Am i right about labour and technology?

[turquino]

Things with value don't simply fall from the sky. Marx's labour theory of value says that the source of all value is human labour. Technology (which contains labour itself) can't create value, it can only improve the productivity of human labour. An ox can replace a person's job of plowing a field by hand, but it won't plow without being harnessed to a plow and driven by a person. Even high-tech robots that make computer chips need to be built, programmed and heavily serviced, all of which requires lots of human labour, and this is too expensive for many capitalist firms so they still prefer using muscle to automating everything.

As labour-saving technology improves, the socially necessary labour time required to produce a commodity decreases. With better technology, a worker who once produced 1/5 of a widget per hour can now produce 1/2 a widget per hour. She will be payed the same wage because now 1/2 a widget per hour is socially necessary, while a worker who still produces 1/5 widget will be payed less. Essentially, working harder for the bosses will not better one's class richer.

From what i understand, better technology will make society's total product bigger, but it won't necessarily mean the workers will be better off. Rather than higher 'productivity' making workers better off like bourgeois economists say, carrying out class struggle is the key: that is short-term demands like shorter working days, higher wages, and then ultimately overthrowing capitalism and instituting socialism.

Am i correct?

[Valeofruin]

well your wrong in saying capitalist prefer manpower for one. However most parts of your post are 100% on the money (<- Irony).

capitalists constantly need to revolutionize production, if the expense of dead labour is too much then they revolutionize the way they produce the machines to drive the costs down and so on.

That being said the amount of labour required to maintenence such machines is never more then the original more primitive production, otherwise what would be the point?

Also of course anyone analysing this must bear in mind that as labour becomes more efficient the price of the produced commodity ultimately goes down, meaning the worker is ultimately paid the same or just slightly more then the group of labourers working in the more primitive scenario.

Ultimately no matter how you slice it, as the capitalists revolutionize the means of production, people lose their jobs. On a macroeconomic scale the working class gets the short end of the stick. Most arguements to the contrary are petty bourgeois day dreams about 'Equillibrium' and balance.

Yes you are correct.

[turquino]

capitalists constantly need to revolutionize production, if the expense of dead labour is too much then they revolutionize the way they produce the machines to drive the costs down and so on.
OK that makes sense.


That being said the amount of labour required to maintenence such machines is never more then the original more primitive production, otherwise what would be the point?
Yes i agree, but don’t capitalists like to invest in industries with less capital because it will mean a greater return?


Also of course anyone analysing this must bear in mind that as labour becomes more efficient the price of the produced commodity ultimately goes down, meaning the worker is ultimately paid the same or just slightly more then the group of labourers working in the more primitive scenario.

I’m not sure i understand. The price of the commodity will decrease with higher efficiency, but the worker still only receives the minimum amount needed to sustain herself for her labour. And if the average time required to make a widget goes down, won’t the labour-power of the workers using outdated technology be less valuable?

[Valeofruin]

I’m not sure i understand. The price of the commodity will decrease with higher efficiency, but the worker still only receives the minimum amount needed to sustain herself for her labour. And if the average time required to make a widget goes down, won’t the labour-power of the workers using outdated technology be less valuable?

You are for the most part correct, but ill run through what i mean to be certain.

To use an example lets say I have 2 employees, who is an expert at producing toilet paper. Now lets say that the raw materials needed to produce toilet paper will magically disappear in 1 week (the aliens are gonna come abduct all our toilet paper materials), there is however an infinite supply of them until that time. Given my current tools, and the productivity of my labourers it is estimated that in the next 7 days i can produce 70 rolls of toilet paper, and you want to buy them all.

The price you pay for them is based on the knowledge that you need them (making use at least slightly relevant here), the knowledge that there is a finite amount (70 of them), the amount of trouble and time my workers put in to producing or aquiring this commodity, and any expense i put into aquiring the infinite supply of raw materials, which merely represents the dead labour of other workers in other industries, and their bosses paychecks + of course a modest profit for myself.

I pay each of my workers $1 per day, and they produce 10 rolls of toilet paper per day, being a modest operation i want to try to make myself $2 a day exploiting my workers as well as my consumers (your need and demand for my product), however out of this to make this more realistic, a portion must go towards tapping the raw materials let's say .10 for every roll i produce. This means each roll of toilet paper is being sold to you for .40 per roll, leaving in reality just .10 cents per roll profit for myself, in exchange for very little labour on my part of course.

Now lets throw in a factor on your side, a budget, lets say you, (and im using you as sort of a symbolic representation of the working class buying back their products here), only make $2 a day, and so your total budget is $14, meaning you can only buy toilet paper at .20 cents per roll.

now for the actual exchange. the first day rolls around and you see how much the toilet paper costs, and decide you cant afford to pay .40 cents per roll, so instead of buying all 10 of my rolls for the day you decide to conserve and buy what your budget allows just 5. As a capitalist i now have a surplus of goods. I still have to pay for 10 rolls of raw materials, meaning $1 for that, and $2 to my workers. If you do the math im left with 5 rolls of toilet paper and a deficit. Now ive entered a capitalist crisis.

In response to this crisis i have 4 options:

1. raise the price of toilet paper, which will just encourage you to purchase less.

2. lay off workers, which will just cause me to produce less and like option 1, will make the crisis worse

3. optimize the efficiency of my labourers

4. give all my profit to my workers which would in turn increase your (as a representation of the working class consumers) budget

like most capitalists I'll go with option 3, and develop a magic new machine, that only requires 1 of my labourers to operate, and will produce for me twice the sheets of toilet paper per day, bringing my total for the week to 130, and my total per day to 20 rolls! My raw materials costs remain the same.

I can lay off one of my workers, and pay the next one a portion of his pay check, say $2 per day for the time being.

here is the part that addresses the question of the skilled labour being paid more.

The next day if my goal is to only make .5 cents per roll, however since i have twice the rolls im aiming to earn myself the same amount of money.

What have i done? nothing! i still run the same deficit ($2 to the workers $2 to raw materials, unless i cut out my profit motive and put the paper on the shelf for .20 [or less considering ive got rolls in my warehouse] you cant afford to purchase it all)

So naturally since i cant go without profit, my only option is to significantly cut the wages of my workers, meaning i have to pay my 1 labourer say $1.10 per day, or more preferably just $1 per day. Now heres were it gets tricky. you may ask "does that not mean my budget goes down?'

It does! But this is how capitalists keep their heads above water. There is a gap, lets say of 1 day, before you realise, and are affected by all the changes i made. It takes 1 day for your budget to go down as a result of the wages i cut, and 1 day for you to realise theres ultimately more goods avalable (130 instead of 60).

As a capitalist the only way for me to make myself a profit is to exploit this. you see, now my 20 rolls i produce in a day, only really costs me aprox. 15 cents per roll. and your still looking to buy for 20! Which means i can put the goods on the shelf for .20 and youll buy everything i produced in a day, i however need you to use up my 5 leftover rolls from yesterday, so i charge just (about) 17 cents, keeping 1 penny per roll for myself, and allowing you to purchase a roll out of my warehouse and cover my ass.

However tommorrow, when you realise your budget has been cut i know that you will not only be willing to spend less but youll be a far more cautious spender.

I know if i want to make a profit empty my warehouse and continue to survive i have to either:
1. step down and give my worker complete power
2. Revolutionise my means of production yet again
3. or if none of the above is an option, cut wages again

meaning ultimately the worker DOES make less then he did originally, and it also means i cant continue this cycle forever, because the more agressive im forced to get the closer my employee comes to being dead broke, and working for free, the closer he comes to no longer being able to be maintained under capitalism, and being forced to stab me in the back (i mean literally) and take matters into his own hands.

Capitalism of course is rarely this simple, this is just a fundemental example, there are many ways in which such simple dilemas such as this are avoided, and many factors that cause capitalism to rebound from such crisis. However we see even today that the more times capitalism rebounds, the weaker it becomes against such things. Take the wall street bailout for example. Imperialism, and the defense of bourgeois globalisation, the overseeing of jobs being shipped overseas etc. has left America so far in debt, and has made poverty, and unemployment so commonplace, and has ensured that we still run a deficit, that there is no longer any confidence, or economic foundation for America to stand on as a nation. Therefore economically the bailout isn't worth the paper its written on, it will deflate in value and be worth crap, once the gap i discussed in this post closes. Crisis is inevitable, or at least its unavoidable by the traditional 'solve a crisis of capital by creating fictitious value in the hopes that the economy will take an upturn reinflating the value of what we injected' trick. If we do find a way to ward it off, that defense too will most likely become obsolete and will only serve to push the problem into another sector.

This is what makes the concept of capitalist extinction inevitable, because eventually there will be no way to ward of 'the big one' that will go unopposed until the workers can no longer afford to buy back the products they produce, including things such as, i dont know... food?

The choice will become revolution or death. Im sure there will be some religious people who will just bend over and accept it as the 4 horsemen coming to collect their dues, but i for one choose revolution!