Having trouble with this paragraph in Das Kapital (Chapter 8)

[Broletariat]

"Let us assume, that some invention enables the spinner to spin as much cotton in 6 hours as he was able to spin before in 36 hours. His labour is now six times as effective as it was, for the purposes of useful production. The product of 6 hours’ work has increased six-fold, from 6 lbs. to 36 lbs. But now the 36 lbs. of cotton absorb only the same amount of labour as formerly did the 6 lbs. One-sixth as much new labour is absorbed by each pound of cotton, and consequently, the value added by the labour to each pound is only one-sixth of what it formerly was. On the other hand, in the product, in the 36 lbs. of yarn, the value transferred from the cotton is six times as great as before. By the 6 hours’ spinning, the value of the raw material preserved and transferred to the product is six times as great as before, although the new value added by the labour of the spinner to each pound of the very same raw material is one-sixth what it was formerly. This shows that the two properties of labour, by virtue of which it is enabled in one case to preserve value, and in the other to create value, are essentially different. On the one hand, the longer the time necessary to spin a given weight of cotton into yarn, the greater is the new value added to the material; on the other hand, the greater the weight of the cotton spun in a given time, the greater is the value preserved, by being transferred from it to the product."

emph. mine

Is Marx saying that, as labour time to produce a commodity decreases, the more value is preserved. This meaning that as the limit of labour time approaches 0, value will be equal both before and after production? The way he words it makes me hesitant to draw this conclusion. Especially the bolded part.

Edit: I think I'm starting to understand it, if I consider the product, abstractly, as a product of labour. There's more cotton in the product of labour after the invention than before the invention.

right? >_>

[Kadir Ateş]

Labour has a twofold characteristic which is able to #1 transfer or preserve the value of the means of productions into the value of product s/he is working on, as well as #2 create new value above and beyond the original value found in the constituent parts of the future product.

So when the amount of labour time decreases, then so will this additional shred of new value fall in the final product.

[Turinbaar]

I think that what Marx means is that because less time was spent by the worker producing more cotton, the worker will get paid less for making more, and the capitalist will be able to sell more product while compensating the worker just as much as he would if the worker produced less. Therefor the value of the product (and more importantly the capital that produced it) for the capitalist is not maintained at an equal, or preserved, but instead inflated artificially with the combination of machine production and wage-exploitation.

[Broletariat]

Labour has a twofold characteristic which is able to #1 transfer or preserve the value of the means of productions into the value of product s/he is working on, as well as #2 create new value above and beyond the original value found in the constituent parts of the future product.

So when the amount of labour time decreases, then so will this additional shred of new value fall in the final product.


Right, I was still caught up thinking in terms of use-value since he had just discussed how labour was preserved so I wasn't thinking in abstract enough terms.

[ZeroNowhere]

That seems to be a reference to the rising composition of capital. When the labourer can spin six times as much raw material over the same amount of time, the value produced remains equal (because they work for the same amount of time), but the value of the raw material increases sixfold.


By the 6 hours’ spinning, the value of the raw material preserved and transferred to the product is six times as great as before, although the new value added by the labour of the spinner to each pound of the very same raw material is one-sixth what it was formerly.Given this, the value of the raw material used increases sixfold, because its quantity does, but the amount of labour added by the labourer to each pound decreases because now less labour-time is required to spin one pound of raw material. This means that, if the pound of cotton were assumed to have a fixed value, for this amount of value transferred from constant capital, the amount of value transferred created by labour would decrease. So, for example, if 1 pound of cotton had a value of 1 unit, and one hour of the spinner's labour adds 1 unit of value, then previously for each 1 unit of cotton value there was one unit of value added, giving a ratio of 1:1, while now there are 6 units of cotton value necessary for each hour of added labour, giving a ratio of 6:1, or 1:1/6. This expresses a rise in the composition of capital.

The labour applied need not decrease absolutely, but only relative to the labour-time represented by the constant capital.

[Broletariat]

Given this, the value of the raw material used increases sixfold


Not 1 pound of cotton is now worth 6 times as much, but, the amount spent on raw materials is 6 times as much.

Correct?

My thinking was along the lines of the former since I was caught up in the use-value analysis earlier.

[ZeroNowhere]

Not 1 pound of cotton is now worth 6 times as much, but, the amount spent on raw materials is 6 times as much.

Correct?

My thinking was along the lines of the former since I was caught up in the use-value analysis earlier.Yes, the value of 1 pound of cotton remains equal, but the amount of cotton increases by 6 times, so there are now six times as many pounds. If 1 pound of cotton has a value of 1, then previously the total cotton used had a value of 6 (1 unit value x 6 pounds), but after the increase in productivity will have a value of 36 (1 unit value x 36 pounds). The labour applied to produce yarn from cotton (with cotton as a raw material) may remain equal, but will decline relative to the value of the raw material cotton, hence relative to the constant capital.

[Agnapostate]

Hans Ehrbar's annotations of Capital (http://www.econ.utah.edu/~ehrbar/akmc.htm) contain notes on numerous chapters. Utah is apparently a home for Marxist economics; my economics professor went there himself and was taught by Ehrbar.