blindpig
11-04-2009, 02:30 PM
Yeah, that is a hallmark of capitalism. Kneejerk reaction on my part. Wasn't thinking in the appropriate time scale.
On Economic Crisis
Re: On Economic Crisis
Kid of the Black Hole
11-04-2009, 04:40 PM
I admit to being shocked exactly how in "plain sight" this material is, considering the amount of "scholarship" that agonizes over this question
11-04-2009, 04:40 PM
I admit to being shocked exactly how in "plain sight" this material is, considering the amount of "scholarship" that agonizes over this question
Re: On Economic Crisis
Two Americas
11-04-2009, 08:40 PM
"An even stranger aspect of over-production is that the workers, the actual producers of the very commodities which glut the market, are in need of these commodities. It cannot be said here that they should produce things in order to obtain them, for they have produced them and yet they have not got them."
11-04-2009, 08:40 PM
"An even stranger aspect of over-production is that the workers, the actual producers of the very commodities which glut the market, are in need of these commodities. It cannot be said here that they should produce things in order to obtain them, for they have produced them and yet they have not got them."
Re: On Economic Crisis
PinkoCommie
11-04-2009, 09:31 PM
Material that is both fresh to me and somehow easier than that stuff I've already read ten times...I will take note though that again we see here how important definitions are. This time, I note that not about the blanket term 'value' (but thank you, thank you all, I am so glad we've covered that. I really wanted that discussion to occur, and I think perhaps youse guys who had not yet covered it can see why); instead I refer to the excerpt's mention of constant capital and variable capital. These terms were covered in the "What is Value?" thread I put up on SI some time before KOBH finally kicked us off with a proper start by titling his thread the same thing here and actually got the Capital discussion rolling in a sustained way. And thanks KOBH fer that too.
Anyway, we should IMO make sure we have a solid grip on those two terms - C being that capital that is deployed in tools, machines, and materials and the magic stuff V being deployed in the purchase of the labor commodity. Surplus value is worth a brief rehash too = that realized exchange value that has no labor cost associated with it, the source of profit (among other revenue).
I would like to see though a contrast of accumulation with reproduction, although I think I am down with that too, these terms being in their ways analogues to C & V.
Anyway, onward.
Sooo, I think I am down with the excerpt through the comments about Say: "We'll get back to that" is within my mental capacity! Skipping to the paragraph just past Marx's final little snipe at Say, we have a look at the calculus you guys are chatting about downthread in response the post where KOBH tackles post 7 /section 12:
In reproduction, just as in the accumulation of capital, it is not only a question of replacing the same quantity of use-values of which capital consists, on the former scale or on an enlarged scale (in the case of accumulation), but of replacing the value of the capital advanced along with the usual rate of profit (surplus-value).
I say there is a 'calculus' here with a clear choice of terms. Quantitative increase in production is mere algebra, a merely linear increase in the big picture at hand. But if we dig a little deeper, and I think that starts in the snip just above, we see that embedded within this linearly expanding mode of production there is the expansion of appropriation of surplus labor. For every expanding unit of broad production (linearly, of course) there is within an expanding unit of labor/embryonic value which itself is expanding - a part of it paid for and a part of it appropriated without recompense. It is here we leave algebra behind and suddenly are into calculus (would that my memory of it all 25 years ago were more acute so that my analogy could be made more plain). It is here, where the tendency for rising productivity includes labor, that we encounter increase encapsulated within an environ that is itself increasing. Anyway, I hope that sort of points in the direction my thoughts ran when reading the first section and the comments you all put up after KOBH brought up the section 12 excerpt.
Sooo...to then go stand on the other side of the looking glass:
when additional capital is produced at a very rapid rate and its reconversion into productive capital increases the demand for all the elements of the latter to such an extent that actual production cannot keep pace with it; this brings about a rise in the prices of all commodities, which enter into the formation of capital... The interruption of the reproduction process leads to the decrease in variable capital, to a fall in wages and in the quantity of labor employed.
Seems to me that these are the key motions within the discussion of crisis in section 6 and that the rest of the crisis discussion, at least in that section, flow forth from them.
Comments? Corrections? If none about what I have tried to tease out as the core motions, then somebody please expound some more on the parts of the excerpt I've skipped discussing. Those, I think, are where the thread between the theory and the real world is clear as a wrist-thick rope.
11-04-2009, 09:31 PM
Material that is both fresh to me and somehow easier than that stuff I've already read ten times...I will take note though that again we see here how important definitions are. This time, I note that not about the blanket term 'value' (but thank you, thank you all, I am so glad we've covered that. I really wanted that discussion to occur, and I think perhaps youse guys who had not yet covered it can see why); instead I refer to the excerpt's mention of constant capital and variable capital. These terms were covered in the "What is Value?" thread I put up on SI some time before KOBH finally kicked us off with a proper start by titling his thread the same thing here and actually got the Capital discussion rolling in a sustained way. And thanks KOBH fer that too.
Anyway, we should IMO make sure we have a solid grip on those two terms - C being that capital that is deployed in tools, machines, and materials and the magic stuff V being deployed in the purchase of the labor commodity. Surplus value is worth a brief rehash too = that realized exchange value that has no labor cost associated with it, the source of profit (among other revenue).
I would like to see though a contrast of accumulation with reproduction, although I think I am down with that too, these terms being in their ways analogues to C & V.
Anyway, onward.
Sooo, I think I am down with the excerpt through the comments about Say: "We'll get back to that" is within my mental capacity! Skipping to the paragraph just past Marx's final little snipe at Say, we have a look at the calculus you guys are chatting about downthread in response the post where KOBH tackles post 7 /section 12:
In reproduction, just as in the accumulation of capital, it is not only a question of replacing the same quantity of use-values of which capital consists, on the former scale or on an enlarged scale (in the case of accumulation), but of replacing the value of the capital advanced along with the usual rate of profit (surplus-value).
I say there is a 'calculus' here with a clear choice of terms. Quantitative increase in production is mere algebra, a merely linear increase in the big picture at hand. But if we dig a little deeper, and I think that starts in the snip just above, we see that embedded within this linearly expanding mode of production there is the expansion of appropriation of surplus labor. For every expanding unit of broad production (linearly, of course) there is within an expanding unit of labor/embryonic value which itself is expanding - a part of it paid for and a part of it appropriated without recompense. It is here we leave algebra behind and suddenly are into calculus (would that my memory of it all 25 years ago were more acute so that my analogy could be made more plain). It is here, where the tendency for rising productivity includes labor, that we encounter increase encapsulated within an environ that is itself increasing. Anyway, I hope that sort of points in the direction my thoughts ran when reading the first section and the comments you all put up after KOBH brought up the section 12 excerpt.
Sooo...to then go stand on the other side of the looking glass:
when additional capital is produced at a very rapid rate and its reconversion into productive capital increases the demand for all the elements of the latter to such an extent that actual production cannot keep pace with it; this brings about a rise in the prices of all commodities, which enter into the formation of capital... The interruption of the reproduction process leads to the decrease in variable capital, to a fall in wages and in the quantity of labor employed.
Seems to me that these are the key motions within the discussion of crisis in section 6 and that the rest of the crisis discussion, at least in that section, flow forth from them.
Comments? Corrections? If none about what I have tried to tease out as the core motions, then somebody please expound some more on the parts of the excerpt I've skipped discussing. Those, I think, are where the thread between the theory and the real world is clear as a wrist-thick rope.
Re: On Economic Crisis
anaxarchos
11-04-2009, 11:14 PM
What Marx is saying is in the context of a discussion of "reproduction" (or the recreation of the capital that was extended) and "extended reproduction" or "accumulation", which amounts to the original capital extended plus the rate of return it produces. In this case, consider a capital of $100 which produces a 15% return. On the completion of a single circuit, the capital to be invested now amounts to the original $100 plus the $15 which was produced or $115. Now $115 must be extended. If it is not, it ceases to be capital. If it is distributed, it must be reinvested in another sector or it ceases to be capital. If capital is portable across sectors, we are merely expanding the scope across which the same process applies. Production, not only for a single commodity or sector, but for many, increases quantitatively... and this quite independently of what is happening with the "market". To get to this point of market saturation, we need consider nothing more complicated than a quantitative increase of production (of one or many or all commodities - it makes no difference) proportional to the actual increase of capital.
But, now consider Mike's point. Where we have quantitative increase, we just as surely - sooner or later - will get qualitative increases in production due to increased productivity. Thus, the eventual problem is compounded.
Understanding this helps the capitalist not at all because he must still reinvest his expanded capital (he must act "impetuously"). At best, he hopes that he will win the battle to convert all of his extended production back into capital while his competitor will not, i.e. that he will win the battle of competition. In reality, it is never even this clear.
Now consider the current crisis. Capital expanding very quickly is supported by a rapidly expanding global market and the unusual extension of credit to prop up domestic consumption. Then, the handwriting begins to appear on the wall. A brilliant scheme (the 10,000th iteration of such schemes) appears in the credit markets, as new derivatives, which promise to further prop up domestic markets. Meanwhile, additional opportunities appear in hedging commodities to support the still "expanding" market. What is really happening is a gigantic "over-abundance" of capital which has already outstripped the previous markets and is sloshing around waiting to breach the levee. The inevitable happens.
Interestingly, the theory of the supply-siders and the tax breaks guys is exactly wrong. Changing the "equilibrium" (such as it exists and that ain't for long) actually accelerates the rate at which accumulation outstrips markets.
Ain't no way out except to keep spreading... and then you hit the edge of the world.
Gotta find some Martians to sell superfluous shit to... soon. Either that or figure a way to redivide the world AGAIN.
11-04-2009, 11:14 PM
What Marx is saying is in the context of a discussion of "reproduction" (or the recreation of the capital that was extended) and "extended reproduction" or "accumulation", which amounts to the original capital extended plus the rate of return it produces. In this case, consider a capital of $100 which produces a 15% return. On the completion of a single circuit, the capital to be invested now amounts to the original $100 plus the $15 which was produced or $115. Now $115 must be extended. If it is not, it ceases to be capital. If it is distributed, it must be reinvested in another sector or it ceases to be capital. If capital is portable across sectors, we are merely expanding the scope across which the same process applies. Production, not only for a single commodity or sector, but for many, increases quantitatively... and this quite independently of what is happening with the "market". To get to this point of market saturation, we need consider nothing more complicated than a quantitative increase of production (of one or many or all commodities - it makes no difference) proportional to the actual increase of capital.
But, now consider Mike's point. Where we have quantitative increase, we just as surely - sooner or later - will get qualitative increases in production due to increased productivity. Thus, the eventual problem is compounded.
Understanding this helps the capitalist not at all because he must still reinvest his expanded capital (he must act "impetuously"). At best, he hopes that he will win the battle to convert all of his extended production back into capital while his competitor will not, i.e. that he will win the battle of competition. In reality, it is never even this clear.
Now consider the current crisis. Capital expanding very quickly is supported by a rapidly expanding global market and the unusual extension of credit to prop up domestic consumption. Then, the handwriting begins to appear on the wall. A brilliant scheme (the 10,000th iteration of such schemes) appears in the credit markets, as new derivatives, which promise to further prop up domestic markets. Meanwhile, additional opportunities appear in hedging commodities to support the still "expanding" market. What is really happening is a gigantic "over-abundance" of capital which has already outstripped the previous markets and is sloshing around waiting to breach the levee. The inevitable happens.
Interestingly, the theory of the supply-siders and the tax breaks guys is exactly wrong. Changing the "equilibrium" (such as it exists and that ain't for long) actually accelerates the rate at which accumulation outstrips markets.
Ain't no way out except to keep spreading... and then you hit the edge of the world.
Gotta find some Martians to sell superfluous shit to... soon. Either that or figure a way to redivide the world AGAIN.
Re: On Economic Crisis
Dhalgren
11-05-2009, 06:54 AM
"quantitative" and "qualitative" in regards the commodity being produced and not the "production" of the commodity as a process. That is what is being spoken of here, isn't it? The quantity and quality of the production, not of the commodity being produced?
11-05-2009, 06:54 AM
"quantitative" and "qualitative" in regards the commodity being produced and not the "production" of the commodity as a process. That is what is being spoken of here, isn't it? The quantity and quality of the production, not of the commodity being produced?
Re: On Economic Crisis
Two Americas
11-05-2009, 09:17 AM
We are plodding along building a solid foundation here. I am amazed at how much I missed in previous readings, by the way.
You set up a shop and I set up a shop, making the same commodity. We are both then in a mad frantic race to greater productivity to beat the other guy. We must do this - no choice. There is no going backward or even treading water. Expand or die.
Talking to fruit growers recently, there has been a mad scramble (several hundred growers) to move to high density orchards - more fruit sooner on the same acreage - and to move to new more desirable varieties. Increase your productivity or die, was what they were saying a couple of years ago. Mad scramble, massive borrowing. Now after just a couple of years, there are too many apples this year for the number of boxes to put them in, for the storage space available, not enough trucks, etc. The apples cannot be sold, therefore. Also, prices to the grower collapse. They are victims of their own success. None of this has anything to do with demand. Meanwhile, consumers are not paying less for apples, and workers are not making more, much of the crop will be destroyed, and farmers ruined.
11-05-2009, 09:17 AM
We are plodding along building a solid foundation here. I am amazed at how much I missed in previous readings, by the way.
You set up a shop and I set up a shop, making the same commodity. We are both then in a mad frantic race to greater productivity to beat the other guy. We must do this - no choice. There is no going backward or even treading water. Expand or die.
Talking to fruit growers recently, there has been a mad scramble (several hundred growers) to move to high density orchards - more fruit sooner on the same acreage - and to move to new more desirable varieties. Increase your productivity or die, was what they were saying a couple of years ago. Mad scramble, massive borrowing. Now after just a couple of years, there are too many apples this year for the number of boxes to put them in, for the storage space available, not enough trucks, etc. The apples cannot be sold, therefore. Also, prices to the grower collapse. They are victims of their own success. None of this has anything to do with demand. Meanwhile, consumers are not paying less for apples, and workers are not making more, much of the crop will be destroyed, and farmers ruined.
Re: On Economic Crisis
Two Americas
11-05-2009, 09:26 AM
This strikes me as a general statement about the condition of the working class. We are told to go out and be productive in order to meet our needs. Yet we have been productive - we "have produced them and yet..." we "have not got them." The very people producing the commodities are to one degree or another not able to get those commodities. If we made a pair of shoes for ourselves, we would have the shoes. If we made a blanket and then traded it to someone else for a pair of shoes, we would have the shoes and the other fellow would have the blanket. Yet we all are making "shoes" and "blankets," yet we have a very different result - a chronic state of needs not being met - then we would were we making items for ourselves or bartering with others.
11-05-2009, 09:26 AM
This strikes me as a general statement about the condition of the working class. We are told to go out and be productive in order to meet our needs. Yet we have been productive - we "have produced them and yet..." we "have not got them." The very people producing the commodities are to one degree or another not able to get those commodities. If we made a pair of shoes for ourselves, we would have the shoes. If we made a blanket and then traded it to someone else for a pair of shoes, we would have the shoes and the other fellow would have the blanket. Yet we all are making "shoes" and "blankets," yet we have a very different result - a chronic state of needs not being met - then we would were we making items for ourselves or bartering with others.
Re: On Economic Crisis
Dhalgren
11-05-2009, 09:32 AM
our lives have become. My brother in law was a dairy farmer, 3rd generation. He owns about three hundred acres up on the White Earth Reservation in Minnesota. He also leased or rented another 200 or so acres. He had about a hundred head of cattle, maybe sixty milkers. It was killing him. He and his wife just sat down one day and said, "Let's stop this madness." And they did. He sold all of his dairy cows and bought some beef cattle (much easier to manage) and he started driving a big truck for the elevator - the Co-Op. He and his wife are much happier - they have less money - but they actually are beginning to enjoy their lives. He was caught up in the competition and didn't even really realize it until the misery of it all became too much. He told me recently that he and his wife were now beginning to rediscover "farm life" as the enjoyable thing it had once been.
11-05-2009, 09:32 AM
our lives have become. My brother in law was a dairy farmer, 3rd generation. He owns about three hundred acres up on the White Earth Reservation in Minnesota. He also leased or rented another 200 or so acres. He had about a hundred head of cattle, maybe sixty milkers. It was killing him. He and his wife just sat down one day and said, "Let's stop this madness." And they did. He sold all of his dairy cows and bought some beef cattle (much easier to manage) and he started driving a big truck for the elevator - the Co-Op. He and his wife are much happier - they have less money - but they actually are beginning to enjoy their lives. He was caught up in the competition and didn't even really realize it until the misery of it all became too much. He told me recently that he and his wife were now beginning to rediscover "farm life" as the enjoyable thing it had once been.
Re: On Economic Crisis
brother cakes
11-05-2009, 11:44 AM
just means increasing labor time or introducing more labor power and ancillary materials that get entirely consumed in production (as opposed to fixed capital like mmachinery, which gradually transfers value to a product throughout its lifespan) to increase output. Of course there are limits to quantitative increases in productivity imposed by finiteness of population and natural resources, by the number of hours in a day, by the fact that labor power is inseparable from humans, etcetera. These limits in turn require a qualitative increase in productivity, or the introduction of machinery, in order to overcome certain natural obstacles and produce more stuff in equal or less time!
11-05-2009, 11:44 AM
just means increasing labor time or introducing more labor power and ancillary materials that get entirely consumed in production (as opposed to fixed capital like mmachinery, which gradually transfers value to a product throughout its lifespan) to increase output. Of course there are limits to quantitative increases in productivity imposed by finiteness of population and natural resources, by the number of hours in a day, by the fact that labor power is inseparable from humans, etcetera. These limits in turn require a qualitative increase in productivity, or the introduction of machinery, in order to overcome certain natural obstacles and produce more stuff in equal or less time!