productivity

[James Miller <jamiller@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR

   Here's a post from Will Brown:

>I understand that Marx regarded capitalism as being
>progressive in the sense that it developed the productive
>capacity of human labour. Will capital remain progressive
>as long as it continues so to do? At some point does the
>further development of productivity prove of no value to
>humanity? If so, how will we judge that this point has been
>reached?
>Will Brown  Bristol

   The progressive character of capital boils down to the fact
that the increase of the productivity of labor is an inescapable
by-product of the striving to maximize surplus value. This
process continues to this day, and will continue as long as
capitalism exists.
   Yet capitalist competition increasingly undercuts the
drive to increase labor productivity as the long-term crisis
of overproduction drags on. The gap between what could
be accomplished to improve labor productivity and the
actual results widens. Labor productivity today inches
forward at a snail's pace, when it could be growing by
leaps and bounds.
   There is planned obsolescence, not only for consumer
products, but also for the tools, machinery and equipment
used in production. Capitalists go for the cheap stuff, not
caring about the long-term. The effect here is to reduce
productivity because the bad equipment wears out too
quickly and much of the labor that went into making it
turns out to be wasted.
   The alienation and abuse of workers undercuts productivity
gains. The workers see no point in making useful suggestions
to improve productivity since it only results in more layoffs.
They would rather do things the slowest possible way.
   There is immense waste in the deployment and utilization
of the means of production. Much human labor is devoted
to producing scrap and trash, either because of overwork or
boredom (mistakes on the job, etc.), or because the products
can't be sold due to the market conditions and (it turns out)
should never have been produced. This is deducted from
productivity.
   The crisis causes plant shutdowns and reductions in work
force which cause underutilization of the means of production.
   Many useful inventions which could improve labor
productivity go unimplemented because of monopoly
practices. If a small group of corporations control the
market, they will agree not to compete by innovating and
underselling one another.
   The drive to lower the price of labor power, either by
driving down domestic wages, or producing off-shore in
low-wage countries, retards innovation and productivity
growth. Capitalists will try as much as possible to lower total
production costs, and this often can be achieved by
simply reducing labor costs, and thus avoiding the risks
and expenses of retooling, etc.
   The buildup of toxic chemicals and nuclear waste in
the world today is another drag on productivity. Because
of the shortsightedness of the "captains of industry,"
huge quantities of lethal material have accumulated that
were "not foreseen." Now there is the cost of "disposal."
(And what "disposal" is there in moving the stuff from
one place to another? This is especially relevant for the
radioactive elements with long half-lives.) The capitalists
didn't factor in these costs during the period when the
waste was being generated. Now it turns out to be a
retroactive cost of production. And this new cost is
primarily due to the concerns of the public--concerns
which grew side-by-side with the mountains of waste.
   Capital is forced to rationalize and get more product
per worker hour in order to compete. And this they will
do by hook or by crook. At the same time, the normal
functioning of competition retards the growth of labor
productivity, and retards it to a greater degree the deeper
the crisis.
   Will Brown also posed the question of the ultimate
future of the growth of productivity. Will there come
a time when it will have no value for humanity? This is
a question we do not need to answer, and, I think, cannot
answer.
   In _Grundrisse_, Marx discussed "free time" for the
development of the human personality, and he counterposed
"free time" to "necessary time." The goal of humanity is
to reduce necessary time as against free time. In _Capital_,
Vol. II, there is a statement indicating that necessary time
cannot be reduced to zero. But one would think that the
human race will continue to try to reduce necessary time
as much as possible for a long time to come.
   At the same time, however, Marx pointed out (in
_Grundrisse_, that free time "reacts back" against
necessary time, transforming it (after the abolition of
the capitalist mode of production). On this you can let
your imagination run wild.

Jim Miller
Seattle




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---