From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Thu Dec 26 2002 - 10:49:06 EST
Re [5234]:
Marx obviously didn't discuss "the issue itself" -- electronics
and value -- in the _Grundrisse_. And he certainly didn't
present the more general issue in cartoon form like:
http://www.scienceofsociety.org/inbox/unit6.before.after.html
In this short and suggestive section of the _Grundrisse_ (pp. 704-707,
Penguin ed.), Marx asserts that with the development of science,
"Labour no longer appears *so much* to be included within the
production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as
a watchman and regulator to the production process itself" (705;
emphasis added, JL)
and that:
"Labour steps to the side of the
production process instead of being its chief actor" (Ibid).
This might be seen as a premonition of the 'factory of the future'
(a factory without workers such as a flexible manufacturing system
[FMS]). Yet, note that Marx has *qualified* his statements above,
e.g. "appears so much", "chief" [actor]. Later, he goes on to write
that capital
"calls to life all the powers of science and of nature,
as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to
make the creation of wealth independent (*relatively*) of the
labour time employed in it" (Ibid, p. 706, emphasis added, JL).
Note again the qualification -- "relatively".
Marx goes on to write:
"Forces of production and social relations -- two different sides
of the development of the social individual -- appear to capital
as a mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on
its material foundation. In fact, however, *they are the
material conditions to blow the foundation
sky-high* " (Ibid, emphasis added, JL).
Does this mean that value will end of its own accord when the
last worker is expelled from the production process? Hardly.
What it asserts, I believe, is something more simple: as
workers are rendered increasingly 'superfluous', the material
conditions for heightened class struggle are present and it is
that struggle which has the capacity to "blow the foundation
sky-high".
More concretely, this could be interpreted as meaning that
the expulsion of workers from the production process lays
the material conditions for heightened struggles by workers over
employment, unemployment, and changing forms of employment.
(NB: the creation of the material conditions _alone_ do not
necessarily result in a heightened intensity of class struggle --
the self-activity and subjectivity of the working-class is required).
This struggle might be intensified over issues surrounding the
diffusion of electronics, but the conclusion that "electronics lay
the basis for the destruction of the value system" is problematic.
Wasn't there a material basis for the destruction of the value
system before the advent of the age of electronics? In any event,
it is important to note that alongside the loss of employment on the
micro level due to the spread of labor-saving forms of technical
change in means of production there are *also* the creation of
new branches of production which employ workers. This does not
mean, of course, that there will be a 'balance' between the workers
who are technological displaced and those who are hired in other
branches of production for which there is an increasing demand for
labour-power. Indeed, it is important to note that there is technological
change going on in *all* branches of production: thus, for example,
less workers were employed by robotic manufacturers than many
authorities anticipated since robotics were used to expel workers
from the robotic-manufacturing process, i.e. flexible manufacturing
systems were created, in some cases, where robots (and related
technologies, such as numerical control cells) produced robots
with only minimal and nominal living labor required.
What has to be considered, in addition, is the importance of
wage rates versus the cost of new more advanced means of production
in the investment decision by capitalists. While there are some control
advantages of having robots (e.g. robots don't have to go to the
restroom or eat or require vacation time or time to sleep and they
can't form a union and intentionally resist speed-up or go on strike),
the cost of employing robots vs. employing living labor is a crucial
factor. And one has to recall that as the size of the industrial
reserve army increases, there is downward pressure on wages.
Put within the context of the current international economy, this
may mean that it might cost corporations less to employ less-
advanced means of production in areas of the world where wages
are relatively very low (and where the IRA tends to be very high)
than to employ the more advanced latest "electronic" production
technology. The mass poverty in so many parts of the world, it
should be recalled, is _not_ primarily a consequence of 'electronic
production'. Yet, that poverty has an impact on the diffusion
period for these technologies.
In any event, the section of the _Grundrisse_ cited by "D. Adami"
does not make the assertions about the "destruction of value" that
the article below makes (although there is a discussion in the
_Grundrisse_ elsewhere re the destruction of value). Hence, it
can not help us answer the following questions posed by the Davis
article.
In solidarity, Jerry
Subject: [OPE-L:8228] electronics and value
A short paper --
"The Shape of History: Historical
Materialism, Electronics and Value"
published online by the Institute for the Study of the
Science of Society:
http://www.scienceofsociety.org/inbox/res4.html
(This appears to be a condensed version of a paper entitled
"The End of Value" by Jim Davis which was
presented at the 2000 'Rethinking Marxism' conference in
Amherst, Mass.: http://scienceofsociety.org/discuss/eov.html ).
The last section in the above article called "Value in the age
of robots" has several paragraphs on *the "many ways"
that value is destroyed*.
Some of the many ways, it is asserted, include:
* the use-value of labor-power is destroyed.
* electronics-based production leads to a situation
"where fewer people have the money to buy
commodities". I.e. commodity values aren't realized.
* "when a new product made by robots appears
alongside the same product made with labor, the
value in the old products is driven down to the level
of the robot-made product -- its value is destroyed".
* "As new labor-less forms of production become more
widespread, the social infrastructure that was built
to sustain industrial production is also destroyed as
social investment is pulled out of the communities of
former workers".
-- Do others agree that the instances cited are cases where
value has been 'destroyed'?
-- Are the authors confused, e.g. are they confusing a change
in the distribution of value with the destruction of value?
-- Are the above assertions supported or contradicted by the
empirical evidence?
-- What are the legitimate senses in which we can refer to the
destruction of value?
(snip, JL)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 28 2002 - 00:00:00 EST