Broad Question on Marxist Economics

[NovelGentry]

I'm just wondering about other peoples ideas on this, it is not a specific question I have about Marxist economics, more like a broad question on how you think it relates to the socio-material aspects which Marxist economics uncovers.

Given that Marx was unaware of the extent to which "labour" could be fully automated, what would be the considered use-value of a machine which automates labour for a potentially infinite amount of time?

To me this the ultimate in surplus value, as the capitalist is no longer required to pay the exchange value for any future labour, they simply pay the exchange value for the labour to produce the machine. I'm well aware of the surplus value Marx had already attributed to machine aided labour, but I'm not aware he ever saw it as something that could exist without paying the exchange-value for the worker's labour to run the machine.

Given this a number of other interesting questions arise.... but I'm sure this thread will lead in. Any ideas? Would such a machine satisfy an infinite amount of necessary labour and as such all of it's labour could be considered surplus? The machine itself would have no necessary labour (unless maintenence is an issue), but what would become of the labourer(s) who created it? Is this the ultimate form of capital?

Edit: Oh, btw, if this makes no sense it's probably cause I haven't slept in something like 32 hours.

[Essential Insignificance]

Given that Marx was unaware of the extent to which "labour" could be fully automated, what would be the considered use-value of a machine which automates labour for a potentially infinite amount of time.

It would be frivolous to suggest that Marx didn't understand or anticipate the coverage of capitalist production, and the extent to which capitalist production would keep on creating itself -- revolutionizing- -- to produce profit.

Its a key point in Marx's works!


To me this the ultimate in surplus value, as the capitalist is no longer required to pay the exchange value for any future labour, they simply pay the exchange value for the labour to produce the machine. I'm well aware of the surplus value Marx had already attributed to machine aided labour, but I'm not aware he ever saw it as something that could exist without paying the exchange-value for the worker's labour to run the machine.

Well, I'd say that many different industries could be automated -- robotic or computerized -- presently.

But if we examine the commodity production that prevails in capitalist society, we find that, when employing Marxian economic logic that the goods or services produced by a (almost) fully automated machine would not be producing any value, as the main source of value -- labor power -- is not being objectified into the good or service.

What then is a commodity? Marx answers, that it is in the first place, what he calls a "use-value", that is, something that is able to satisfy a human want or need. Note that there is no "normative accent" here: bombs are "use-values" as much as the drugs are, that are used to heal the wounds caused by them. A commodity is, in the second place, a "use-value" that is produced on a more-or-less regular basis for exchange in the market, directly with other "use-values" (barter); or in any more developed commodity society with money. Thus, it has an "exchange value".

Now if being a commodity is the general character of "use-values" in the capitalist mode of production, then in particular "labor power" will be a commodity, the "exchange-value" expressed in wages.

Now, how is surplus-value created? Or how is capital possible?

Marx rejects the obvious answer of buying cheap and selling dear. If commodity owner A can exchange his commodity with commodity owner B for the sum of money that represents more value of his commodity, then, since the situation is symmetrical, B can do the same as A, so each cancels out and there is no general solution to the problem of the origin of "surplus-value".

Marx's solution involves the introduction of two further sets of concepts labor and "labor-power"; and the other being the distinction between "necessary" and "surplus" labor. The "necessary labor" of a society is the amount of labor requisite for reproducing that society at a certain material and cultural level. This, of course, alters in the passage of time. So what counts as "necessary-labor" is beyond a certain biological determined point, instead a socially determined point. "Surplus-labor" is the amount of time that labor is performed "over and above" this.

So the key to Marx's solution to the problem of "surplus-value" lies in the observation that after a certain period of productivity has been reached a person or group is able, by the consumption of certain "use-values", to labor long then what is necessary for the production of "use-values" requisite for reproducing the "labor-power" required.

So the first part of the working day is equal in length to the "labor-time" required to produce the "use-values" which are necessary and sufficient to produce and reproduce "labor-power" which is used up during the whole working day. The second is the difference between the latter and the necessary part.

So, the capitalist buys the workers "labor-power" -- which is equal to, or fluctuates around, the cost of the reproduction of that "labor-power"... it being the wage. So only equivalent values are exchanged. But when the capitalist uses the "labor-power" that he has brought realizes itself in an amount of "labor-time" greater then the necessary "labor-time". That is, the worker produces surplus "labor-time" that is appropriated by the capitalist.

Since we are dealing with the capitalist mode of production, in which "labor-time" is represented by the value of the use-values it produces. The surplus "labor-time" is represented as "surplus-value".

Thus labor-power in being used adds to the value of the means of production an increment equal in amount to "surplus-value". The capitalist is able to sell the product at its value and still make a profit equal in amount to "surplus-value".

So, as you can see, the value of a given commodity is determined by the amount of time it takes an average worker, under normal conditions to produce that commodity. Either through "relative" means or "absolute" means... but I shall not touch on this.

Thus, automated production -- for the most part -- free of human intervention or expenditure will create little to no profit.

And this brings me to the "falling rate of profit". The capitalist in an effort to maximize his profit, revolutionizes his machinery, technology, in order to produce more commodities, within the same amount of time, with the same amount of "labor-power"; or if possible with less amount of "labor-power". This enables him to increase his profits -- but only momentarily! This is what is known as relative "surplus-value".

Other capitalist's are forced by the inherent competition of capitalism to upgrade their machinery/technology to keep up with other capitalist's in their pursuit of profit... or face the prospect of going out of business.

So, through this competition, more and more, of pre-existing capital is invested in to the machinery/technology (constant capital) instead of labor-power (variable capital). So as you can, hopefully, see, more and more capital will be invested in "constant capital", while only "labor-power" can create profit.

Thus creating a huge dilemma!