coercive laws of competition,

0:27:34.200,0:27:49.590
produce this effect i.e. the reduction in the value of labour power.

0:27:49.590,0:27:56.170
It's interesting here, what Marx is doing is
taking individual behavior and setting it alongside

0:27:56.170,0:27:59.750
class perspective.

0:27:59.750,0:28:10.480
And this is also very important, that capitalists
rarely act individually, in a class interest.

0:28:11.309,0:28:18.460
But, what drives them individually is to do something which is in the class interest,

0:28:18.460,0:28:25.570
which is why he wants you to understand that the reason that

0:28:25.570,0:28:29.700
capitalists keep on yacking on about competition
and everybody goes on and on about

0:28:29.700,0:28:40.160
the importance of the competition and being competitive and so on,
is because it produces this kind of result.

0:28:40.160,0:28:48.909
This happy coincidence between what's happening to the individual capitalist,
and what's happening to the class interest,

0:28:48.909,0:28:57.510
is really very strongly presented here.

0:28:57.980,0:29:00.870
This also produces something else.

0:29:00.870,0:29:22.600
I suggested that capitalists driven by the coercive laws of competition
are going to be pushed towards innovation.

0:29:22.600,0:29:31.680
Now there's an interesting thing, in a lot of studies you will find innovation

0:29:31.680,0:29:44.880
treated as something which is 'outside of', it's external to the dynamics, it's an exogenous
variable, it's outside of, it just happens, you know.

0:29:44.880,0:29:50.770
Edison had an idea or somebody else had an idea, you know, it just happened.

0:29:50.770,0:29:58.560
What Marx is doing here is actually internalizing it within the logic of capital itself.

0:29:58.560,0:30:02.980
That is, when you see what he's doing here,
you immediately would understand

0:30:02.980,0:30:12.880
there is no way in which a capitalist society
can not be technologically dynamic,

0:30:12.880,0:30:16.940
it has to be.

0:30:16.940,0:30:22.950
And of course, historically, many people now
would look at other modes of production

0:30:22.950,0:30:28.720
and say 'Well, the problem was they weren't
technologically dynamic'.

0:30:28.720,0:30:31.390
One of the criticisms of

0:30:31.390,0:30:35.810
the ex-Soviet Union was: They weren't technologically
dynamic, they didn't come up with

0:30:35.810,0:30:41.299
new brands of toothpaste, two a month, or something like that.
They didn't do those kinds of things.

0:30:41.299,0:30:45.510
Actually, they were technologically dynamic in
certain areas,

0:30:45.510,0:30:49.020
laser technologies and all those kinds of things,
but they were not technologically dynamic

0:30:49.020,0:30:51.970
in the way that capitalism is.

0:30:51.970,0:31:02.200
But what comes out of this is that technological
dynamism is both inevitable, and a good thing.

0:31:02.200,0:31:13.030
If somebody came from outer space to put a
moratorium upon technological change under capitalism,

0:31:13.030,0:31:17.260
then the whole system would collapse.

0:31:17.260,0:31:21.190
So Marx is saying that there's an internal necessity.

0:31:21.190,0:31:27.020
That's what the value theory goes back to, the socially necessary,
What is socially necessary for capitalism to survive?

0:31:27.020,0:31:33.730
Technological dynamism,
along, of course, with growth,

0:31:33.730,0:31:41.370
capitalism either grows or dies,
it's technologically dynamic or it dies.

0:31:41.370,0:31:51.570
What Marx is doing here is explaining to us why and how
that internalization of technological dynamism

0:31:51.570,0:31:55.790
becomes so important.

0:31:55.790,0:32:03.850
So you don't go back to the great inventors
and all that kind of stuff, and explain technological

0:31:59.930,0:32:05.680
dynamism simply by talking about the great inventors.

0:32:05.680,0:32:13.560
You explain it by a system that begins to
particularly kick in towards the end of the 18th century,

0:32:13.560,0:32:21.220
in which this internalization of technological dynamism
really takes off.

0:32:21.220,0:32:30.010
And that is, if you like,
a central aspect of a capitalist mode of production.

0:32:30.010,0:32:39.070
Then this leads to one other question:
Is there any way in which capitalists could realize

0:32:39.070,0:32:45.810
this increased exploitation through collective action?

0:32:45.810,0:32:49.510
Marx here does not raise that possibility,

0:32:49.510,0:33:00.559
but actually that possibility was raised in the chapter on the working day.
Can you remember what it was?

0:33:03.300,0:33:10.300
What was it that the industrial interests wanted?
Final hour… ? -No.

0:33:10.300,0:33:15.750
The working day broadened… -No.

0:33:15.750,0:33:22.010
What they wanted was cheap what?

0:33:22.010,0:33:24.510
Cheap bread!

0:33:24.510,0:33:34.220
They wanted the Corn Laws repealed,
they wanted cheap imports of wheat,

0:33:34.220,0:33:40.230
so they could have cheap bread,
so they could lower wages,

0:33:40.230,0:33:44.150
so that they could be more competitive on
the global economy.

0:33:44.150,0:33:49.940
That's what the Manchester school of economics was about,
that's what Compton and Bright

0:33:49.940,0:33:56.170
and the anti-Corn Law agitation was about.

0:33:56.170,0:34:00.830
It was cheap bread.

0:34:00.830,0:34:13.669
So actually, there is a way in which
a capitalist class interest can be expressed, in tariff policy.

0:34:13.669,0:34:28.849
Where do you think most of the gains in physical living standards,
insofar as they're there at all,

0:34:21.849,0:34:28.849
over the last 20 or 30 years, has come from?

0:34:30.419,0:34:32.569
Where has it come from?

0:34:32.569,0:34:39.679
Cheap Chinese imports, Walmart…

0:34:39.679,0:34:44.349
And you fool around with a Walmart economy and you
fool around which cheap Chinese imports,

0:34:44.349,0:34:53.460
see what it does to the physical standards of living of the working class.

0:34:53.460,0:35:00.640
In other words, tariff policy becomes

0:35:00.640,0:35:06.529
very much mixed up. And part of what you're seeing right now
is a kind of crazy business,

0:35:06.529,0:35:20.619
the AFL-CIO saying 'We got to stop the export of jobs
to China because that means loss of jobs here.'

0:35:20.619,0:35:27.209
But in so doing of course they're likely to undermine
the standard of living of the working class.

0:35:27.209,0:35:35.769
And actually, it turns out that most of the job losses in this country
are not due to outsourcing.

0:35:35.769,0:35:38.939
What are they due to?

0:35:38.939,0:35:40.429
Technological change.

0:35:40.429,0:35:46.789
About sixty percent of the job reduction amongst the working class
in this country over the last 30 years has been due

0:35:46.789,0:35:51.099
to technological change.

0:35:51.099,0:35:59.630
When I arrived in Baltimore [early 1970's] there were something of about
27,000 people employed in 'Bethlehem Steel'.

0:35:59.630,0:36:10.039
By the time you get to 1990, there about 5,000 people employed in Bethlehem Steel
producing the same amount of steel.

0:36:10.039,0:36:18.979
Eventually, of course it all disappears, it's gone to China
and Korea and Japan and all the rest of it.

0:36:18.979,0:36:19.890
But the point,

0:36:19.890,0:36:26.389
the point here is that you can see immediately
what the collective interest might be

0:36:26.389,0:36:31.040
over things like free-trade, tariff policy and all the rest of it.

0:36:31.040,0:36:42.739
And why it actually makes it rather complicated
for a working-class movement to argue for protectionism

0:36:42.739,0:36:51.890
and at the same time, want to have cheap goods
to support it's standards of living.

0:36:51.890,0:36:56.920
So, in other words, you have to mix up this external dynamic.

0:36:56.920,0:37:05.519
There are other places where this collective interest comes out,
consider the tax system:

0:37:05.519,0:37:12.519
What is exempt from sales tax in New York state?

0:37:12.519,0:37:20.400
-Food. It's pretty good example, right?

0:37:20.400,0:37:35.449
What about agricultural subsidies which give you cheap
cheap milk, cheap agricultural products?

0:37:35.449,0:37:43.050
Europe has maintained a lot of its standard of living through agricultural
subsidies. So there's a whole

0:37:43.050,00:37:51.829
arena here of class politics, around 'what is going to be
the value of this bundle of commodities'.

0:37:51.829,0:38:02.019
So, if you suddenly taxed all the food, at the same rate
you're taxing everything else, then that would raise (…)

0:38:02.019,0:38:09.019
I mean, wage demands would go skyrocketing up, immediately.

0:38:10.160,0:38:15.279
So, again, there are, it turns out collective ways.

0:38:15.279,0:38:20.189
And some of them have historically been very very interesting,

0:38:20.189,00:38:33.920
for example: the industrial interest has on occasions supported
subsidized housing for the workers, rent control.

0:38:33.920,0:38:46.039
In some countries, for instance in France in the 1920s
the industrial interest was fiercely behind rent control.

0:38:46.039,0:38:52.089
And subsidized housing has played a very important role in keeping

0:38:52.089,0:38:56.859
the country competitive in terms of the wages it had to pay.

0:38:56.859,0:39:04.199
One of the long-term effects of Margaret Thatcher
privatizing all of the social housing in Britain,

0:39:04.199,0:39:12.390
was to raise the cost of housing to the point where
Britain became non-competitive

0:39:12.390,0:39:18.169
in many areas of industrial activity. So, its car industry,

0:39:18.169,0:39:24.179
the British car industry sort of disappeared and
all kind of things like that.

0:39:24.179,0:39:32.829
So politics gets played around what is it that is fixing
the value of this bundle of commodities?

0:39:32.829,0:39:37.650
Marx does a great job in this chapter, of talking
about the way in which this individual incentive

0:39:37.650,0:39:45.189
has this effect. But he does not take up
the other part of the story, which is

0:39:45.189,0:39:50.259
the collective way in which capitalist class interests
and working class interests and

0:39:50.259,,0:40:01.469
the interest of those classes who have no immediate stake in the issue
get involved in a struggle over tariff policy, taxation policy,

0:40:01.469,0:40:09.989
subsidies policy to agriculture. And all kinds of arguments of that sort,
so the class character of that

0:40:09.989,0:40:11.939
starts to become significant.

0:40:11.939,0:40:22.759
And as I said, I think it's a pity that Marx didn't mention this here
and actually doesn't take it up elsewhere, to my knowledge.

0:40:22.759,0:40:29.249
So, this is, if you like, the theory of relative surplus-value.

0:40:29.249,0:40:40.849
It's a very simple formulation, as I suggested, but it's one
you have to really think about and get straight,

0:40:40.849,0:40:43.959
by going back over these propositions

0:40:43.959,0:40:50.919
going back over, for example: What is it that
fixes the value of labour power?

0:40:50.919,0:40:57.919
And then asking the question: What is it that
fixes the value of that bundle of commodities?

0:40:58.239,0:41:07.390
You've got to get those connections straight,
because for some reason or other

0:41:07.390,0:41:11.959
people often seem to have difficulty in seeing
the difference between

0:41:11.959,0:41:16.999
this social class form that I'm talking,
and the individual form,

0:41:16.999,0:41:22.029
and what the relationship is between the two. But
I think you can see it immediately when you say:

0:41:22.029,0:41:30.059
Rising productivity arises out of this search
for ephemeral relative surplus-value,

0:41:30.059,0:41:38.139
and it generates a social form, provided it affects
the value of labour power.

0:41:39.139,0:41:42.699
It seems to me important when reading these two chapters and

0:41:42.699,0:41:54.979
the long chapter on machinery that follows, to recognize that
Marx is as interested in organizational form,

0:41:54.979,0:42:03.930
if you like, the software, as he is in the machines, the hardware,
and all the rest of it.

0:42:03.930,0:42:07.339
So you have to look at Marx's theory of

0:42:07.339,0:42:12.529
technology as not simply being about machinery
but also being about organizational form.

0:42:12.529,0:42:20.369
And the two organizational forms, which are basic,
right through to our situation are:

0:42:20.369,0:42:24.599
co-operation and division of labour, and how those work.

0:42:24.599,0:42:32.279
The distinctive form under capitalism is, of course,
the development of machinery, and the machine culture

0:42:32.279,0:42:36.979
in general. But that doesn't mean that
co-operation or division of labour disappear,

0:42:36.979,0:42:39.119
they are integral to

0:42:39.119,0:42:44.839
the acquisition of relative surplus-value because
both co-operation and division of labour,

0:42:44.839,0:42:52.499
when you look at the reorganizations, are about
finding ways to increase productivity.

0:42:52.499,0:43:00.499
What you'll find also in these chapters,
is again a question which was posed

0:43:00.499,0:43:06.879
very much in the chapter on the labour process.

0:43:06.879,0:43:13.039
Where Marx does not actually view the labour
process as something negative,

0:43:13.039,0:43:23.729
he views it is something potentially creative,
potentially beneficial and satisfying etc.

0:43:23.729,0:43:27.190
It's only under capitalism that

0:43:27.190,0:43:31.019
this is turned into something rather negative,
and I think you'll get a similar atmosphere

0:43:31.019,0:43:37.029
in these chapters which suggest that
co-operation is not bad thing.

0:43:37.029,0:43:44.249
In fact, it's a wonderful capacity we have.
Division of labour is not a bad thing.

0:43:44.249,0:43:52.959
The only interesting question for Marx is: How
are divisions of labour and co-operation mobilized

0:43:52.959,0:43:56.329
under capitalism and with what effects?
Which we'll see

0:43:56.329,0:44:02.660
are broadly going to be negative with some positive
qualities as well.

0:44:02.660,0:44:07.369
The chapter on machinery is gonna be much more

0:44:07.369,0:44:13.549
controversial, because the issue there will
be: To what degree the machines themselves

0:44:13.549,0:44:23.019
are inherently so capitalistic that you can't hold with them
very much longer if you want to be socialist,

0:44:23.019,0:44:28.179
or to what degree is it possible also,
to convert them into something

0:44:28.179,0:44:35.949
which is positive for humanity in general, and for the
labourer in particular.

0:44:35.949,0:44:46.209
Now the chapter on co-operation takes up
this first way of thinking about things.

0:44:46.209,0:44:50.689
Marx points out immediately that one of
the benefits that comes from co-operation

0:44:50.689,0:45:00.069
is the capacity for increasing the scale of production.
And there is, of course, a long theory

0:45:00.069,0:45:11.319
in the history of political economy about increasing scale
and the way in which increasing scale can increase productivity.

0:45:11.319,0:45:20.379
So the doctrine of increasing scale
is a very important one to Marx.

0:45:20.379,0:45:29.089
Over the first few pages, he spends time talking about this.

0:45:29.089,0:45:44.879
In which he's prepared to acknowledge the potential positive aspects of it.
On page 443,

0:45:44.879,0:45:48.759
he defines co-operation by saying: "When numerous workers

0:45:48.759,0:45:53.140
work together side by side in accordance with a plan,
whether in the same process,

0:45:53.140,0:45:59.809
or in different but connected processes,
this form of labour is called co-operation."

0:45:59.809,0:46:07.609
Note the word 'plan' there, it's going to become an important idea.

0:46:07.609,0:46:11.099
The result, he says towards the bottom of page 443:
"Not only do we have here

0:46:11.099,0:46:14.529
an increase in the productive power of the individual, by
means of co-operation,

0:46:14.529,0:46:20.989
but the creation of a new productive power,
which is intrinsically a collective one."

0:46:20.989,0:46:28.650
And this collective one, he says, "begets in most industries
a rivalry and a stimulation of the 'animal spirits',

0:46:28.650,0:46:31.849
which heightens the efficiency of each individual worker.

0:46:31.849,0:46:36.549
This is why a dozen people working together will produce far more,

0:46:36.549,0:46:45.959
in their collective working day of 144 hours
than twelve isolated men each working for 12 hours."

0:46:45.959,0:47:01.179
He then talks about the way in which that co-operation can be
mobilized within industry and what this allows to occur.

0:47:01.179,0:47:05.989
On page 446-447,

0:47:05.989,0:47:12.869
he talks about the way in which "co-operation
allows work to be carried on over a large area…

0:47:12.869,0:47:19.159
On the other hand, while extending the scale of production it
renders possible a relative contraction of its arena.

0:47:19.159,0:47:23.279
This simultaneous restriction of space and extension of effectiveness,

0:47:23.279,0:47:28.199
which allows a large number of incidental expenses to be
spared, results from the massing together

0:47:28.199,0:47:35.509
of workers and of various labour processes,
and from the concentration of the means of production."

0:47:35.509,0:47:40.069
Interesting tension here between the expansion,
the geographical expansion, the spatial expansion

0:47:40.069,0:47:45.849
and the geographical concentration.
And as he will point out

0:47:45.849,0:47:54.039
later on, this geographical concentration, bringing workers together,
has certain political consequences as well.

0:47:55.039,0:48:02.709
But, he insists on page 447, towards the middle there:

0:48:02.709,0:48:12.309
"The special productive power of the combined working day is,
under all circumstances the social productive power of labour,

0:48:12.309,0:48:19.289
or the productive power of social labour.
This power arises from co-operation itself.

0:48:19.289,0:48:27.289
When the worker co-operates in a planned way with others,
he strips off the fetters of his individuality, and develops

0:48:27.289,0:48:31.249
the capabilities of his species."

0:48:31.249,0:48:35.189
Occasionally, Marx goes back to some notion of 'species being'

0:48:35.189,0:48:40.880
which is very important in the economic and philosophic manuscripts,
and here is one of those moments.

0:48:40.880,0:48:47.079
And at this point it's very hard to view this discussion
of co-operation in a negative light,

0:48:47.079,0:48:52.429
you strip off the fetters of your individuality, and develop the capabilities of the
species,

0:48:52.429,0:48:57.849
there's an almost positive tone about this.

0:48:57.849,0:49:07.259
But as in the chapter on the labour process, he then says
'Well let us now return to what our capitalist does with this'.

0:49:07.259,0:49:14.859
And the first point he makes on page 448,
is that the capitalist, in order to launch co-operation has to

0:49:14.859,0:49:19.279
have a mass of capital available at the
start. So one of the big questions is:

0:49:19.279,0:49:25.869
How much do they need to start off this whole
process and where does it come from?

0:49:25.869,0:49:31.669
There are, if you like, what we now call
'barriers to entry' into a production process.

0:49:31.669,0:49:37.109
How much do you need to start up?

0:49:37.109,0:49:47.859
This also introduces, in a shadowy way, at the bottom of page 448,
a distinction which is going to come back again.

0:49:47.859,0:49:54.859
He says: "We also saw that, at first, the subjection of labour to capital was
only a formal result

0:49:54.979,0:50:00.609
of the fact that the worker, instead of working for himself,
works for, and consequently under, the capitalist."

0:50:00.609,0:50:01.969
Then he goes on to say:

0:50:01.969,0:50:06.379
"Through the co-operation of numerous wage-labourers,
the command of capital develops into a requirement

0:50:06.379,0:50:13.579
for carrying on the labour process itself,
into a real condition of production."

0:50:16.079,0:50:22.749
He's introducing here this distinction between
a formal subjection to capital,

0:50:22.749,0:50:25.649
or a formal subsumption under capital,

0:50:25.649,0:50:30.789
against a real, subjection to capital, subsumption under capital.

0:50:30.789,0:50:34.939
What he means by this is that, if you had a
putting out system,

0:50:34.939,0:50:39.279
you had individuals all over the place,
and I'm a merchant capitalist

0:50:39.279,0:50:43.419
each one of those labourers
out there in the cottages will be working

0:50:43.419,0:50:46.619
for themselves. I wouldn't be overseeing them at all.

0:50:46.619,0:50:49.219
I wouldn't even know what they're doing.

0:50:49.219,0:50:58.739
But I go out there and I get their goods.
So that will be the formal subsumption:

0:50:58.739,0:51:03.969
They depend upon me for their livelihood
but I'm not in control of their production process.

0:51:03.969,0:51:09.599
When I round up all of those people and bring them into
a factory, they're under my supervision.

0:51:09.599,0:51:18.139
Under my direct supervision, that is the real subsumption.
So formal is out there, dependent,

0:51:18.139,0:51:22.629
the real is inside the factory,

0:51:22.629,0:51:26.380
and totally under the supervision of the capitalist.

0:51:26.380,0:51:32.729
One of first things that happens is that the labourer moving into

0:51:32.729,0:51:44.709
collective co-operation in a factory environment,
starts to be under the directing authority of the capitalist.

0:51:44.709,0:51:52.920
He starts to compare this with that of the orchestra conductor,
and says:

0:51:52.920,0:51:57.739
"The work of directing, superintending and adjusting becomes one
of the functions

0:51:57.739,0:52:04.099
of capital, from the moment that the labour under
capital's control becomes co-operative."

0:52:04.099,0:52:09.099
That is, the real subsumption results in this.
"As a specific function of capital, the directing function

0:52:09.099,0:52:13.979
acquires its own character."

0:52:13.979,0:52:19.469
But the reverse of that, in next paragraph, is:
"As the number of the co-operating workers increases,

0:52:19.469,0:52:23.519
so too does their resistance to the domination of capital,

0:52:23.519,0:52:28.219
and, necessarily, the pressure put on by capital to overcome this
resistance." In other words,

0:52:28.219,0:52:36.150
class struggle gets internalized on the shop floor.

0:52:36.150,0:52:43.469
Now we start to see that the co-operation of wage labourers

0:52:43.469,0:52:51.369
is brought about, in this instance, through the power of capital

0:52:51.369,0:52:56.339
and the result of that is that co-operation, instead of

0:52:56.339,0:53:03.339
appearing as a power of labour, now appears as a power of capital.

0:53:03.659,0:53:07.559
He says on the top of page 450: "The interconnection between their
various labours confronts them,

0:53:07.559,0:53:09.649
in the realm of ideas,

0:53:09.649,0:53:14.479
as a plan drawn up by the capitalist
and, in practice, as his authority,

0:53:14.479,0:53:21.199
as the powerful will of a being outside them,
who subjects their activity to his purpose."

0:53:21.199,0:53:25.309
So here you move into the negative mode.

0:53:25.309,0:53:31.659
The result of this, he says, a little bit further
down the page:

0:53:31.659,0:53:36.329
"If capitalist direction is thus twofold in content,

0:53:36.329,0:53:40.289
on the one hand a social labour process for the
creation of a product,

0:53:40.289,0:53:47.289
and on the other hand capital's process of valorization
- in form it is purely despotic."

0:53:47.379,0:53:50.029
He then introduces the idea that

0:53:50.029,0:53:55.459
there's going to be work of direct and constant
supervision of the individual workers,

0:53:55.459,0:53:59.819
and groups of workers to a special kind of wage labourer.

0:53:59.819,0:54:09.159
"An industrial army of workers under the command of a capitalist requires,
like a real army, officers (managers) and N.C.O.s (foremen, overseers)…"

0:54:09.159,0:54:17.900
So you end up with a certain structure of supervision
of the co-operation which is despotic.

0:54:17.900,0:54:21.199
As he goes on, the bottom of the page, to say:
"It is not because he is a leader of industry that

0:54:21.199,0:54:28.169
a man is a capitalist; on the contrary,
he is a leader of industry because he is a capitalist.

0:54:28.169,0:54:32.669
The leadership of industry is an attribute of capital…"

0:54:32.669,0:54:37.119
Then he says very explicit, in the middle of page 451,

0:54:37.119,0:54:41.039
because what happens to the labourer, as he says,
is "they enter into relations with the capitalist,

0:54:41.039,0:54:48.039
but not with each other.

0:54:50.459,0:54:54.649
Their co-operation only begins with the labour process,
but by then they have ceased to belong

0:54:54.649,0:55:00.689
to themselves. On entering the labour process they are
incorporated into capital. As co-operators,

0:55:00.689,0:55:06.439
as members of a working organism, they merely form a particular
mode of existence of capital."

0:55:06.439,0:55:11.609
This is what he means by real subsumption
of labour within capital.

0:55:11.609,0:55:18.579
"The socially productive power labour
develops as a free gift to capital

0:55:18.579,0:55:24.949
whenever the workers are placed under certain conditions,
and it is capital which places them under these conditions.

0:55:24.949,0:55:28.400
Because this power costs capital nothing,

0:55:28.400,0:55:32.499
while on the other hand it is not developed
by the worker until his labour

0:55:32.499,0:55:37.430
itself belongs to capital,

0:55:34.030,0:55:42.430
it appears as a power which capital possesses
by its nature - a productive power inherent in capital."

0:55:44.629,0:55:46.219
We get this inversion,

0:55:46.219,0:55:53.889
from something that is an inherent power of labour,
the social power of labour,

0:55:53.889,0:55:58.559
to something that is appropriated entirely
by capital, made to appear as a power of capital

0:55:58.559,0:56:02.169
over the workers.

0:56:02.169,0:56:11.649
This leads him to talk a little bit about
some of the history of co-operation.

0:56:13.779,0:56:20.759
And here he says, that there has been,
of course, enforced co-operation,

0:56:20.759,0:56:28.849
middle ages, slavery, colonies, slave labour,

0:56:28.849,0:56:35.849
but under capitalism, it develops as
a form in which wage labour is manifest.

0:56:38.920,0:56:46.639
On page 453 he says: "The simultaneous employment of a large
number of wage-labourers in the same labour process,

0:56:46.639,0:56:52.039
which is a necessary condition for this change,
also forms the starting-point of capitalist production.

0:56:52.039,0:56:59.769
This starting-point coincides with
the birth of capital itself.

0:56:59.769,0:57:04.739
If then, on the one hand, the capitalist
mode of production is a historically necessary condition

0:57:04.739,0:57:08.300
for the transformation of the labour process
into a social process,

0:57:08.300,0:57:14.349
so, on the other hand, this social form of the labour process

0:57:14.349,0:57:22.469
is a method employed by capital for the more profitable exploitation
of labour, by increasing its productive power."

0:57:22.469,0:57:30.499
There is an interesting thing here, where Marx is talking
about a co-evolution.

0:57:30.769,0:57:43.319
Capital originates; as it originates, it animates,
appropriates certain forms of co-operation.

0:57:43.319,0:57:59.640
Certain forms of co-operation allow capital
to start to raise productivity to produce surplus-value.

0:57:59.640,0:58:03.729
We can never forget however that this originary point

0:58:03.729,0:58:08.539
stays with the whole history of capitalism,
so he concludes on page 454:

0:58:08.539,0:58:11.589
"Simple co-operation has always been,

0:58:11.589,0:58:19.119
and continues to be, the predominant form in those branches of production
in which capital operates on a large scale,

0:58:19.119,0:58:24.109
but the division of labour and machinery play
only an insignificant part. Co-operation remains

0:58:24.109,0:58:28.630
the fundamental form of the capitalist mode of production,

0:58:28.630,0:58:36.539
although in its simple shape it continues to appear as
one particular form alongside the more developed ones."

0:58:36.539,0:58:44.889
So you cannot imagine a capitalist mode of production
without co-operation,

0:58:44.889,0:58:51.189
but co-operation under the despotic control of the capitalist,

0:58:51.189,0:58:57.909
with a whole kind of structure, supervisory authority,
which introduces, by the way,

0:58:57.909,0:59:03.599
the notion of a sudden fragmentation or layering
within the working class itself.

0:59:03.599,0:59:10.529
That there's a managerial strata, foremen, operatives.
So that,

0:59:10.529,0:59:15.599
instead of talking about of 'the wage labourer', we now
start to envision a working class which

0:59:15.599,0:59:20.499
is stratified according to these

0:59:20.499,0:59:32.569
kinds of functions within a cooperative apparatus,
which is fiercely despotic.

0:59:33.099,0:59:37.949
Then we look at 'The Division of labour and Manufacture,
the next chapter.

0:59:37.949,0:59:43.160
and again, we look at the reorganization

0:59:43.160,0:59:51.179
of existing handicrafts, existing skills,
existing tool, technologies and the like,

0:59:51.179,0:59:53.429
into something different.

0:59:53.429,0:59:59.109
And he points out immediately, there are two
ways you can do the reorganizing.

0:59:59.109,1:00:01.770
One is: You bring together, in the same workshop

1:00:01.770,1:00:08.209
under the control of a single capitalist, workers
belonging to various independent handicrafts.

1:00:08.209,1:00:15.889
He talks about carriage making on page 456,
he makes a contrast with

1:00:15.889,1:00:19.549
something like making nails or needles:

1:00:19.549,1:00:23.779
You start off with raw materials and you have a continuous process.

1:00:23.779,1:00:27.049
So in this case you're talking about a continuous process

1:00:27.049,1:00:33.099
of one material which is being continually reorganized until
it comes out the end as a needle.

1:00:33.099,1:00:36.759
Whereas in the making of a carriage you have a complicated

1:00:36.759,1:00:46.149
process of bringing together multiple handicrafts.
So there are two ways in which you can do the reorganizing.

1:00:46.149,1:00:50.549
But in both cases he points out on page 457:

1:00:50.549,1:00:55.869
"Whatever may have been its particular starting-point, its final form
is always the same - a productive mechanism

1:00:55.869,1:01:01.410
whose organs are human beings."
That is, you bring human beings into a certain kind of

1:01:01.410,1:01:09.809
relationship inside of the cooperative regime at the factory space.

1:01:09.809,1:01:18.809
Furthermore, as you bring these divisions of labour together,
you start to

1:01:18.809,1:01:22.559
reorganize it in another way. He says,
at the bottom of page 457:

1:01:22.559,1:01:27.279
"The analysis of a process of production into its particular
phases here coincides completely

1:01:27.279,1:01:35.069
with the decomposition of a handicraft into its different partial operations."

1:01:35.069,1:01:38.669
That is, when you start to see the production
process as a whole you start to see that you

1:01:38.669,1:01:43.919
can split it up into smaller fragments and get specialized

1:01:43.919,1:01:50.439
workers engaging at each point, either in terms
of the sequence or in terms of

1:01:50.439,1:02:00.140
the bringing together of the heterogeneity
of many different handicrafts.

1:02:00.140,1:02:05.639
But he says, on page 458: "Handicraft remains the basis,

1:02:05.639,1:02:10.119
a technically narrow basis which excludes
a really scientific division of the production

1:02:10.119,1:02:13.699
process into its component parts…"

1:02:13.699,1:02:17.489
A barrier, right?

1:02:17.489,1:02:21.619
Marx recognizes that capital doesn't like barriers,
that's gonna be a barrier that has to be overcome,

1:02:21.619,1:02:25.939
here he's saying it's a barrier.

1:02:25.939,1:02:30.109
"Every partial process undergone by the product
must be capable of being done by hand,

1:02:30.109,1:02:34.029
and of forming a separate handicraft.

1:02:34.029,1:02:37.019
It is precisely because the skill of the craftsman

1:02:37.019,1:02:41.449
thus continues to be the foundation of the production
process that every worker becomes exclusively

1:02:41.449,1:02:44.579
assigned to a partial function and

1:02:44.579,1:02:51.579
that his labour-power becomes
transformed into the life-long organ of this partial function."

1:02:52.029,1:03:00.920
So now, workers, instead of having the freedom to move,
from one activity to another,

1:03:00.920,1:03:12.189
are increasingly locked into a particular skill,
a particular handicraft, a particular set of tools.

1:03:13.539,1:03:20.539
He raises the question of the worker and
his tools in section two.

1:03:21.459,1:03:26.760
He says: "It is firstly clear that a worker who
performs the same simple operation for the whole of his life

1:03:26.760,1:03:33.760
converts his body into the automatic, one-sided
implement of that operation."

1:03:38.009,1:03:44.119
Could be an interesting discussion here as to
whether the worker is in control of the tools,

1:03:44.119,1:03:47.719
or the tool is in control of the worker;

1:03:47.719,1:03:50.119
and what's the relationship between tool and

1:03:50.119,1:04:02.169
worker. And he's suggesting that the social
imprisonment of somebody in a particular

1:04:02.169,1:04:07.410
aspect or a particular specialization
within the division of labour,

1:04:07.410,1:04:17.999
puts them in a position of essentially
being so connected to their tool

1:04:17.999,1:04:23.430
that they cannot be liberated.

1:04:23.430,1:04:30.859
On page 460, he talks further about this:

1:04:30.859,1:04:35.289
"A craftsman who performs the various partial operations

1:04:35.289,1:04:39.609
must at one time change his place, at another time his tools.
The transition from one operation

1:04:39.609,1:04:42.050
to another interrupts the flow of his labour

1:04:42.050,1:04:44.859
and creates gaps in his working day, so to speak."

1:04:44.859,1:04:50.069
-We have already seen that capital doesn't like gaps in the working day-

1:04:50.069,1:04:55.400
"These close up when he is tied to the same operation the whole day long…"

1:04:55.400,1:04:58.649
At the bottom of that paragraph: "As against this,

1:04:58.649,1:05:03.639
constant labour of one uniform kind disturbs the intensity and flow
of a man's vital forces,

1:05:03.639,1:05:09.089
which find recreation and delight
in the change of activity itself."

1:05:09.089,1:05:12.559
This is a partial concession to Fourier,

1:05:12.559,1:05:18.630
Fourier's view of the labour process, as against
the imprisonment of one person with one tool

1:05:18.630,1:05:22.299
and a division of labour for a lifetime.

1:05:22.299,1:05:28.159
So we're beginning to see this discussion of the positive and negative

1:05:28.159,1:05:35.159
aspects of how the division of labour is working
under capitalist control.

1:05:35.339,1:05:40.139
The next section deals with two fundamental
forms of manufacture: heterogeneous and organic.

1:05:40.589,1:05:49.329
It really takes up what he did in the first section,
where he elabourates

1:05:49.329,1:05:56.329
on the way which heterogeneous processes are brought together

1:05:57.809,1:06:08.189
and then also how the continuous processes get reorganized.

1:06:08.189,1:06:10.440
This leads him

1:06:10.440,1:06:17.440
to again introduce a new concept which we've not encountered
yet, on page 464.

1:06:17.630,1:06:23.169
Where he starts to talk about the collective worker.

1:06:23.169,1:06:27.199
"The collective worker, formed from the combination
of the many specialized workers,

1:06:27.199,1:06:31.929
draws the wire with one set of tooled-up hands, straightens the wire
with another set, armed with different tools,

1:06:31.929,1:06:33.709
cuts it with another set,

1:06:33.709,1:06:36.130
points it with another set, and so on.

1:06:36.130,1:06:44.089
These different stages of the process previously successive in time
have become simultaneous and contiguous in space. "

1:06:44.089,1:06:55.849
And here he goes, in the next couple of pages
to talk about the space-time organization of this process,

1:06:55.849,1:07:03.810
and the efficiencies which can be won through efficient
spatio-temporal reconstruction

1:07:03.810,1:07:08.449
of how the labour process fits together.

1:07:08.449,1:07:15.879
By not losing any time you gain in productivity.

1:07:15.879,1:07:25.409
By rationalizing the way in which space is organized
you could save on movement costs.

1:07:25.409,1:07:32.299
So the whole space-time structure becomes an organizational
question, and he here introduces it as

1:07:32.299,1:07:39.109
being fundamental to how capitalism works.

1:07:39.109,1:07:46.479
There was a big innovation of the Japanese, introduced
into the labour processes in the 1970's-80's.

1:07:46.479,1:07:52.139
What was it?
» STUDENT: Collective working spaces…

1:07:52.139,1:07:56.849
» HARVEY: Well it was collective but something else: just-in-time production.

1:07:56.849,1:07:59.439
Just in time. (JIT)

1:07:59.439,1:08:06.099
That is, scheduling of flows and goods in space and time such that

1:08:06.099,1:08:09.839
you had almost no inventories anywhere in the system.

1:08:09.839,1:08:13.919
The typical way in which a car factory would work, was:

1:08:13.919,1:08:17.179
somebody would bring the wheels or something like that,
then you'd have a whole stack

1:08:17.179,1:08:18.899
of wheels outside,

1:08:18.899,1:08:22.469
they'd be sitting there; you have a big stack of them,

1:08:22.469,1:08:26.339
you have a big stack of brake parts and

1:08:26.339,1:08:30.039
a big stack of upholstery and things like that.

1:08:30.039,1:08:34.499
What the Japanese did was to use a just in time system.

1:08:34.499,1:08:45.179
They organized the flows so that you could see almost
no inventory out there, none at all.

1:08:45.179,1:08:50.130
The trucks would come up to the place
and exactly the same number of wheels

1:08:50.130,1:08:57.159
you needed on that day will be on the truck,
exactly the number of other component parts would be on the truck.

1:08:57.159,1:09:08.799
This is a tremendous innovation in industrial production.
It actually was the innovation which gave the Japanese car industry

1:09:08.799,1:09:14.319
its big competitive advantage over all others during the 1980's.

1:09:14.319,1:09:19.429
So suddenly you find all of the car companies
everywhere around the world are engaging in

1:09:19.429,1:09:22.739
the JIT system.

1:09:22.739,1:09:27.109
General Motors goes for it, they all go for it.

1:09:27.109,1:09:30.059
So the just in time system

1:09:30.059,1:09:36.759
is I think a very good contemporary example of exactly what Marx is talking about.

1:09:36.759,1:09:43.599
And it was of course - put in that competitive stuff about the role of surplus-value-

1:09:43.599,1:09:51.170
when the Japanese got this organizational form of the JIT system,
they got

1:09:51.170,1:10:01.010
this extra surplus-value, they got the ephemeral
form, so everybody else scrambles to catch up.

1:10:01.010,1:10:06.380
This also allowed, by the way, increasing subcontracting to go on,

1:10:06.380,1:10:10.090
you no longer need to have everything in the plant.
You have plants out there that were independent,

1:10:10.090,1:10:15.409
and you're not responsible for their healthcare
or their pensions or anything like that.

1:10:15.409,1:10:18.420
You got a just in time system where you'd organize

1:10:18.420,1:10:23.940
those plants outside, so on a given day they'd have exactly what you need there.

1:10:23.940,1:10:29.920
This, of course is rather vulnerable to disruption.

1:10:29.920,1:10:43.239
For instance, Ford motors in Europe had a JIT system between its works,
and one workforce went on strike and

1:10:43.239,1:10:47.270
all factories around Europe had to close down,
and they had to close down very fast because

1:10:47.270,1:10:51.769
none of them had any inventories of whatever it was it was producing.

1:10:51.769,1:10:55.680
It actually empowers workers to some degree,
by the fact that if they go on strike

1:10:55.680,1:11:01.260
they can stop the whole thing because it is so tightly scheduled,
so tightly organized.

1:11:01.260,1:11:06.209
I think what's interesting about these passages
on page 464-465,

1:11:06.209,1:11:17.289
is that Marx is recognizing that a major organizational aspect
of a capitalistic system is how

1:11:17.289,1:11:24.679
space and time get set up and understood.

1:11:24.679,1:11:31.760
This requires however an internal plan.

1:11:31.760,1:11:38.919
He introduces this theme which is going
to come back later, on page 465, he talks about

1:11:38.919,1:11:42.789
"the rule that the labour-time expended on a commodity

1:11:42.789,1:11:46.340
should not exceed the amount socially necessary to produce it
is one that appears, in the production of commodities

1:11:46.340,1:11:50.999
in general, to be enforced from outside by the action of competition…"

1:11:50.999,1:11:55.069
"In manufacture, on the contrary, the provision
of a given quantity of the product

1:11:55.069,1:12:01.150
in a given period of labour is
a technical law of the process of production itself."

1:12:01.150,1:12:07.590
The distinction between what the market enforces and what is done by internal planning,

1:12:07.590,1:12:13.999
and here he's talking about internal planning,

1:12:13.999,1:12:18.800
and the way in which that internal planning,

1:12:18.800,1:12:31.010
by re-orchestrating how space and time gets used,
can produce these efficiencies.

1:12:32.579,1:12:35.030
But again there's a barrier.

1:12:35.030,1:12:41.780
And the barrier lies in the fact that you're
still dealing with handicrafts.

1:12:41.780,1:12:48.739
He then says, on page 468,

1:12:48.739,1:12:53.849
-the technologies of different social orders is interesting-

1:12:54.849,1:13:00.369
he says: "The Roman Empire handed down the elementary
form of all machinery in the shape of the water-wheel.

1:13:00.369,1:13:06.979
The handicraft period bequeathed to us the great inventions of
the compass, gunpowder, type-printing and the automatic clock.

1:13:06.979,1:13:11.439
But on the whole, machinery played that subordinate part which
Adam Smith assigns to it

1:13:11.439,1:13:14.839
in comparison with the division of labour."

1:13:14.839,1:13:21.010
That is, up until the end of the 18th century,
capitalists were not

1:13:21.010,1:13:25.599
really homing in on machinery etc. as a way

1:13:25.599,1:13:30.679
to improve their productive efficiency,
they were using these other methods.

1:13:30.679,1:13:36.599
And of course there were innovations like
the compass and gunpowder etc. but,

1:13:36.599,1:13:40.360
we haven't got this internalization

1:13:40.360,1:13:44.449
of technological innovation within the capitalist
mode of production which

1:13:44.449,1:13:53.030
happens later on, with machinery and and modern industry.

1:13:53.030,1:13:58.589
But nevertheless there's an impact on the
workers even at this early stage,

1:13:58.589,1:14:04.920
and the impact is already foreseen a little bit earlier.
Page 469, he repeats the argument:

1:14:04.920,1:14:07.679
"The habit of doing only one thing

1:14:07.679,1:14:11.800
converts him into an organ which operates with the certainty
of a force of nature, while

1:14:11.800,1:14:19.289
his connection with the whole mechanism compels him
to work with the regularity of a machine."

1:14:19.289,1:14:23.610
Further down: "Manufacture therefore
develops a hierarchy of labour-powers,

1:14:23.610,1:14:29.449
to which there corresponds a scale of wages."

1:14:29.449,1:14:33.719
And this derives from the fact, as he said at the top,

1:14:33.719,1:14:39.899
that "workers are divided, classified and grouped
according to their predominant qualities."

1:14:39.899,1:14:49.060
We get introduced therefore, even at this stage,
as he says on page 470, a distinction

1:14:49.060,1:14:55.019
between skilled and unskilled labourers.

1:14:55.019,1:14:59.749
As he says on page 470: "Alongside the gradations of the hierarchy,
there appears the simple separation

1:14:59.749,1:15:04.679
of the workers into skilled and unskilled.

1:15:05.679,1:15:12.670
For the latter, the cost of apprenticeship vanishes; for the former, it diminishes,
compared with that required of the craftsman,…"

1:15:12.670,1:15:16.280
"In both cases the value of labour-power falls."

1:15:16.280,1:15:23.569
This deskilling, he's going to talk about a deskilling process which is going on.

1:15:23.569,1:15:26.329
But "an exception to this law occurs

1:15:26.329,1:15:30.439
whenever the decomposition of the labour process
gives rise to new and comprehensive functions,

1:15:30.439,1:15:37.029
which either did not appear at all in handicrafts
or not to the same extent.

1:15:37.029,1:15:41.039
The relative devaluation of labour-power caused by the disappearance
or reduction of the expenses

1:15:41.039,1:15:47.139
of apprenticeship directly imply higher degree of valorization of capital;

1:15:47.139,1:15:50.510
for everything that shortens the necessary labour-time
required for the reproduction of

1:15:50.510,1:15:55.319
labour-power, extends the domain of surplus labour."

1:15:55.319,1:16:01.789
What we're dealing with here is the fact that,
in any reorganization of the labour process,

1:16:01.789,1:16:07.619
there can be deskilling but there's going to be
a smaller group that's reskilled, if you want call it that,

1:16:07.619,1:16:11.679
and put in a superior position.

1:16:13.869,1:16:19.269
So you cannot divorce, you cannot simply say
it's all deskilling; you gotta say it's deskilling

1:16:19.269,1:16:23.320
and reskilling going on at the same time.
And the reskilling can sometimes empower

1:16:23.320,1:16:31.429
certain segments of the workers relative to other segments of the workers.

1:16:31.429,1:16:35.539
Then comes the key section: The Division of Labour in Manufacture,

1:16:35.539,1:16:42.539
and the Division of Labour in Society.

1:16:45.020,1:16:51.429
What he's really concerned to do here is to make a big distinction

1:16:51.429,1:16:56.760
between the detailed division of labour in the workshop,

1:16:56.760,1:17:02.949
which occurs under the planned design of the capitalist,

1:17:02.949,1:17:06.739
under the direct supervision of the capitalist.

1:17:06.739,1:17:13.030
And the division of labour that occurs through market coordination.

1:17:13.030,1:17:17.059
We have to see those two in relationship to each other.

1:17:17.059,1:17:20.960
That is, they're not independent of each other.

1:17:20.960,1:17:33.719
so we have to look at these two kinds of division of labour
which get set up in this manufacturing period.

1:17:33.719,1:17:36.900
As he says, on page 471:

1:17:36.900,1:17:42.009
"The division of labour within society develops from one starting-point;

1:17:42.009,1:17:47.989
the corresponding restriction of individuals to particular
vocations or callings develops from another starting-point,

1:17:47.989,1:17:52.039
which is diametrically opposed to the first.

1:17:52.039,1:17:57.310
This second starting-point is also that
of the division of labour within manufacture.

1:17:57.310,1:18:02.659
Within a family and, after further development, within a tribe,
there springs up naturally a division of labour

1:18:02.659,1:18:08.679
caused by differences of sex and age, and therefore
based on a purely physiological foundation."

1:18:08.679,1:18:14.800
Marx might get some criticism for that but that's his view.

1:18:14.800,1:18:18.019
"On the other hand, as I have already remarked,

1:18:18.019,1:18:22.519
the exchange of products springs up at

1:18:22.519,1:18:25.980
the points where different families, tribes or communities come
into contact;

1:18:25.980,1:18:30.199
for at the dawn of civilization it is not private individuals
but families, tribes, etc.

1:18:30.199,1:18:34.269
that meet on an independent footing.

1:18:34.269,1:18:37.379
Different communities find different means of production
and different means of subsistence

1:18:37.379,1:18:40.879
in their natural environment.
Hence their modes of production and living,

1:18:40.879,1:18:44.270
as well as their products, are different."

1:18:44.270,1:18:52.469
This brings him then to talk about exchange relations
between different communities with different assets, different resources,

1:18:52.469,1:18:57.159
different kinds of products.

1:18:57.159,1:19:02.389
And beyond that, we get his argument,

1:19:02.389,1:19:08.199
which is very briefly set up here but which is important in general:

1:19:08.199,1:19:10.969
"The foundation of every division of labour

1:19:10.969,1:19:14.630
which has attained a certain degree of development, and has
been brought about by the exchange of

1:19:14.630,1:19:17.610
commodities, is the separation of town from country."

1:19:17.610,1:19:22.820
That is, the relation between town and country,
and that dialectic

1:19:22.820,1:19:26.249
is important historically. He's not going to go into it

1:19:26.249,1:19:36.199
very much more here but elsewhere he does in some considerable detail.

1:19:36.310,1:19:42.519
That leads him to think about "the number and density of the population,

1:19:42.519,1:19:46.510
which here corresponds to the collection of workers together in one workshop,…"

1:19:46.510,1:19:52.080
This, he says "…is a precondition of the division of labour within society

1:19:52.080,1:19:55.130
Nevertheless, this density is more or less relative.

1:19:55.130,1:19:58.539
A relatively thinly populated country,

1:19:58.539,1:20:02.249
with well-developed means of communication, has a denser population

1:20:02.249,1:20:07.610
than a more numerously populated country with badly developed means of communication.

1:20:07.610,1:20:13.070
In this sense, the northern states of the U.S.A. for instance,
are more thickly populated than India."

1:20:13.070,1:20:17.589
Interesting: Marx is using the notions of relative space-time here

1:20:17.589,1:20:20.469
in actually quite an innovative way,

1:20:20.469,1:20:25.400
so he's not seeing the terrain upon
which this is happening as fixed.

1:20:25.400,1:20:29.779
It is, in fact varying depending upon

1:20:29.779,1:20:36.779
density of population and transport and communication
technologies and availabilities.

1:20:40.010,1:20:48.539
The division of labour in manufacture however, assumes that

1:20:48.539,1:20:53.159
"society has already attained a certain degree of development.

1:20:53.159,1:21:04.030
Inversely, the division of labour in manufacture reacts back
upon that in society, developing and multiplying it further."

1:21:04.030,1:21:10.320
What we're getting here is the beginnings
of the argument that

1:21:10.320,1:21:15.749
there is, what is called 'increasing roundaboutness in production',

1:21:15.749,1:21:19.460
increasing complexity of production.

1:21:19.460,1:21:24.219
That is, you go from a simple situation
where somebody makes something,

1:21:24.219,1:21:30.139
to a situation where you start to make pieces of something
which then get traded in the market

1:21:30.139,1:21:36.859
for other pieces of something which then get collectively
put together to make 'the something' that is eventually

1:21:35.409,1:21:38.859
going to be consumed.

1:21:39.859,1:21:47.460
And this increasing roundaboutness of production is also

1:21:47.460,1:21:51.860
associated, he says on page 475, with increasing

1:21:51.860,1:21:58.860
emphasis upon territorial divisions of labour,
territorial specializations of labour.

1:22:00.019,1:22:05.280
Page 474 in the middle, he says: "The territorial division of labour,
which confines special branches

1:22:05.280,1:22:08.639
of production to special districts of a country, acquires fresh stimulus

1:22:08.639,1:22:13.550
from the system of manufacture, which exploits all natural peculiarities.

1:22:13.550,1:22:20.889
The colonial system and the extension of the world market, both of which

1:22:20.889,1:22:26.420
form part of the general conditions for the
existence of the manufacturing period,

1:22:26.420,1:22:33.420
furnish us with rich materials for displaying the division of labour in society."

1:22:34.260,1:22:39.880
He's going to insist, towards the bottom,
that while there are analogies and links between

1:22:39.880,1:22:48.150
division of labour in society and within the workshop,
they "differ not only in degree, but also in kind."

1:22:48.150,1:22:54.849
He then gets into some serious discussion of Adam Smith,

1:22:54.849,1:22:58.789
which brings him to what I think the crucial passages.

1:22:58.789,1:23:03.769
Right at the bottom of page 475, under 476:

1:23:03.769,1:23:06.869
"The division of labour within society

1:23:06.869,1:23:13.599
is mediated through the purchase and sale
of the products of different branches of industry,

1:23:13.599,1:23:17.529
while the connection between the various partial operations
in a workshop is mediated through

1:23:17.529,1:23:25.550
the sale of the labour-power of several workers
to one capitalist, who applies it as combined labour-power."

1:23:25.550,1:23:33.099
"The division of labour within manufacture presupposes
a concentration of the means of production in the hands of one capitalist;

1:23:33.099,1:23:37.979
the division of labour within society presupposes a dispersal
of those means among many independent

1:23:37.979,1:23:41.589
producers of commodities.

1:23:41.589,1:23:46.579
While, within the workshop, the iron law of proportionality

1:23:46.579,1:23:50.079
subjects definite numbers of workers to definite functions,

1:23:50.079,1:23:53.410
in the society outside the workshop,

1:23:53.410,1:23:57.949
the play of chance and caprice results in a motley pattern
of distribution of the producers and their

1:23:57.949,1:24:03.469
means of production among the various branches of social labour."

1:24:03.469,1:24:08.250
Okay, he says, "different spheres of production constantly tend
towards equilibrium…"

1:24:08.250,1:24:11.960
because that's the way the market works.

1:24:11.960,1:24:20.179
And he then explains why, going back over
the laws of exchange of commodities.

1:24:20.179,1:24:26.020
He then goes on point out: "This constant tendency on the part
of the various spheres of production towards equilibrium

1:24:26.020,1:24:32.270
comes into play only as a reaction against
the constant upsetting of this equilibrium."

1:24:32.270,1:24:36.579
That is, when demand and supply gets out of kilter,

1:24:36.579,1:24:41.360
all kinds of messes happen and prices yo-yo all over the place.

1:24:41.360,1:24:44.289
And there's an adjustment,

1:24:44.289,1:24:49.789
producers have to adjust what they're producing and how much.

1:24:49.789,1:24:55.010
He says: "The planned and regulated a priori system

1:24:55.010,1:25:00.190
on which the division of labour is implemented within the workshop becomes,
in the division of labour within society,

1:25:00.190,1:25:08.360
an a posteriori necessity imposed by nature, controlling
the unregulated caprice of the producers,

1:25:08.360,1:25:12.070
and perceptible in the fluctuations of the barometer of market prices.

1:25:12.070,1:25:17.709
Division of labour within the workshop implies the undisputed authority
of the capitalist over men,

1:25:17.709,1:25:21.300
who are merely the members of a total
mechanism which belongs to him.

1:25:21.300,1:25:25.739
The division of labour within
society brings into contact independent producers of commodities,

1:25:25.739,1:25:29.539
who acknowledge no authority other than that of competition,

1:25:29.539,1:25:33.719
of the coercion exerted by the pressure of their reciprocal interests,

1:25:33.719,1:25:42.050
just as in the animal kingdom the 'war of all against all' more or less preserves
the conditions of existence of every species."

1:25:42.050,1:25:47.760
He then goes on to say: "The same bourgeois consciousness
which celebrates the division of labour in the workshop,

1:25:47.760,1:25:53.059
the lifelong annexation of the worker to a
partial operation, and his complete subjection to capital,

1:25:53.059,1:25:56.330
as an organization of labour that increases its productive power,

1:25:56.330,1:26:02.329
denounces with equal vigour every conscious attempt to control and
regulate the process of production socially,

1:26:02.329,1:26:06.579
as an inroad upon such sacred things as the rights of property, freedom and

1:26:06.579,1:26:10.829
the self-determining 'genius' of the individual capitalist.

1:26:10.829,1:26:19.469
It is very characteristic that the enthusiastic apologists
of the factory system have nothing more damning

1:26:15.039,1:26:16.310
to urge against a general organization of labour in society than

1:26:19.469,1:26:25.599
that it would turn the whole of society into a factory."

1:26:25.599,1:26:29.219
"In contrast…", he then goes on to say,
"…anarchy in the social division of labour

1:26:29.219,1:26:36.219
and despotism in the manufacturing division of labour
mutually condition each other,…"

1:26:37.269,1:26:48.759
What he's saying here is that capitalists actually love
the planned organization of production

1:26:48.759,1:26:51.550
within their factory,

1:26:51.550,1:27:01.280
and they abhor however the idea of any kind of social planning
of production outside of the factory.

1:27:01.280,1:27:03.860
So, when you hear

1:27:03.860,1:27:10.199
people going on and on about how planning is a bad thing,

1:27:10.199,1:27:16.359
why don't you say: Well, why do they do it so much inside
of General Motors?

1:27:16.359,1:27:20.179
Why are they doing it so much in all of these
corporations?

1:27:20.179,1:27:27.039
Why is it they're engaging in things like total-quality management,
input-output analysis etc. ?

1:27:27.039,1:27:32.829
Why are they absolutely interested in optimal scheduling
and design, all that sort if thing?

1:27:32.829,1:27:38.619
They're planning everything down to the finest detail.

1:27:38.619,1:27:40.360
So next time,

1:27:40.360,1:27:45.969
somebody says 'planning is a bad thing', just say
'Well okay, abandon it in General Motors and see what happens

1:27:45.969,1:27:51.230
to any company that that the fails to plan.'

1:27:51.230,1:27:57.529
And if they can plan very well, then why can't we?

1:27:57.529,1:28:02.019
Well the answer then would be: Then you'd
turn the whole world into one big factory

1:28:02.019,1:28:04.889
and look how appalling the factory is.

1:28:04.889,1:28:08.659
And you say 'yes well, that's precisely the point, right?

1:28:08.659,1:28:11.239
The factory is indeed appalling.

1:28:11.239,1:28:16.590
that's because you're planning in that particular kind of way,
that you make the factory appalling'.

1:28:16.590,1:28:20.429
And you're admitting it's so appalling by saying 'oh my god,

1:28:20.429,1:28:25.909
if you made the whole world like a factory,
just think, I mean you might even make us work

1:28:25.909,1:28:28.550
in that kind of fashion,

1:28:28.550,1:28:33.209
instead of liberating our individual genius
to go about and to all these kind of innovative

1:28:33.209,1:28:36.419
things we like to do,

1:28:36.419,1:28:42.380
through constant reorganizations of the production process'.

1:28:42.380,1:28:49.439
So what Marx is doing here is mocking a little bit

1:28:49.439,1:28:56.189
this whole attempt to say that you cannot plan.

1:28:56.189,1:29:01.989
And there are people who've been saying 'Well no,
centralized planning is is impossible,

1:29:01.989,1:29:07.650
I mean look at what the Soviet Union got into
and all the rest if it. Obviously it doesn't work,

1:29:07.650,1:29:10.919
and it doesn't work because it's so complex,

1:29:10.919,1:29:14.860
the complexity is just too much.'

1:29:14.860,1:29:23.210
You say 'Well actually, if you look at the complexity
involved in a large corporation

1:29:23.210,1:29:28.820
producing electronic goods or something like that,
actually, you find it pretty complex.'

1:29:28.820,1:29:32.869
So you can't make the argument of complexity against it.

1:29:32.869,1:29:38.800
So what Marx is doing here is contrasting these two divisions
of labour, the detailed division of labour which

1:29:38.800,1:29:42.599
is mathematically worked out,

1:29:42.599,1:29:46.640
scheduled optimally scheduled, optimally configured,

1:29:46.640,1:29:55.969
planned down to the last detail with labourers put in
slots in certain kinds of ways to maximize efficiency,

1:29:55.969,1:30:01.649
against the incredible inefficiencies of the market system,

1:30:01.649,1:30:05.320
which nevertheless through the coercive laws of competition

1:30:05.320,1:30:13.650
reinforce the despotism that occurs inside of the
capitalist system,

1:30:13.650,1:30:17.119
inside the workplace.

1:30:17.119,1:30:19.420
Because you can see immediately that

1:30:19.420,1:30:23.710
if I have a super system of exploitation,

1:30:23.710,1:30:29.010
which gives me surplus-value, then others are going to have to follow me.

1:30:29.010,1:30:32.879
I've mentioned the just in time system.

1:30:32.879,1:30:37.669
If I come up with a super efficient four-way
of organizing labour which is very repressive

1:30:37.669,1:30:44.449
for labour but is super efficient for me,
then all my competitors are going to have to follow me.

1:30:44.449,1:30:50.590
So the repressions inside
of the factory are not independent

1:30:50.590,1:30:57.590
of the competitive pressures that are organized outside.

1:31:02.909,1:31:12.119
'The capitalist reorganization of the manufacturing
system', section five.

1:31:12.119,1:31:17.839
Just briefly.

1:31:17.839,1:31:22.409
Again we get on page 481 the strong idea

1:31:22.409,1:31:30.199
that what's going on here, is the appropriation
of the productive powers of labour

1:31:30.199,1:31:35.889
by capital. And in both of these sections Marx is trying
to say to the working class and the labourers:

1:31:35.889,1:31:39.100
These are your productive powers!

1:31:39.100,1:31:40.760
Capital is appropriating them!

1:31:40.760,1:31:53.440
And as it appropriates them, that makes it seem as if
they're their productive powers of capital.

1:31:53.869,1:31:57.829
He says on page 481: "The productive power which results
from the combination of various kinds

1:31:57.829,1:32:05.669
of labour appears as the productive power of capital.
Manufacture proper

1:32:05.669,1:32:09.329
not only subjects the previously independent
worker to the discipline and command of capital,

1:32:09.329,1:32:16.369
but creates in addition a hierarchical structure amongst the workers themselves.

1:32:16.369,1:32:19.469
It converts the worker into a crippled monstrosity

1:32:19.469,1:32:23.969
by furthering his particular skill as
in a forcing-house, through the suppression

1:32:23.969,1:32:31.110
of a whole world of productive drives and inclinations, just as

1:32:31.110,1:32:35.380
in the states of La Plata they butcher a whole beast
for the sake of his hide or his tallow.

1:32:35.380,1:32:39.889
Not only is the specialized work distributed among the different individuals,

1:32:39.889,1:32:42.710
but the individual himself is divided up,

1:32:42.710,1:32:50.939
and transformed into the automatic motor of a detail operation,
thus realizing the absurd fable of Menenius Agrippa,

1:32:50.939,1:32:57.039
which presents man is a mere fragment of his own body."

1:32:57.039,1:33:02.110
The body politics of this,

1:33:02.110,1:33:07.770
that the workers are reduced to being fragments of themselves,

1:33:07.770,1:33:16.009
part of that fragmentation is also
leading to, as he says on page 482:

1:33:16.009,1:33:18.300
"Unfitted by nature…" -he's being a

1:33:18.300,1:33:23.960
bit ironic here- "to make anything
independently, the manufacturing worker develops his

1:33:23.960,1:33:27.829
productive activity only as an appendage of that workshop."

1:33:27.829,1:33:35.150
That is, the worker is now an appendage of the workshop
rather than in command of it.

1:33:35.150,1:33:36.479
Further:

1:33:36.479,1:33:41.499
"The possibility of an intelligent direction of production expands in one direction,

1:33:41.499,1:33:46.469
because it vanishes in many others. What is lost
by the specialized workers is

1:33:46.469,1:33:50.139
concentrated in the capital which confronts them.

1:33:50.139,1:33:54.170
It is a result of the division of labour in manufacture that the worker
is brought face to face with

1:33:54.170,1:33:56.829
the intellectual potentialities [geistige Potenzen].

1:33:56.829,1:34:00.169
of the material process of production as the property of another and

1:34:00.169,1:34:04.090
as a power which rules over him."

1:34:04.090,1:34:16.440
That is, intellectual labour, mental activities, also become
in the domain of capital.

1:34:16.440,1:34:22.000
"This process of separation starts in simple co-operation,…"

1:34:22.000,1:34:26.789
"It is developed in manufacture, which mutilates the worker,
turning him into a fragment of himself.

1:34:26.789,1:34:31.400
It is completed in large-scale industry, which makes science
a potentiality for production which

1:34:31.400,1:34:39.280
is distinct from labour and presses it
into the service of capital."

1:34:39.280,1:34:40.659
The result of this

1:34:40.659,1:34:49.699
is "the impoverishment of the worker
in individual productive power."

1:34:49.699,1:34:53.150
He then quotes Adam Smith,

1:34:53.150,1:34:54.449
interesting quote:

1:34:54.449,1:35:01.739
"'The understandings of the greater part of men, says Adam
Smith, 'are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments.

1:35:01.739,1:35:07.239
The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple
operations … has no occasion to exert his understanding …

1:35:07.239,1:35:12.529
He generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a
human creature to become.'

1:35:12.529,1:35:16.340
After describing the stupidity of the
specialized worker, he goes on:

1:35:16.340,1:35:20.790
'The uniformity of his stationary
life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind … It corrupts

1:35:20.790,1:35:25.199
even the activity of his body and renders him incapable of exerting

1:35:25.199,1:35:31.379
his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employments than
that to which he has been bred.

1:35:31.379,1:35:36.440
His dexterity at his own particular trade seems in this manner
to be acquired at the expense

1:35:36.440,1:35:39.449
of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues.

1:35:39.449,1:35:42.840
But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state into which

1:35:42.840,1:35:49.840
the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall.'

1:35:50.819,1:35:56.039
Now, Marx is partially inclined
to accept to some degree

1:35:56.039,1:35:59.729
Adam Smith's argument,

1:35:59.729,1:36:10.159
that the repression of the workplace does indeed
produce this kind of situation.

1:36:10.159,1:36:14.610
And it's something I like to ask to my academic
colleagues: to what degree is your ordinary

1:36:14.610,1:36:20.219
employment corrupting the courage of your mind?

1:36:20.219,1:36:21.310
It's not hard,

1:36:21.310,1:36:26.550
to have the courage of your mind corrupted by
ordinary employment at all.

1:36:26.550,1:36:31.239
And it's not just workers who suffer from this problem,

1:36:31.239,1:36:35.949
journalists, media folk, university professors, we all have it.

1:36:35.949,1:36:42.949
You're lucky, you're students you don't have it yet.
I hope.

1:36:43.179,1:36:49.329
Marx goes on to say in the next page:
"Some crippling of body and mind is inseparable

1:36:49.329,1:36:53.199
even from the division of labour in society as a whole."

1:36:53.199,1:36:58.749
And this does indeed produce
what he calls "industrial pathology".

1:36:58.749,1:37:04.059
Marx is not going to pathologize the whole of working-class
at all, but he's going to say

1:37:04.059,1:37:17.839
'look, there are impacts of all of this
on people's abilities to react, to think',

1:37:17.839,1:37:27.459
and for those of you have done much organizing with,
people working 80 hours a week,

1:37:27.459,1:37:32.569
you find it's not an implausible thing at all to point out

1:37:32.569,1:37:37.510
that indeed, they don't have time to think about most of the things that

1:37:37.510,1:37:42.280
we would expect them to think about given
their working-class position.

1:37:42.280,1:37:47.409
They're so busy trying to make ends meet, so
busy trying to get enough food on the table

1:37:47.409,1:37:53.810
for their kids in time. and do all those
kinds of things, they don't have time

1:37:53.810,1:38:00.500
and they don't even have

1:38:00.500,11:38:08.130
the time and the ability to sit around and think
through a lot of these issues.

1:38:08.130,1:38:13.800
So Marx is quoting Adam Smith as being extreme about this,

1:38:13.800,1:38:22.749
but nevertheless there is something
to it which we have to recognize.

1:38:26.709,1:38:31.949
The division of labour then,
is something that comes about through

1:38:31.949,1:38:36.420
this transformation in the manufacturing period.

1:38:36.420,1:38:41.210
Marx is here setting up a manufacturing system and
a manufacturing period,

1:38:41.210,1:38:43.999
this has limits.

1:38:43.999,1:38:49.499
And the limit, he says, is of course going to be the technology.

1:38:49.499,1:38:53.719
Right at the end of the chapter he says,

1:38:53.719,1:39:00.179
page 490-491: "…manufacture was unable either to seize upon
the production of society to its full extent,

1:39:00.179,1:39:04.940
or to revolutionize that production to its very core. It towered up…"

1:39:04.940,1:39:10.779
-Marx is admiring of it really- "…as an artificial economic
construction, on the broad foundation of

1:39:10.779,1:39:15.599
the town handicrafts and the domestic industries of the countryside.

1:39:15.599,1:39:19.339
At a certain stage of its development, the narrow technical basis on

1:39:19.339,1:39:27.019
which manufacture rested came into contradiction with
requirements of production which it had itself created."

1:39:27.019,1:39:30.150
Which is of course going to lead, right at the end:

1:39:30.150,1:39:38.280
"It is machines that abolish the role of the handicraftsman
as the regulating principle of social production."

1:39:38.280,1:39:44.259
It is the next chapter then that we're gonna deal with machines.

1:39:44.259,1:39:49.170
Since we're out of time,

1:39:49.170,1:39:56.019
I want to go trough the machinery and
large-scale industry chapter as possible,

1:39:56.019,1:39:58.059
next time.

1:39:58.059,1:40:03.500
and I would suggest you tried to read

1:40:03.500,1:40:10.380
at least up to page 588.

1:40:10.380,1:40:17.230
No sorry, do it to page 564.

1:40:17.230,1:40:19.050
But, I also want you to do something else,

1:40:19.050,1:40:27.619
I want you to read very very carefully the
footnote on page 493 that goes over into 494.

1:40:27.619,1:40:33.929
I'm gonna spend a good deal of time on that footnote, page 493-494.

1:40:33.929,1:40:38.320
One of the few places where Marx actually says something
very concrete about his method.

1:40:38.320,1:40:42.829
I think it's very important to understand what he's talking about.

1:40:42.829,1:40:47.340
So it's footnote 4, about Darwin and technology etc.

1:40:49.899,1:40:56.839
that we need to look at so we'll take that up
next time okay. Let's leave it there.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License