John wrote in [OPE-L:3389]:
> Stating that there is evidence is not the same as providing it. I'd like
> to see some numbers with your "evidence." Nota bene. Should you have
> such evidence for cases where it is a matter of replacing machines with
> more machines, "bigger" machines, etc., then you'd have a case for
> disproving Marx's statements in CAPITAL.
Right now I'm not concerned with Marx's statements -- I'm concerned with
*yours*.
As I have repeatedly emphasized, you have only given us only *one* example
of micro technological change -- the mailing industry. And as I have
repeatedly emphasized, there is plenty of reason to believe that industry
is an unusual case. Since *you* are making the unusual claim regarding
technological change on the micro level, it is *your* responsibility to
either show us "some numbers" or to drop the claim.
Also: replacing machines with "more machines" does not imply that they are
"bigger machines." Size, in physical terms, is not nor has it ever been a
theoretical concern.
Further, please note that when machines replace machines, one must still
look at the labor requirements per unit of output.
In Solidarity,
Jerry