Extending the constant/variable capital formula

[Dermezel]

I'm sure this has probably been considered before, but has anyone considered how the constant vs. variable capital not only applies to human labor, but animal labor in general?

I mean Marx states that over time constant capital, basically machinery, displaces variable capital, human labor.

And this not only seems confirmed in all of human industry, but all of industry which involves life in general.

For example, horses and oxen have been almost completely replaced by farm machinery. And even cows/chickens/pigs may be replaced by cloned meat (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333673,00.html).

To me this seems like iron clad evidence of Marx's economic theorems. BTW, do you think the problem of constant vs variable capital relates to species extinction?

[Common_Means]

I'm sure this has probably been considered before, but has anyone considered how the constant vs. variable capital not only applies to human labor, but animal labor in general?

I mean Marx states that over time constant capital, basically machinery, displaces variable capital, human labor.

And this not only seems confirmed in all of human industry, but all of industry which involves life in general.

For example, horses and oxen have been almost completely replaced by farm machinery. And even cows/chickens/pigs may be replaced by cloned meat.

To me this seems like iron clad evidence of Marx's economic theorems. BTW, do you think the problem of constant vs variable capital relates to species extinction?

I understand your point, but essentially what you're suggesting is merely constant capital replacing constant capital.

Species extinction is not solely the responsibility of capitalism, though through its inherent nature, it has easily accelerated species' demise (as well as environmental degredation in general). In this sense, the development of large industry has increased species extinction - though I would not frame it in terms of constant vs variable capital. First, because animal "labour" is not labour; and second, the animals performing "labour" are domesticated.

However, it could easily be argued that via variable and constant capital, productivity was increased, accelerating degredation, habitat fragmentation and so on.

[Dermezel]

I understand your point, but essentially what you're suggesting is merely constant capital replacing constant capital.

Species extinction is not solely the responsibility of capitalism, though through its inherent nature, it has easily accelerated species' demise (as well as environmental degredation in general). In this sense, the development of large industry has increased species extinction - though I would not frame it in terms of constant vs variable capital. First, because animal "labour" is not labour; and second, the animals performing "labour" are domesticated.

However, it could easily be argued that via variable and constant capital, productivity was increased, accelerating degredation, habitat fragmentation and so on.

But that depends on the basis on which you define variable capital. Ultimately it looks like a political distinction. The only thing that separates the workman, who can move from job to job and is thus easily replaced (variable) is the fact that he cannot literally be owned. If he was a slave, he may as well be considered constant capital for all intents and purposes.

But then, you have to ask what the basis of these political rights are. I would say morality and sentience. Seeing as animals have sentience, I think we should consider their labor variable capital in practice.

[Common_Means]

But that depends on the basis on which you define variable capital. Ultimately it looks like a political distinction. The only thing that separates the workman, who can move from job to job and is thus easily replaced (variable) is the fact that he cannot literally be owned. If he was a slave, he may as well be considered constant capital for all intents and purposes.

But then, you have to ask what the basis of these political rights are. I would say morality and sentience. Seeing as animals have sentience, I think we should consider their labor variable capital in practice.

Interesting, but I would disagree. For me, variable and constant capital are economic distinctions; the former allowing for new value and consequently, surplus value. Let me put it this way: constant capital takes the form of any input that merely adds to the value of a finished product; whereas variable capital adds to the value of the product AND creates new value - which is pocketed by the owner.

Of course such a distinction appears to presuppose a perfect capitalist system where all people pay full value for each good; but regardless, this is not a requirement. For instance, even if one were to sell for greater value than all inputs used, the buyer would be paying more - losing value. In this act of exchange, no NEW value would be created. It is only via variable capital that new value can be created; the purchase and selling of labour-power - or variable capital.

As for your slave example, you are absolutely right - you could consider the slave as constant capital. Though I would caution that such an example is (in some ways) beyond the scope of Marx's critique - if for no other reason than the proletariat has to be "free" to sell their labour. But in terms of constant and variable capital, slaves were traded as commodities, not paid a wage, hence sold no labour-power, and would likely only add value to a good depending on their depreciation during the production process. Nothing is being concealed.

Again however, I would agree with the essence of your original post: capitalism leads to increased environmental degradation (including the demise of animals). I just don't believe it can be framed within the context of variable and constant capital - at least in the way you did.

[S.Artesian]

But that depends on the basis on which you define variable capital. Ultimately it looks like a political distinction. The only thing that separates the workman, who can move from job to job and is thus easily replaced (variable) is the fact that he cannot literally be owned. If he was a slave, he may as well be considered constant capital for all intents and purposes.

_________

The only thing that separates the workman or woman from the animals used in production is simply that animals do not produce value, are not a source of surplus value.... have no need to exchange their labor time for the means of subsistence.

[al8]

But that depends on the basis on which you define variable capital. Ultimately it looks like a political distinction. The only thing that separates the workman, who can move from job to job and is thus easily replaced (variable) is the fact that he cannot literally be owned. If he was a slave, he may as well be considered constant capital for all intents and purposes.

But then, you have to ask what the basis of these political rights are. I would say morality and sentience. Seeing as animals have sentience, I think we should consider their labor variable capital in practice.

To find out if variable capital applies you should ask;
Does a pig receive wages? No.
Does a horse receive wages? No
Does an ox receive wages? No
Does machinery receive wages? No
Do tools receive wages? No
Do chattel slaves receive wages? No
Does bio-tech equipment receive wages? No

Because the above is constant capital. Biological machines are just as much machines as mechanical ones.

Do wage laborers receive wages? Yes. They are variable capital. They fall into a system of exploitation where a person is fleeced as both a customer and a producer.
If an android humanoid would receive wages, sell it's labor hours on a labor market, act as a customer as well; the android would be variable capital despite being a piece of machinery. This would require sapience, that is; to work for a wage and buy products. Cows and horses don't have that even though they may be sentient.

[vyborg]

I agree with the posts before mine. Animals cannot produce surplus-value but they do create wealth...the two things are very different as we know from (for instance, The critical to Gotha programme)