Surplus Value and the Falling Rate of Profit

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Capitalism inherently lead to industrialization through its constant push for raising labor productivity and hence lowering market commodity prices versus the competition. This process, however, leads to a proportionate gain in 'constant capital', machines, over 'variable capital', live and exploitable labor, inducing falling rates of profitability of investment. When productivity is increased under Capitalism, the cyclical rates of accumulation ('gain, 'profit') fall. In proportion to the large constant capital invested, as the labor force has machines mounted on it to make it more productive, the amount of live exploitable labor shrinks in proportion. Hence, the trend of Capitalist countries' growth rates is historically downwards, forces it to be a system of massive debts and leads to periodic crises.



USA:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-productivity.png?s=unitedstapro&d1=19590101&d2=20130331

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-industrial-production.png?s=ip+yoy&d1=19200101&d2=20130331

UK:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-kingdom-productivity.png?s=unitedkinpro&d1=19590101&d2=20130331

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-kingdom-industrial-production.png?s=ukipiyoy&d1=19670101&d2=20130331


The rate of profit is s/(c + v). You can add numbers to the scheme if you wish, I just wanted to demonstrate the logic of the argument and not confuse with numbers.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=9068&stc=1&d=1363804679

[ckaihatsu]

Here's another graphical depiction of it....


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

http://s6.postimage.org/c0b0m6i25/23_A_Business_Perspective_on_the_Declining_Rat.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/c0b0m6i25/)


The graphic [is] quite a few years old now, and I've been meaning to re-do it....

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Can constant capital not increase through gains in technical efficiency though, as opposed to just a real increase in the number of machines?

[subcp]

It sounds like you're describing the rising organic composition of capital; a phenomenon that today leads to expelling greater and greater numbers of the surplus population from the value production process (due to greater efficiency and larger use/concentration/technological advances in constant capital). It's one of the inherent contradictions of capital.

[cyu]

a phenomenon that leads to expelling greater and greater numbers of the surplus population from the value production process. It's one of the inherent contradictions of capital.

The more economic power that is concentrated, the more it results in concentration of political power. And the more political power you have, the more power you have to oppress anybody you feel like, be it employees, peasants, or force the general population to bail out your lost fortunes.

[subcp]

The repressive apparatus (modern policing methods and techniques, control technology, urban crowd control devices, prison/industrial complex, etc.) is necessary for the expelled-from-value-production proletarians; TPTG's analysis of modern policing methods (and history of the police) is excellent.

[cyu]

TPTG's analysis of modern policing methods (and history of the police) is excellent.


Link? Maybe it's here http://libcom.org/tags/tptg somewhere but I'm blind xD

[RedMaterialist]

T expelled-from-value-production proletarians

why not just say, "unemployed workers"

[subcp]

There's a difference: when capitalism is structurally expelling people from value production due to the rising organic composition of capital, it shows that the previous era's trends (rising productivity=rising wages, greater accumulation=greater population growth) are no longer valid for the present era.

Just saying "more people are unemployed" doesn't explain how or why this is so. Unemployment is a normal function of capitalism in every era- even in times that the media had described (and the unions) as 'full employment', there were still about 4% unemployed (during the post-war boom).

[Rurkel]

A machine can certainly carry over to the product more value then it's worth; if I give a machine for free to a capitalist, he'll only be grateful to me and his profits will increase. However, that means that I, by making that gift, lost exactly the value that is now gained by the capitalist; my (negative) gain + the capitalist's gain = zero. Same happens if I sell that machine to the capitalist - of course, he can overpay and have a loss corresponding to my gain. And machines have to be sold by one capitalist to another. That's the reason why machines can't produce a profit to capitalists as a whole, though they can very much increase the profit of certain capitalists.

Am I correct in this explanation why machines don't produce surplus value for capitalists as a whole?