Capital: An Energy Perspective [1st Unabridged] 1443890898, 9781443890892

Citation preview

Capital

Capital: An Energy Perspective By

Noel Chellan

Capital: An Energy Perspective By Noel Chellan This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Noel Chellan All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9089-8 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9089-2

To my mom Anjalayammal (Angie)–for your unfailing labour-power over the years

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... x Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 Introduction: The Energy Concept and its Relevance to Marx’s Capital Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 15 Labour-Power, Muscle-Power or Human-Energy: The Life Force or Vital Force of Man and his Movements Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 26 Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 58 The Evolution of Economic Man: Exchange Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 66 Money and its Changing Nature Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 88 The Transformation of Money into Capital Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 106 Nature, Human-Energy and the Changing Nature of Work Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 124 Constant and Variable Capital: The Mass and Energy Forms of Capital Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 130 The Degree of Exploitation of Human-Energy in the Production of Surplus-Value Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 136 The Working Day: Measured Time for Work and Wages

viii

Contents

Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 153 Limits to Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value Confronted by Capitalism Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 158 Capitalism’s Relentless Quest to Overcome Limits to Surplus-Value: The Production of Relative Surplus-Value Chapter Thirteen ...................................................................................... 165 Co-operation and Collectivisation: Capitalism’s Ideological Design in the Workshop Chapter Fourteen ..................................................................................... 173 The Division of Movement and the Efficient Expenditure of HumanEnergy in Capitalistic Work Chapter Fifteen ........................................................................................ 192 Machines and the Energy Revolution in the Production of Relative Surplus-Value Chapter Sixteen ....................................................................................... 235 Nature, the Productive Worker and the History of Surplus-value Chapter Seventeen ................................................................................... 245 Wages: Exchange for Human-energy under the Guise of the Time of the Free Worker Chapter Eighteen ..................................................................................... 259 The Production and Reproduction of Capitalism for Limitless Accumulation Chapter Nineteen ..................................................................................... 271 The Conversion of Social Surplus-Value into Private Capital Accumulation Chapter Twenty ....................................................................................... 286 The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation and the Wretchedness of the Working Class Chapter Twenty One................................................................................ 310 Primitive Accumulation: The Violent History of Capitalism and the Labour Market aided by the Heavy Hand of the State

Capital: An Energy Perspective

ix

Chapter Twenty Two ............................................................................... 337 Conclusion: Toward Environmental, Economic and Social Sciences Informed by the Laws of Energy Bibliography ............................................................................................ 351 Index ........................................................................................................ 357

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the University of KwaZulu-Natal, my line managers and my colleagues on the Sociology Programme for supporting my sabbatical so I could embark on this scholarly journey. To my previous supervisor and colleagues, who supported my development in my earlier years of research, teaching and community engagement–thank you. To my family, partner and friends–thank you for your continued support of various kinds. To the students, past and present, whom I have engaged in conversation with over the years on issues pertaining to society and nature–thank you. To the communities I have researched in and about–thank you for making me really understand livelihood challenges under capitalism. To Cambridge Scholars Publishing–thank you for agreeing to publish “Capital–An Energy Perspective”.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION: THE ENERGY CONCEPT AND ITS RELEVANCE TO MARX’S CAPITAL

If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration. —Nikola Tesla Every new aspect of a science involves a revolution in the technical terms of the science. —Friedrich Engels

Since this book adopts the energy perspective of Capital Vol 1-A Critique of Political Economy, I have set aside the first two chapters to discuss the concept of energy in general, and the concept of human-energy in particular. I will henceforth refer to Marx’s seminal text as simply Capital. Different concepts allow us to enter different worlds of meaning, analysis and understanding. Only the concept of energy has the ability to converge all of these worlds to enable a common meaning, analysis and understanding. My aim through this book is to take you on a journey into the world of Marx’s thought; more specifically, his thought as contained in Capital, and the conceptual vehicle that I wish to use for this journey is that of energy. Like any journey, it is good if one has a fair amount of knowledge of the type of vehicle one is using, and this is most definitely the case for the journey into the world of Marx’s thought, as contained in Capital. I wish to declare my intention at the outset, and that is to highlight and enhance the scientific nature of Marx’s thought, at least through the prism of the energy concept. I therefore have one request to make and that is for the reader to understand the concept and science of energy. It is intended for the first two chapters of this book to contribute to the beginnings of such an understanding of the science of energy, and hence towards understanding Marx’s Capital from an energy perspective. Before I discuss the energy concept in more detail, and its relevance to

2

Chapter One

Marx’s thought, let us get a glimpse of the world of Marx in relation to the writing of Capital. Marx’s Capital was published in 1867 and, much to his surprise and disappointment, the book was not readily accepted by the literary component of European society when it was first published. It should be said that Capital was first published in German as Das Kapital. Capital makes for laborious reading–many who have picked it up have complained about the difficulty of making the full journey from beginning to end. In this regard, Brewer (1984: xiii) thinks: “unfortunately it is a rather offputting book”. Marx himself wrestled with the uncomfortable feedback he was getting regarding the gruelling task readers were experiencing in unpacking his thought in Capital. In order to make Capital more widely known, it took some of the strategic and creative methods of his life-long friend, comrade, benefactor, and colleague, Friedrich Engels, writing to the press under numerous different pseudonyms, in order to stir up debate and interest in the book. It was an effective marketing tool, bringing to the attention of the public opinion-making stratum the book that secured Marx’s place in scholarly history. Capital was the work of 30 years of reading, scribbling and writing, mostly in the Library of the British Museum in 19th century London. It was a task that he set out for himself, in the midst of pain and suffering, whilst living in immense poverty, although occasionally having access to the “good life”. Capital was meant to be his intellectual weapon against the capitalist system, which Marx believed was the source of most human suffering and unhappiness. He abhorred the capitalist system, and he would give his all in order to drive a stake into its heart. He would gradually learn that capitalism has staying power! He was disappointed by the events that unfolded in Europe in subsequent years, although this did not stop him from continuing his intellectual assault on capitalism. He was also the intellectual guru of the International Working Men’s Association–while it lasted. Almost 150 years after Marx wrote Capital, the capitalist system that he was so steely in his resolve to destroy is an enduring reality, even in politically communist China. While socialist and communist revolutions have been carried out in Marx’s name, he was neither the father of socialism, nor of communism nor revolution–these unpopular titles belong to men and women before Marx’s time. Capital was a mammoth attempt at a scientific, albeit contested, understanding of the nature of the exploitative capitalist society, so menacing in Marx’s time. Marx had taken a decision early on in his life to align himself with the downtrodden. He subsequently identified the working people of the world as a necessary political force against the onslaught of capitalism. He genuinely believed that the full

Introduction

3

nature of man, woman and child would only emerge and be fully explored and experienced if the exploitation of the workers of the world were to be made extinct. For Marx, the emancipation of all of humankind was through the emancipation of the working class. To use a biblical analogy; for a person of the Christian faith, the path to God the Father was but through the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. For Marx, the path to real freedom, contentment and happiness was through the abolishment of the class system i.e. when worker exploitation ceased and capitalism was relegated to the dustbin of history. Hence, engraved on Marx’s tomb in Highgate Cemetery in London is the following inscription: WORKERS OF ALL LANDS–UNITE. Karl Marx, however, was under no illusion that the struggle for a classless society which he envisioned would be long, hard, bitter, and at times violent–a lesson that history had time and time again failed to keep hidden. But for those whom Marx wrote about–the working class–the thought in the book would not be easily assimilated. This was owing to the book’s difficult style and its often highly confusing intellectual concepts. It was and is a difficult and frustrating read, even for the highly literate, scholarly and intellectual. Nevertheless, many editions of Capital in many languages were subsequently published–and are still being published in the second decade of the 21st century. Countries in many parts of the world attempted to style their economies on Marx’s thought, but such economies would time and time again prove to be incompatible with, and unwelcomed by, the dominant capitalist system. Communist-style economies would not go unchallenged by powerful capitalistic countries. For Marx, though, capitalism is an epoch in history; there was little or no chance of circumventing it. What he did believe, though, was that the demise of capitalism could be hastened through consciousness-raising of the science of how societies in general, and the capitalist system in particular, are held together or disintegrate and give shape and form to ensuing economic, social and political systems. Marx had “no stomach” for idealistic or utopian thinking; he shunned those whom he believed lacked a dialectically materialist and historical perspective of the unfolding events of economic eras. For this outlook, he had many adversaries. For Marx, there was no middle ground, no compromise. He was, however, no anarchist. In fact he did everything in his power to eradicate anarchist influences and tendencies within the International Working Men’s Association, the organisation which he believed would be the vehicle to lead the world out of capitalism and into the world of communism. However, the failed revolutions of 19th century Europe convinced him that theory had to be the “guiding light” for the masses. It was then that he put his “heart and soul” into writing Capital.

4

Chapter One

It is about 150 years since Karl Marx was finally laid to rest. The world has changed a lot since Marx’s time. The fall of communism in the Soviet Union relegated Marx’s thoughts to irrelevant status–at least for a while. However, such economic, social and political transformations do not necessarily rule out a Marxist analysis. On the contrary, a Marxist or Marxian analysis seems more relevant in a world dominated by capitalism and crises. The world of science has also changed considerably since Marx’s time. Whilst it is no easy task to separate the theoretical writings of Karl Marx from the way that different governments decide to operationalise such theories, society must forge ahead with its analysis of historical phenomena. In this way, the painful events of the past and present are considerably lessened, if not totally eliminated, when embarking on constructing a happier world for present and future man and woman. This mammoth task can be made easier with the help of nature and the understanding of its laws–through understanding the laws of energy. Marx’s thoughts in Capital are an amalgamation of the science of worker exploitation, philosophy, history, sociology, political economy, anthropology, etc. His analysis of capitalism is sometimes couched in literature of the metaphorical type. In the final analysis, the knowledge field is a contested one, and rightly so. After all, new knowledge must be produced as well as challenged, so that more new knowledge is produced– and, one would hope, will lead mankind closer to understanding the human condition in the 21stcentury [Christian time]. It is the dialectical method that Marx embraced and encouraged in his writings. Whilst Marx did not witness world events supporting his theoretical insights during his life time, his views still resonate in the globalised world of the 21st century. The financial and economic crisis of 2008, and the uprisings of masses of people in many parts of the world, are compelling society not only to look to the scholars and philosophers of the past for answers to the world’s problems, but also to merge the thoughts of such scholars with the most updated knowledge, and to analyse their relevance to phenomena and events of the 21st century. Many are revisiting Marx’s thought. The extent and the enduring importance of Marx’s understanding of economic, social and political challenges was encapsulated when Economist magazine’s survey amongst the British public revealed Karl Marx to be the “millennium’s greatest thinker”, followed by Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin (Dillon, 2010: 39). Some of the many books on Marx which have made their entry into the scholarly landscape since the 2008 capitalist-financial crisis are: Capital-An Abridged Edition by Karl Marx and David McLellan (2008); Marx by Andrew Collier (2008); A Companion to Marx’s Capital by David Harvey (2010); Das Kapital by

Introduction

5

Karl Marx and Samuel Moore (2011); Why Marx was Right by Terry Eagleton (2012); Complete Works by Karl Marx (2013); Selected Essays by Karl Marx (2013); Marx’s Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism by Peter Hudis (2013); Das Kapital-Capital by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (2014) and Marx’s Capital–An Illustrated Introduction by David Smith and Phil Evans (2014). There are many more! Such relevant literary productions are testimony to the bearing of Marx’s thought in analysing the nature of the social, political, economic, and environmental phenomena of the 21st century. With all of these books out there, why did I write Capital–An Energy Perspective? Well, it should be an integral component of a changing society to interpret and re-interpret the thoughts of brilliant and influential scholars, like Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Charles Darwin, etc., and universities must lead society in the knowledge-sphere to find solutions to 21st century problems. Whilst this book is another addition to the attempt at disentangling Marx’s gruelling concepts and thought, where it is different is in its undertaking of reading Marx’s Capital from the perspective of energy in general and human-energy in particular. Although scholars have alluded to the relevance of the energy concept in Marx’s thought, I am not aware of any book that attempts an understanding of Marx’s Capital entirely from energy and human-energy perspectives. Energy is a much neglected concept in many curricula in university disciplines and its traditional home is that of physics. However, with the disciplines at universities and research institutions now being compelled to move beyond their traditional boundaries of understanding social, economic, and natural environmental phenomena, a trans-disciplinary paradigm is proving to be more effective to understanding such phenomena, with the purpose of finding solutions and responding to challenges of various sorts. Seminars, conferences and congresses are mooting for the blurring of disciplinary boundaries and the coming together of specialised disciplines to solve the giant challenges of the 21st century. The 2008 financial crisis and the downturn in the globalised economy from then onwards, together with widespread political and social calamities in many parts of the world, are causing a resurgence in a Marxist analysis of world phenomena. Besides the many books on Marx, which are being produced at a speedier pace than before 2008, many more books that have been gathering dust on book shelves owing to the collapse of Soviet-style communism, are now being dusted-off, read and re-read. Coupled with these are the many seminars and conferences which are held in different parts of the world on Marx and his thought. Capital is but one of the many books Marx wrote–although it is the book for which he became famous. Some of Marx’s other works are: Economic

6

Chapter One

and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (1844), The German Ideology (1846), Wage Labour and Capital (1847) and The Communist Manifesto (1848). Some of his writings were done in partnership with his life-long friend and benefactor, Friedrich Engels. Marx’s Capital Vol II and Vol III– in the form of scribbled notes–were put together by Engels after Marx’s death on 14th March 1883. Marx did not get to see his subsequent two volumes in published form. It is almost impossible to pigeon-hole Marx’s thoughts into any one specific discipline. Whilst Capital is concentrated on the thoughts of scholars and authors from many disciplines, it is also a book that is hugely informed by Marx’s experiences and observations of 19th century Europe in general and England in particular. In the words of David Harvey (2010: 4): My point is simply that different disciplinary perspectives can usefully open up the multiple dimensions of Marx’s thought, precisely because he wrote this text out of such an incredibly diverse and rich tradition of critical thinking.

Through this book, I intend to make Marx’s thought more accessible. However, it is recommended that the reader reads Capital as written by Karl Marx, so as to understand the different ways in which Marx’s thought can be interpreted and understood, as well as to encounter many of Marx’s views which are not part of this book. Marx’s Capital, after all, runs to about 1,000 pages! My book, an interpretation of Capital, is about 350 pages. I have used Capital Vol 1–A Critique of Political Economy (2011), translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, edited by Friedrich Engels and published by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, as the edition to cite and from which to interpret Marx’s thought. By quoting many of his thoughts in this text, I also wish to add to the mainstream, Marx’s thought as presented in Capital. From here onwards, I will cite the page numbers containing the excerpts that I have used as primary material. These, together with the thoughts of scholars on energy and humanenergy, will be used to interpret, substantiate and consolidate my arguments in this book. I concede that I am not an economist by training–a challenge that does not make understanding the many chunks of economic thought in Capital any easier. Nevertheless this challenge has not stopped me from assessing mainstream economic science in general, and the capitalist system in particular. Whilst I do attempt an understanding of Marx’s intricate economic thought, my main focus is on interpreting Capital from an energy perspective. With new understandings of new knowledge fields and concepts, Marx’s thought on the commodity, money, production processes, machinery, etc. is updated from that of its historical

Introduction

7

context, especially since the concept of energy was still in its developmental stages during Marx’s lifetime. For the uninitiated, the notion of understanding energy may seem an arduous task to embark upon–but once its relevance to the economic, social, political and natural environmental spheres is acknowledged, the journey can prove itself to be empowering in its analytical ability not only to understand the world in general, but to understand the world of capitalism according to Marx: Since the emergence of scientific thought, in particular since the British physicist, Thomas Young introduced the notion of energy at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the advent of thermodynamics, the idea has progressively gained currency that energy is a purely physical phenomenon that can be controlled through technical processes according to a purely economic logic. Thinking on energy has been dominated by steadily more specialised studies on these processes and this logic: machines, capital, work, processes, and exchange networks. Energy has been integrated into this thinking as primary data. It has been considered implicitly as neutral, unlimited and inexhaustible, like water and oxygen, and not only devoid of any particular impact on the future of society, but subordinate to this future, adaptable at will. It does not exist in the social sciences as a specific object of knowledge. The narrowing of the field considered by Marxists since the days of Capital is typical in this respect and stands in contrast to the breadth of Marx’s initial outlook. Marx had laid out the premises of a systematic reflection on exchanges between humanity and nature, placing energy at the very core of his construct (Debeir et al, 1991: xii).

Since energy has “elusive qualities” (Smil, 2008: ix), let us attempt a deeper understanding of the energy concept. Let us befriend the energy concept. All of life’s processes can be understood in terms of energy. The energy concept–unlike concepts such as race, nationality, ethnicity, gender, etc.–unifies as opposes to divides life into a myriad of fragmented and apparently disconnected categories. In the main, I will use the concept of “man” as a universal for humankind for the purposes of ease of writing– and not from the premise of a discriminatory understanding of the genders of humankind. Man may be differentiated from other animals by the types and quantity of energy he uses and depends upon for his and his family’s survival. Capitalism, on the other hand, depends on energy for the purposes of surplus-value creation, profit maximisation and capital accumulation. Man’s lifetime on earth and the history of his different forms of development may be understood by how he has come to use energy external to his, and how this collaboration between his humanenergy and that external energy has constructed the type of world that we currently inhabit. All other creatures that inhabit planet earth rely solely on

8

Chapter One

their own creature-energy in order to survive. However, there are instances amongst primates–one example being chimpanzees–whereby external energy in the form of natural tools is utilised to access food. But only man has evolved the capability to make tools and to use them for survival purposes. Whereas Aristotle referred to man as a “political animal”, and Adam Smith referred to man as an “economic animal”, Benjamin Franklin referred to man as a “tool-making animal”. Man evolved to interact with nature in a whole new way–one that would not only change the natural landscape considerably, but which would change man’s nature as well. Harnessing other forms of energy–together with his own–would be the new way that he engaged with nature. It was the beginning and building of material culture, which would subsequently lead to the building of social and political culture. The organ of the body that started man on this technologically and dialectically evolutionary path was the hand. Man is definitely not solely his hand; nor is he solely his brain; he is the sum of all of his organs and more. However, the hand is a much neglected organ in the analysis of man’s role and function in economic society, up to this point in historical time: With reference to man and his biological potential for social and cultural evolution, two familiar evolutionary universals may be cited, namely the hands and the brain. The human hand is, of course, the primordial generalpurpose tool. The combination of four mobile and an opposable thumb enables it to perform an enormous variety of operations–grasping, holding, and manipulating many kinds of objects (Parsons, 1964: 85).

The evolutionary freeing of the hands transformed man into a bipedal animal. The mechanical intelligence of the hand spurred man’s brain on to complex forms of symbolic intelligence-functioning. Over thousands of years, the hands have been at the forefront of building material culture; from the shaping of stone tools to building the Egyptian pyramids, constructing the railways and removing the gold, copper and silver from mines. It was the hands that would pull the bow-string in order to release the arrow for the kill. It was the hands of man that built the iron and steel bridges which connect the river banks of some of the world’s widest rivers. It is the hand that carries the gun and pulls the trigger on battlefields and in urban settings. It is the hand the moves the pen in order to document life, that controls the paintbrush to create art, that plays the piano to create music. It is the hand that wears the ring to denote the nature of a relationship amongst humans. It is the hand that shakes the hand to establish social connections amongst the human species. It is the hands that cook the food, that carry the baby, that steer the car or the horse. It is

Introduction

9

the hands that quickly open the wrapping concealing a gift. It is the hands that clean up and clean down. In his hugely influential scholarly work The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith continuously refers to workers as “hands” as in the partial sentence: “the scarcity of hands…” (68). Under capitalism, hands continue to produce commodities at a rate and scale unimaginable in previous epochs. They have come to do this in partnership with the various tools which have been developed and constructed over the energy-ages. The raw material, as well as the tools that man requires for his reproduction, comes from the natural environment. According to Steinhart et al (1974: 66): “life can be viewed as a ceaseless web of energy conversions which follow well-known principles of energy conservation and transformation.” The “concept of energy can be used to link a whole range of observed phenomena” (Foley, 1981: 68). In as far as energy is everything, then its theoretical, intellectual and scientific home should not be exclusively that of physics. It belongs just as much to sociology, economic science, environmental science, psychology and other disciplines. Energy is hence a unifying concept, and the concept itself has reached the epitome of the evolutionary knowledge pyramid. Energy embodies both mass and motion. It is a concept that seeks to understand not only the static, but the dynamic world as well. Whilst the concept of energy has an “elusive”, and sometimes a non-physical dimension to it, my focus in this book will be on the “material” and scientific nature of energy, and the laws which govern it. The word energy itself is derived from the Greek word “energos” which means “active” (Russwurm, 1983: 7), and the concept did not exist until 1807 (Wilson, 1965). The scientific principles which govern energy were not established until 1850 and these scientific principles had to be modified after it was discovered that mass was a form of energy (Cook, 1976: 11). Still, the energy concept seems not to have reached Marx’s study table, at least not in all its glory–although Capital does contain the word energy more than once. I interpret Marx’s world view of energy as being two-fold: “concrete” and “abstract”, in a similar manner to Einstein’s thinking of energy as also being able to assume a mass form. Steinhart et al (1974:13) are of the view that “energy and matter are also natural resources”. Different strands of study have attempted to understand man in the way he goes about producing his livelihood, not only in relation to his fellow man, but also in relation to nature. Energy economics is one field of knowledge that attempts to understand this process: The Greek oikonomia meant household management; the original meaning of the English economy was identical… If the house is earth; its resources are energy and materials. Even food is energy and materials… That part of the household that deals with the relations among the house, resources, and

10

Chapter One man is the physical economy. Its units of measurement are those of energy, time, mass, and distance (Cook, 1976: 267).

The shift in historical eras also allows for the investigation of humannature interaction to be understood from the perspective of the law of energy conservation, thereby pointing out the significance of humanenergy in the physical economy. Further elaboration by Cook (1976:109) indicates that: ultimately what is called economics (but is, rather, pecuniary economics) must take into account the physics of energy as well as the behaviour of men. The concepts of energy, power, and work are keys to an understanding of what man can and cannot do with the earth’s physical resources.

Energy itself also has different but related spheres of understanding. Within the discipline of physics, kinetic energy is commonly referred to as energy in motion, and potential energy is commonly referred to as stored energy. In a production process involving either simple or complex tools, kinetic and potential energy collaborate with each other in producing the final product. When man rests, his human-energy is stored; it is potential energy. When man works, his human-energy is put into motion, i.e. it is kinetic energy in mechanical form. As to whether man’s human-energy can be stored, that is a matter for science to decipher, and a task I have attempted when reading Marx’s Capital from an energy perspective. I believe the unpacking of the energy concept will also give one a glimpse into the mysterious world of energy, and the laws which govern it. I declare that man should not be reduced to energy, and man is not energy per se. What the concept of energy does, however, is enable and empower one to understand man in relation to his social, economic, political and natural worlds. In other words, energy is the ultimate common denominator for equalising the animate and inanimate worlds, as well as for revealing accurately the nature of their relations. Energy is the golden key which unlocks the iron door to understanding life itself. Energy is the piece of the puzzle which make the big picture possible. Though it may assume different forms, energy is everlasting and indestructible. The laws of energy allow humankind to remove the veneers that masks this fact. The laws of energy are the spiral staircases which lead man to an understanding of the complex and complicated world which he has created for himself, at times consciously and at times unconsciously. The laws of energy are the ever-shining light that helps brighten up the world, into which man can then take a peek in order to understand the impacts of his actions and the

Introduction

11

implications of his thoughts on the world and its functioning. The complexity of social, political, economic and natural environmental phenomena compels us to simplify such phenomena to the level where understanding and analysis is made simple. It is within this context that the concept of energy is used–viewing phenomena through the concept not as an end in itself, but for the purpose of understanding their holistic and complex nature. It was in the middle of the 20th century that the concept of energy was made accessible to the mainstream knowledge domain in particular, and to society in general. We must seek to understand the world through the lens of the all-embracing concept of energy. That energy is everything is famously captured by Einstein’s equation: E=mc2. The energy concept allows us to deconstruct the world and reconstruct it according to the rules of science and the laws of energy. I continue this challenging task by recognising the importance of the energy concept in our intellectual analysis and acknowledging its “material existence”: For the past 130 years or so economics has been treated as a social science in which economies are modelled as a circular flow of income between producers and consumers where the most important questions pertain to consumer choice. In this ‘perpetual motion’ of interactions between firms that produce and households that consume, little or no accounting is given of the necessity for the flow of energy and materials from the environment and back again. In the standard economic model energy and matter are ignored or, at best, completely subsumed under the terms ‘land,’ or more recently ‘capital,’ without any explicit treatment other than, occasionally, their price (Hall and Klitgaard, 2012: vii).

We are beginning to understand that “energy, ecology and economics form a single, unified system” (Odum, 1973: 220). Energy provides the means with which to do work (Rosa et al, 1988: 149). Energy is also a precondition for capitalist accumulation (Newell and Paterson, 1998: 695). In Capital, Marx alludes to the principle of energy conservation, the fact that “out of nothing, nothing can be created” (Burkett and Foster, 2006: 110). Hence the role of energy in wealth production should not be overlooked by economists (Tyron, 1927 cited in Cleveland et al, 1984: 896). For capitalism to thrive, its single-minded profit motive requires a material basis, and one that has been provided for by ever-increasing quantities of energy in general and human-energy in particular. Ever since, capitalism has had predatory instincts for large quantities of energy: The de-emphasis on absolute (as opposed to relative) energy conservation is built into the nature and logic of capitalism as a system unreservedly

12

Chapter One devoted to the gods of production and profit. As Marx put it: ‘Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!’ (Bellamy et al, 2010: 10).

In this book, the relevance of the laws of energy is applied to the following examples of Marx’s thought: commodities and exchange, capital and labour-power, the labour process and the production of surplus-value, the division of labour and the factory system, machinery and modern industry, etc. I have drawn from scholars on Marx in order to simplify my understanding of Capital. They include: David Harvey, David Brewer, and Ben Fine, amongst others. I owe my understanding of the social, economic and political dimensions of energy to the many scholars in the field–both deceased and alive. It is because of their relentless work in the field of energy, and my engagement with their thoughts, that I am able to attempt an interpretation of Marx’s Capital from an energy perspective. I think it is therefore apt that I provide a direct link to some of these scholars’ thoughts–so that the reader can have a “birds’ eye view” of the wonder and marvel of the concept of energy–with the aim of working towards understanding social, political, economic and environmental phenomena. I believe that the best way to deepen and consolidate the reader’s understanding of energy is to present scholars’ actual words on the relevance of energy in the format below–as direct quotes. In this way, their thoughts and meanings do not run the risk of being overly diluted: …in 1807, the word ‘energy’ first entered the technical vocabulary of science. A word which in Greek originally meant ‘work’, ‘energy’ was proposed to describe many of the same phenomena originally attributed to vis viva (Wilson, 1965: 12). The history of mankind, and of western man in particular, could be written in terms of the conquest of energy… In timeless cultures where tradition rules, there has been until recently either no desire for or no way to obtain the extra energy that makes things happen (Steinhart, 1974: 34). …energy language is used to consider the pressing problem of survival in our time–the partnership of man in nature. An effort is made to show that energy analysis can help answer many of the questions of economics (Odum, cited in Foley, 1981: 83). That energy would be important to sociological concerns was recognised from the beginning of the discipline (Spencer, 1862; Weber, 1904); but the subsequent history of the topic was to be punctuated with intellectual discontinuity, cast shifts in focus, and, at times total silence (Rosa et al, 1988: 149-150).

Introduction

13

History, for instance, has had a blind spot for energy (Debeir et al, 1991: xii). Not Copernicus and Galilei [sic], when they abolished the Ptolemaic system; not Newton, when he annihilated the Cartesian vortices; not Young and Fresnel, when they exploded the Corpuscular Theory; nor Faraday and Clerk-Maxwell, in their splendid victory over Actio in distans–more thoroughly shattered a malignant and dangerous heresy, than did Joule when he overthrew the baleful giant FORCE, and firmly established, by lawful means, the beneficent rule of the rightful monarch, ENERGY! Then, and not till then, were the marvellous achievements of Sadi Carnot rendered fully available; and Science silently underwent a revolution more swift and more tremendous than ever befell a nation. But this…must be a theme for the Poet of the Future! (Anonymous, 1844 cited in Smith, 1998: 1). This doctrine [of energy] has not only furnished a standard of industrial values which has enabled mechanical power…to be measured with scientific precision as a commercial asset; it has also, in its other aspects of continual dissipation of mechanical energy, created the doctrine of inorganic evolution and changed our perception of the material universe (Larmor, cited in Smith, 1998: 14). Energy was critical to the thinking of the earliest economists, although they could not use the language we would use today because the concept of energy was not clear to them or even to physical scientists at that time (Hall and Klitgaard, 2012: 7). The field [energy] is new because energy questions have until now only enjoyed a sporadic mention in historical analysis, never a comprehensive treatment as an important determinant in the development of human activities and social constructs (Sørensen, 2012: vii).

Engagement with these thoughts reveals that energy is not just matter, molecules, atoms, electrons and protons, etc. Energy is much more. Energy is the much-concealed formula for understanding man’s natural, economic, social, political, and psychological worlds. Whilst words help us to describe the world, concepts empower us to understand and make sense of the world we have inherited from previous historical epochs. If Marx’s concepts in Capital are magnifying glasses into the workings of the world, then the concept of energy is the electron microscope to making sense of that world. But when the concept and its revealing nature have been accessible to only a minority of society, then it is not surprising if its appearance into the mainstream of society is met with some confusion. However, like any encounter with new concepts and new knowledge, once

14

Chapter One

one engages with it long enough, it is certain to open up one’s world view. I hope that the first two chapters of this book will be successful in informing you about the world of energy and its intended relevance to amplifying the meaning of Marx’s thought, whilst at the same time simplifying its complexity and intricacy. The energy concept cannot remain behind closed doors any longer. We can no longer negate or ignore the “presence” of the energy concept, and its magnificence in revealing the workings of the world. Whilst religious books promise a better life in heaven, the study of energy can guarantee heaven on earth–if and when society decides to engage with the concept, disciplines and laws of energy with the same passion it does with religion. I also hope that by the end of the book you will have a broader and more in-depth understanding of the world of energy, and how this world shines its light on the thought of Karl Marx–the “millennium’s greatest thinker”! It is not my intention to change the fundamental thought of Marx, but instead to allow its meaning to penetrate the stubborn boundaries of difficult concepts. It must be said that I also interpret Capital from my lived experiences and an analytical perspective of both strengths and weaknesses. Let us now proceed with discussing a concept even more concealed under capitalism: that of human-energy.

CHAPTER TWO LABOUR-POWER, MUSCLE-POWER OR HUMAN-ENERGY: THE LIFE FORCE OR VITAL FORCE OF MAN AND HIS MOVEMENTS

You, yourself, are the eternal energy which appears as this Universe. You didn’t come into this world; you came out of it. Like a wave from the ocean. —Alan Watts I move, therefore I am. —Haruki Murakami

Humans walk, run, talk, sing, dance, have sex, carry babies, go to the gym, stretch, yawn, blink, breathe, clap their hands, shake hands, pray, laugh, cry, cycle, shop, work, work and overwork–at least under capitalism. However, in order to engage in all of these energy-consuming activities and more, man requires a steady supply of energy in the form of food. His body converts the energy from this food into electrical energy, chemical energy and mechanical energy. The human body comprises a humanenergy system, made up of “energy structures” of “certain form, anatomy, function and physiology” (Rich, 2004: 1). The cells of the body seem to “follow 24-hour cycles of gene activity, hormone secretion and energy production” (Callender, 2012: 38). In order to sustain itself and to perform external energy-activities such as work, the human body requires about 4.2 Kj/kgh of energy in the form of food (Russwurm, 1983: 17). Energy performs electrical work in the brain, osmotic work in the cells, mechanical work in the muscles, etc. (McMurray, 1977: 77). Once in historical time, “man, like other animals, had only his own energy to use in the struggle for life”. His energy came from the food he ate–“about 22,000 kilocalories” per day (Steinhart, 1974: 33). Muscles of the body are the only organs which produce mechanical energy (Winter, 2009: 141)– energy that is vital for the movement of the body in a myriad of ways. It is

16

Chapter Two

because of the versatility of man’s hands in producing mechanical energy that man is a sought-after “commodity” in the labour market, at least for a contractual period of time, under the capitalist mode of production. Hence man is a repository of energy, and his body is a site for energy transformations and metabolic work: Our kin, Homo sapiens sapiens, distinguished by their greater ability to use their own energy to fashion tools, appeared during the second part of the Würn Ice age…the new tools all activated exclusively by human-energy, spread over the entire world during this prolonged period…To produce mechanical energy, humans could only turn to their own bodies. The role of the human converter was therefore fundamental. Its versatility was unmatched, its essential function to produce and reproduce the life at hand. Production in this context had two goals: on the one hand, the production of the means of subsistence, of the objects used for food, clothing, shelter and the necessary tools, and, on the other hand, the production of the humans themselves. Engels included in his definition ‘a production more essential than any other, that of human-energy’ (Debeir et al, 1991: 16).

For hundreds of thousands of years, man extracted and appropriated the “fruits of nature” using his nature-given labour-power or humanenergy. Hence man’s interaction with the natural environment could be understood in terms of energy in general and human-energy in particular. Labour-power or human-energy has always been the power or force behind man’s activities, from sharpening a stone-tool to throwing a spear; from running after a source of food to running away from being a source of food; from wading across a river to climbing a tree; from dancing around the fire to dancing into a trance; from making a clay-pot to writing on papyrus; from bowing to the king to grooming the queen; from picking cotton to running away from the slave-master; from digging a canal to sweeping a chimney; from chopping down a tree to lifting a bag of coal; from rowing a boat to riding a horse; from cranking the engine of a car to flying a plane; from rocking a baby to lowering a coffin. Labour-power or human-energy is the “vis viva”, the “life-force”, the “vital force”, the “pulse”, the “soul” of life. In the same way that a flourmill is able to work because of the wind-energy it receives, or a steam engine is able to work because of the heat-energy it receives, or a machine is able to work because of the electrical energy it receives, man is able to work because of the labour-power or human-energy that he accesses, first in the form of food, which is subsequently transformed into different energy forms in his body, then expended in various types of metabolic and muscular work. The common denominator amongst coal, horses, wood, wind, water and man is that they all have the capacity for work i.e. they are all repositories

Labour-Power, Muscle-Power or Human-Energy

17

of energy. Like manual and automatic machines, humans have the capacity to “produce” mechanical energy (Heilbroner, 1962; Gray, 2006). Ever since man tamed the energy of nature in the form of cereals on the banks of the River Nile (Sørensen, 2012: 117), his labour-power or humanenergy has subsequently been tamed. Together with the taming of nature, civilisation as we know it, or call it, mushroomed with the domestication of labour-power or human-energy: Before coal and oil, civilisation ran on a two-cycle engine: the energy of solar-fed crops and the energy of slaves. Shackled human muscle built, powered, and emboldened empires from Mesopotamia to Mexico… Slaves made efficient energy converters and created healthy surpluses (Nikiforuk, 2012: 3).

For thousands of years, the labour-power or human-energy of the common man was put to work for the benefit of the dominating classes in different social epochs. The slaves of Mesopotamia were branded as the animals were (Meltzer, 1993: 22). Whether as peasants, slaves or wageworkers, the dominant classes have for eons ruthlessly extracted labourpower or human-energy from the common man. Throughout historical time, we observe that the mechanical energy of man has been ordered, organised and disciplined so as to construct giant projects, such as the building of the pyramids in northern Africa (Fowler, 1975: 67). Ancient civilisation, as in the case of Egypt, was able to achieve highly developed forms of material culture on the basis of enlisting masses of labour-power or human-energy for mega private and public works projects: With regards to Sumer and the Nile, innovations and climate were important but underlying them was an often overlooked yet more central driving force; the discovery of the power of a new type of social organisation. This extraordinary invention turned out to have been the oldest operating model for all the complex machines which came afterwards. In disciplining and assembling humans in a co-ordinated fashion on a scale unknown until then, kinship put together history’s first megamachine, which everywhere it was assembled, multiplied energy efficiency and performed labour on a scale inconceivable until then (Debeir et al, 1991: 23).

Man’s economic development has for a long time relied on the energy derived from domesticated animals and the labour-power or human-energy of man himself. For example, for much of America’s early development, energy was harvested from draft animals and from man (Steinhart, 1974: 36). In fact, man’s labour-power or human-energy is the starting point of

18

Chapter Two

economic history. First and foremost, man must draw on and utilise his own labour-power or human-energy if he is to compete with and survive amongst the other countless species of life which inhabit planet earth. Man’s evolutionary break-through may have occurred as a result of him being forced to harness energy forms over and above that of his own labour-power or human-energy. It was a whole new way in which he could interact with the natural environment, to the extent that he would not only go on to transform “objective” nature but his subjective nature as well. While scholarly focus is on inanimate forms of energy such as wood, coal, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, etc. in the material economy, hardly any is on the role of human-energy, both past and present. When and where humanenergy is discussed, it is conceptualised as labour-power with no or very little understanding of its meaning. Many creatures transform material nature into need-serving entities. Weavers, for example, extract from nature and construct their nests using their own energy. Bees likewise extract from nature and construct their honeycombs, also using their own energy. It is true for most species on earth. The manner of production of countless species has been more or less constant from time immemorial. But man, intelligent man, on the other hand, has utilised and utilises his labour-power or human-energy to produce on a scale and range that confounds even the human imagination. Hence we note that labour or work is first and foremost only possible through labour-power or humanenergy. Man is dependent on his own labour-power or human-energy in order to work for the purposes of survival (Cook, 1976: 23). His material development took off when he began harnessing external forms of energy in order to supplement his labour-power or human-energy. A man’s own body is not unlike an engine, and it is man’s labour-power or humanenergy which is the prime mover in relation to his basic tools. His potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Through the movement of his limbs, energy is passed into sticks and stones in order to harvest from nature for producing and reproducing his livelihood (Eberhart, 2007: 13). Under capitalism, man’s labour-power or human-energy is put to work for a large chunk of his lifetime. There is very little time left to direct his labour-power or human-energy to cultural, creative or social activities. Work time usurps creative time and social time like no other labour-power or human-energy activity. There is also very little of his lifetime available for directing his labour-power or human-energy to family time. There is very little personal time or “me time” under capitalism, except for the unemployed and the rich. Man’s labour-power or human-energy is under the command and control of capital. His labour-power or human-energy is

Labour-Power, Muscle-Power or Human-Energy

19

in shackles. Capitalism competes with other human activities for man’s labour-power or human-energy. Capitalism’s choice of activity for man’s life-time is work. If man’s labour-power or human-energy is allowed movement, then this movement mostly serves the interest of capital accumulation. If the world seems to be moving at greater speeds than in previous historical times, that is because it is. Speed is a function of energy; huge quantities of energy are poured into the capitalist system on a daily basis. Labour-power or human-energy is put to work at a faster rate under the capitalist mode of production. Nothing moves like energy. Indeed, life is a “rat-race” under the command and control of capital. It serves the interest of capitalism to have its true exploitative nature concealed. Hence the role of energy in general, and human-energy in particular, in capitalism’s development and maintenance has not been as widespread as the knowledge that props up capitalism and has grown it to unsustainable and life-threatening proportions. At this point we take note of Engels’s thought in Capital: Political Economy has generally been content to take, just as they were, the terms of commercial and industrial life, and to operate with them, entirely failing to see that by so doing, it confined itself within the narrow circle of ideas expressed by those terms (29).

However, there are scholars who have demonstrated through their writings the centrality of labour-power or human-energy in the history of man and his economy: in the 1500s, “mechanical energy was derived almost entirely from human and animal muscle” (Wrigley, 2010: 97). According to Smelser (1973: 3-4), labour-power or human-energy itself is “conditioned by the circumstances in which men find themselves”. Both the human body and the machine are motors that convert “energy into mechanical work” (Rabinbach, 1992: 2). Through his studies, Sørensen (2012: 97) showed that the increasing energy-activities of the Maglemose people of Northern Europe still depended largely on “muscle power and fire”. In factories, in Adam Smith’s life-time, “muscles provided much of the energy to generate the transformations of raw materials into desired products” (Hall and Klitgaard, 2012: 8). When you turn the pages of this book, it is because the energy in you capacitates you to do so. The chemical energy in your body is converted into mechanical energy, which then allows your hands and fingers to turn the pages. If it is an ebook, then accessibility is also possible via the reader’s mechanical energy. The hands are man’s natural levers for executing mechanical movements for the purposes of survival. They perform such mechanical executions because of a steady supply of energy, which man accesses from the natural

20

Chapter Two

environment. When large tracts of nature are privatised, the steady supply of energy for man’s survival is strained. He is then forced to pay a market price instead of a “natural price” for nature’s energy for the survival of himself and his family. The labour-power or human-energy in man allows him to perform an array of movements with his body. A skateboarder sailing through the air performs wonderful twists and turns by virtue of her labour-power or human-energy. Soccer players use their labour-power or human-energy in competitive ways, so as to attempt to land the soccer ball in the opponent’s goal. A gymnast’s labour-power or human-energy allows her to effect the most graceful of body-movements ever seen. Taking care of little children requires an abundant quantity of labourpower or human-energy. Little children themselves are usually lost in play and happiness as a result of their unchained, unrestrained labour-power or human-energy. A golfer has to utilise an adequate quantity of his labourpower or human-energy in order to land the golf ball some distance from where he drives it. If he has good body mechanics, then his labour-power or human-energy will be used more effectively, preventing the ball from straying off its intended course. Adolf Hitler harnessed mammoth quantities of labour-power or human-energy based on the idea of racial superiority. In their contest for geopolitical power, developed countries induced two world wars by militarising labour-power or human-energy on a macro scale. The Fordist system of producing cars on a mass scale perfected the science of mechanisation of labour-power or human-energy; a far superior form of labour-power mechanisation over that which characterised the Industrial Revolution of 18th and 19th century England. We currently observe the globalisation of labour-power or human-energy, primarily for the purposes of capital accumulation. We also observe capitalist production gravitating to those countries where labour-power or human-energy is cheap. As far as I know, no in-depth analysis has been carried out to understand the nature of labour-power as human-energy in society, except to understand it as the capacity to do work or perform labour: The language of labour is evolving into a language of labour-power as a quantifiable force of production, localisable in the economies of energy distributed within the body and the psyche (Rabinbach, 1992: 38).

Some of you may recall the days when a light-bulb was attached to your bike, and as you pedalled your human-energy was converted into mechanical energy and finally transformed into electrical energy, thereby lighting up the path in front of you. Wind-up clocks were also in great use back in the day; human-energy was converted to energy stored in the

Labour-Power, Muscle-Power or Human-Energy

21

clock, and was slowly released through the movement of the hands. The same pattern occurs when winding up a musical jewellery box with a dancing ballerina, or a wind-up toy car for that matter. Human-energy lies behind their functioning, and this is made possible through the law of conservation of energy. The concept of energy has been used as an analytical tool for understanding energy formations and flows in the human body, as in physiology. It has also been used in physics and understood as the laws of energy, one example being the first law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of conservation of energy. However, no serious known attempt, except that by Marx, has been embarked upon to analyse man in his socio-physical context, more specifically the function of human-energy in the transformation of nature into useful objects. However, Marx understood the commodity, which creates value and surplus-value as the concept of labour-power and not as the concept of human-energy. The law of conservation of energy states: “energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only converted from one form to another” (Fowler, 1975: 33). In addition, the law of conservation of energy has primarily been applied to phenomena which encompass man as a passive “energy variable”, but mysteriously and without a plausible explanation, omitted as an active “energy variable” in the analysis of energy flows within energy systems. Examples used in schools, universities and texts to illustrate the law of conservation of energy seem to negate man from energy ecosystems. By revisiting many aspects of Marx’s thought in Capital, I adopt the view that man apart from economic systems is an integral part of the natural world and hence of energy ecosystems. This fact should be the premise for any analysis of the transformation of nature into useful products, and to which the law of conservation of energy is also applicable. In contemporary times, energy discussions and decisions are mainly confined to oil, coal, nuclear and gas. All of these energy feedstocks are used in the capitalist economy, some more than others. With the growing risk of climate change, the energy narrative has expanded to include renewable energy such as wind, solar and biofuels. The laws of energy will be outlined and unpacked with a view towards understanding such laws in economic, social, political and natural life. The energy flow into, within and out of man’s body is also governed by the laws of energy; the human body cannot produce more energy than that which it consumes in the form of food. The difficulty of concentrating or performing any activity with the usual intensity when one is hungry is a practical lesson on the workings of the law of conservation of energy in man’s body. Human-energy lies concealed behind other forms of harnessed or harvested energy, if not in geographical place then at least

22

Chapter Two

in historical time. Whether it is the energy of the wind that moved or moves the sails; the energy of coal that drove or drives the steam engines; the energy of fossil fuels that powered or powers the jet engines; the energy of uranium that released or releases nuclear energy; or the energy that is contained in machinery that has churned out or churns out commodities; it has been first and foremost the labour-power or humanenergy of men, women and children that has harnessed and that harnesses these energies from the bowels of the earth. It is the labour-power or human-energy of men, women and children that has subsequently transformed, or subsequently transforms nature through a series, sequence or complexity of production processes. Hence, where labour-power or human-energy has been or is conserved, nature has been or is conserved; where labour-power or human-energy has been or is expended, nature has been or is transformed; where countries have been developed or develop at a rapid pace, it is because labour-power or human-energy has been or is put into motion at a rapid pace; where a country’s development has been or is stunted, it is because labour-power or human-energy has not been or is not put into motion. Just as the entire natural earth is the sum of its biodiversity, likewise the entire transformed material and built environment is the sum of all buildings, cities, residential settlements, industrial zones, roads, rail, airports, harbours, airplanes, ships, cars, household goods, office equipment, etc. Just as the labour-power or human-energy of a single man can transform a piece of wood into a table, the material infrastructure that occupies vast expanses on planet earth and the commodities that circulate the globe on an hourly and daily basis are as a result of the cumulative labour-power or human-energy, both past and present, of women, men and children, as in the case of the Industrial Revolution of 18th and 19th century England. This fact is supported by the first law of energy conservation viz.: Since the total energy of a system cannot change, it is clear that work is done by or on a part of a complete system. When, for instance, a man draws an arrow back in a bow, he does work on the bow, storing elastic potential energy… He provides this energy ultimately at the expense of some chemical energy from molecules within his muscles. In other words, chemical energy decreases and elastic potential energy increases. When the arrow is released, the bow does work on it, giving up as mechanical kinetic energy, most of that stored elastic energy… Thus, when the potential energy of a closed system increases, work has been done on it by the rest of the system (Fowler, 1975: 33). By the 1850s, the implications of energy conservation were becoming clear to political economists: the nation that most efficiently used and conserved

Labour-Power, Muscle-Power or Human-Energy

23

the existing supply of the world’s energy–including both labour-power and technology–would also win the race for industrial supremacy. Particularly on the Continent, the discovery of energy conservation underscored that a scientific approach to human labour might lead to a more efficient use of a nation’s productive capacity in competing with the achievements of English steam and industrial power (Rabinbach, 1992: 70). Helmholtz’s experiment on the muscles of frogs showed the material or chemical exchange taking place between the relaxation and the contraction of the muscles of the frogs’ legs. Through this experiment he demonstrated the applicability of the law of conservation of energy to organic nature (Smith, 1998: 249). At all points in the body at all instants in time, the law of conservation of energy applies. For example, any body segment will change its energy only if there is a flow of energy in or out of any adjacent structure–tendons, ligaments, or joint contact surfaces (Winter, 2009: 140).

It is the mechanical form of labour-power or human-energy which capitalism desires and gets, and it is man’s hands and legs that generate this mechanical energy. Man’s hands are the conductors through which his labour-power or human-energy transforms nature into the products of needs, wants and surplus-value commodities. Labour-power or humanenergy drives the 21st century economy like it has driven all previous economies. In the contemporary physical economy, it is folly to exclude human-energy from the world’s energy-mix or to continue to view it as the concept of labour-power. This is especially the case in an age where technology of an extremely advanced type dominates in many production sectors. If, for example fossil energy such as coal is the sole supplier of energy to modern living, then all that needs to be done is to connect a conductor to the source of coal and link it to the points of consumption. It is here that we see the ineffectiveness of coal energy as an effective energy source in the absence of technology fashioned by labour-power or humanenergy. Still, the conductor would in any case be an instrument of labour or work, and hence an embodiment of labour-power or human-energy. This is also the case for uranium, oil, or gas for that matter, which are located deep below the earth’s surface. Just as the energy of the sun must be mediated through the leaf in order for man to survive, so too must the energy supplied by nature, whether its form be coal, oil, gas or uranium, be mediated through man, either directly as a worker, or indirectly through his instruments of labour or work, in the process of the transformation of material nature into useful objects. It takes energy to get energy, and labour-power or human-energy can be said to be the a priori to all other

24

Chapter Two

energy forms existing in nature. In Capital, Marx uses the following commodities, as examples, to put forth his thought on the labour or work process: table, yarn and cloth. Just as labour-power or human-energy is enlisted when transforming a piece of wood into a table, so too is it enlisted in the turning of iron or steel into machines. If a crafted item such as a table is material nature, more specifically wood transformed by labour-power or human-energy, then an Egyptian pyramid is also material nature, more specifically rock, stones and soil transformed into a pyramid. Whereas in the former example, the energy is that of the labour-power or human-energy of a single person, in the latter, it is labour-power or human-energy of a collective or social form, i.e. the cumulative humanenergy of numerous people. If energy is responsible for the transformation of material nature into commodities, then all of the commodities which are churned out on an annual basis by a nation’s working people can be explained, directly or indirectly, in terms of the labour-power or humanenergy of both the past and the present. Capitalist society measures the transformation of material nature into useful products as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), i.e. all of the commodities that are churned out on an annual basis by a nation’s working people. In the capitalist era, of all commodities that occupy the world stage, the labour-power or humanenergy commodity is the least understood but the most sought-after. Labour-power or human-energy is the King of Commodities! Under capitalism, labour-power or human-energy is of tremendous use-value to the capitalist because of its capacity to enable the production of not only commodities, but of surplus-value as well. Hence labour-power or humanenergy is instrumental in securing capital accumulation. With the development of the understanding of energy and its laws, I will demonstrate that the concept of human-energy rather than labour-power will provide a clearer scientific understanding of how the worker works, in order to produce and reproduce the existence of himself and his family and to produce and reproduce capital accumulation for the capitalist and his family. I have allocated an entire chapter to labour-power or humanenergy, because it is the concept that “lies at the heart” of understanding Capital and capitalism. Where it has been written about by Marx and other scholars, it is conceptualised as labour-power, muscle-power or manpower. Marx himself refers to labour-power as having a “peculiar nature”. Henceforth, I will use the term human-energy instead of labour-power, and the term work instead of labour when interpreting Capital from an energy perspective. However, in some sections, especially the chapter on “wages”, I will again use these concepts interchangeably, owing to the nature of the subject matter. Let us now take our energy and human-

Labour-Power, Muscle-Power or Human-Energy

25

energy concepts and our updated conceptual tools of analysis and enter the world of Marx’s thought as contained in Capital, Volume One-A Critique of Political Economy.

CHAPTER THREE COMMODITIES: MASS EMBODYING HUMAN-ENERGY AS VALUE

What E=mc2 says is that energy and mass are interchangeable much like dollars and euros are interchangeable. —Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw The efficiency with which human-energy is expended mechanically depends upon the bodily skills of the persons involved, and upon the nature of the tools employed. —Leslie White

Marx wrote Capital in 1867 but the English edition appeared only in 1886–23 years after the publication of the first edition and three years after the death of this great thinker. Chapter one of Capital is titled “commodities” and goes into 55 pages of analysis–a relatively large quantity dedicated towards understanding the nature of a commodity. It is a chapter that is painstakingly difficult to read and understand, and it certainly requires rereading, even if it is just to get a glimpse of what Marx is saying about the nature of commodities. Commodities! We are surrounded by them. They are in our homes and they are our homes. They are in our packets and in our pockets. They stare at us from shop windows and from shop shelves. They are on our desks and at our docks. They are in our cabinets and in our cupboards. They tug at our pockets with more force at the end of the month and even more so during “special” days of the year. Under the capitalist mode of production, commodities represent the best of nature and the worst of society; the former provides the ample raw material for its production, and the latter constantly fetishises them. A commodity, under the capitalist mode of production, has the “power” to enable some countries to attain vast riches and other countries to remain poor; to enable some people to go to bed with stuffed tummies, and others to dream about food; to enable some people to have exceptional private health care, and others to die of treatable diseases. We measure human progress by the

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

27

quantity of commodities that we own. They are our private property, and the more commodities we own the more successful we are. Well, at least that is the main yardstick of human progress and success under the capitalist system. By first focusing on the commodity, Marx commences with the “atom” of economic society. For Marx there is no single definition of a commodity. He refrains from adopting a moral stance as to what constitutes a commodity and what does not. He intends instead to understand the commodity as a physical objective entity that fulfils man’s basic needs as well as his wants–whatever the nature of such needs and wants. However, under the capitalist mode of production, there are hundreds of millions of people whose needs are hardly or not met, let alone their wants. Capitalism measures its wealth by the quantity of commodities that a society produces. Poverty was not perceived by political economy, and is not perceived by neoliberal or neoclassical economic sciences, to be a product of capitalism. Poverty is instead portrayed as a natural condition, waiting to be rescued by the capitalist system. The focus is always on material wealth and capital accumulation. In true anti-Hegelian style, Marx spurns the idea of understanding life from an idealistic or imaginative perspective–and where better to start than with the commodity: concrete, tangible, real matter, a product of the earth, a creative production of man, and not of a so-called higher power. The commodity, or real matter, is an embodiment of energy. All commodities of a material nature have mass and as long as they have mass, then they also comprise energy: “Mass is intimately linked with energy” (Coopersmith, 2010: 31). It was in the 19th century that “physics discovered energy as the universal force present in all matter, capable of converting itself into innumerable forms, yet inalterable and constant” (Rabinbach, 1992: 45). By commencing Capital with an analysis of the commodity, albeit a laborious analysis, Marx strips away the different layers that shroud the fundamental nature of capitalist society: capitalism’s obsession with commodity production. Chapter one of Capital begins with the following thought: The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ‘an immense accumulation of commodities,’ its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity. A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production (41-42).

28

Chapter Three

These words were written in the latter part of the 19th century. It would be in 1944–about 80 years after Marx wrote Capital–that Gross Domestic Product–GDP for short–would come be used to measure the material wealth of any one nation’s economy. Those countries that organise production to ensure “an immense accumulation of commodities” annually would be considered more wealthy or developed than those countries whose economies churned out a lesser quantity of commodities on an annual basis. Such a benchmark for measuring the wealth and progress of nations is peculiar to capitalist society. If the capitalist mode of production is destined to transform itself, as predicted by Marx, it could very well be the case that future society will not suffer the fixation of perceiving progress and success in purely material and quantitative terms. In the last 300 years–unlike in any other period of economic history–the world has been awash with commodities. The place where commodities appeared onto the world stage in a conveyor-belt-like fashion was England, and the century was the 18th. The negative social and environmental impacts of the beginnings of agricultural capitalism on relatively idyllic life in England would not go unnoticed by the thoughtful and concerned of the time. In his much acclaimed poem The Deserted Village (1770), Oliver Goldsmith documented the sweeping changes signalling the “incoming” capitalist system. This was six years before Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776) was published. Whilst Adam Smith “praised” wealth creation, Oliver Goldsmith was aghast at the excesses of wealth and the devastating effects that it was having on the rural people of England. Below is but one stanza of his lengthy but insightful documentation of economic, social and environmental changes in 18th century England: …A time there was, ere England’s griefs began, When every rood of ground maintain’d its man; For him light labour spread her wholesome store, Just gave what life requir’d, but gave no more: His best companions, innocence and health; And his best riches, ignorance of wealth…

This was the beginning of agricultural capitalism and subsequently industrial capitalism, as we have come to tag these historical transformations. A hundred years later, Marx would view capitalism as a necessary historical “evil” which was driving humankind towards a non-exploitative society whilst exploiting large sections of humankind and nature on its historical path. The commodity would be the personification of capitalist exploitation and Marx set out to understand its nature–as it existed and presented itself in capitalist society in the main. The commodity is also the

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

29

rallying point for both capitalists and workers; it is the commodity which binds them together in a constant and entangled struggle, the former for more surplus-value and profit, the latter for more wages for their humanenergy. A large part of the capitalist world is built around the commodity. Capitalism’s social, political and ideological spheres are calibrated in accordance with the commodity. Commodities are the indefinite offspring of capitalism, as capitalism incessantly spawns commodities to produce and reproduce itself. Mainstream economic science often couches this as the market merely responding to the demands of society. Marx does not dictate the form or shape that a commodity may assume–it is a matter for the individual to decide his or her tastes. However, he does appeal to the reader to view commodities from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives. The use to which a commodity could be put would depend on its qualitative nature; its quantitative nature would depend on the “establishment of socially-recognised standards of measure” to determine such quantities. However, the commodity would, depending on both place and time, assume diametrically opposing roles in capitalist society, those of having use-value and exchange-value. Hence a commodity such as a book, at one time and place, could be utilised to better inform the reader about a particular subject matter. At another time and place it could be exchanged for another commodity, such as a kerosene lamp, or even money for that matter. That a book may be used as an end in itself speaks to its value for the purposes of utilisation i.e. its use-value. That it could be exchanged for a socially determined commodity equivalent, an example being a kerosene lamp, speaks to its value in being exchangeable i.e. its exchange-value. It would be this dual-role of the commodity which would develop capitalism to its current colossal scale. The use-value and exchange-value of a commodity are the two legs on which capitalism walks, jogs, sprints–and finally collapses and dies, at least as inferred by Karl Marx. A commodity only has a use-value in relation to its consumption; as use-value, the function for which that particular commodity is to be utilised, does not depend on the quantity of work embodied in the commodity for serving useful functions. Marx is also unyielding about the fact that commodities possess a material nature, and that their exchange-value are owing to their “material depositories”: The utility of a thing makes it a use-value. But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use-value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the quantity of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When

30

Chapter Three treating of use-value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use-values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities. Use-values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange-value (42-43).

In a capitalist society, a commodity occupies one of two spheres at any one point in time–either that of the sphere of use or that of the sphere of exchange. In the sphere of exchange, commodities are exchangeable with each other in terms of quantitative proportions e.g. two pumpkins may be exchanged with one chicken. Any notion of both pumpkins and the chicken comprising a common factor which allows for this exchange seems absurd to the naked eye. But upon closer scrutiny, a commodity’s entry into the sphere of exchange with other commodities is dependent on the existence of something “in equal quantities common to both”. According to Marx, the exchangeability of two or more commodities encompasses a common denominator which allows, enables and facilitates the process of exchange. We therefore accept that in a world of commodities, all commodities are in principle exchangeable with all other commodities: Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things–in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange-value, must therefore be reducible to this third (43-44).

Marx proceeds to highlight the quantitative, “material” nature of the exchangeability of commodities. He is certain that the qualitative nature of commodities plays no part in the exchangeability of commodities; in other words, use-value does not equate to exchange-value. In the act of exchange, the use-value of respective commodities is negated i.e. the utility of things does not enter into the exchange equation, unless one is exchanging the same commodities–which would really be an exercise in futility. If identical commodities are exchanged, then the act of exchange will reflect a “waste” of both work-time and exchange-time. One does not

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

31

exchange a pumpkin for a pumpkin or a chicken for a chicken of the same weight. Even if one was to exchange the same commodities, but of different weights, then the exchange would constitute an unfair exchange– which would in effect be a violation of the law of exchange and detrimental to one of the exchange parties. In the following example, “pound” refers to money and not mass or weight. As to how a name for mass became a name for money, this will be discussed in the chapter on “money or the circulation of commodities”. Also, in all things exchangeable, the “matter or mass form” of their exchange-value is “absent”–denoted by the concept “worth”: An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold. As use-values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange-values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use-value (44).

In the following passage, Marx hones in on that process which accounts for the exchangeability of commodities–the work process itself. Here too, he focuses primarily on the quantitative nature of work and not its qualitative component. Whilst use-value is determined by concrete work, exchange-value is determined by abstract work; the former denoting the mass form of work, and the latter denoting the human-energy expended, in producing a commodity. Marx refutes any vocational argument in explaining the exchangeability of commodities–it makes no difference if the worker producing the commodity is a joiner, mason, spinner, carpenter, etc. The exchangeability of commodities is also not determined by their physical or aesthetic form, or size or shape or colour, for that matter. For example, one kilogram of gold is not equal to one kilogram of iron, even though they share the same weight, and one litre of milk is not equal to one litre of water, even though they share the same volume. For Marx, the exchangeability factor is that which is common to all, in whatever industry. Human work in the abstract is that which introduces commodities to and facilitates the exchange of a variety of commodities: If then we leave out of consideration the use-value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use-value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a usevalue; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any

32

Chapter Three longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract (44-45).

Marx delves deeper into the production process in order to uncover the variable, that singular entity or commodity which assumes the pivotal role in determining exchange-value. He refers to this entity as value when “embedded” in the commodity. Marx attempts to “force” the concept of value to enter the objective world by using such metaphors as “residue”, “congelation”, “crystals”, “social substance”, etc.: Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour-power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour-power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are–values (45).

It is the “presence” of value in all commodities which is the benchmark by which their exchangeability is measured. Hence the measurement of the exchangeability of commodities is not their shape, colour, form, size or weight. It is also not their “beauty” or their “ugliness”. Commodities are not exchangeable for their use, the emotions or memories they may evoke in a person, or for any ethical or moral reasons. The measurement for the exchangeability of commodities is based on a purely quantitative benchmark. For example, the educational value of a book has no relation to the illuminating value of a kerosene lamp–although the latter could allow the educational value of a book to shine through–at least in the dark. So whilst the two examples of commodities mentioned are used to demonstrate different use-values, these use-values do not factor in their potential exchangeability “lives”. What makes them commensurable is the value that they both “contain” as a result of the quantity of work expended on them: We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange-value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use-value. But if we abstract from their use-value, there remains their value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange-value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

33

value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange-value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form (45).

The value of a commodity has only one life–the life of the quantity of work expended in its production. The unit of the measurements of value in the commodity–according to Marx–is that of temporal units or what I call measured-time viz. the hours, days, weeks, etc. that it takes to produce it. Using the examples of commodities that I mentioned, if the educational book and the illuminating lamp are products of work of identical or similar duration or measured-time, then they possess the ticket to entering the sphere of exchangeability with each other. Time, therefore, is a precious “commodity” under capitalism. Hence if two or more products, for whatever purposes of utility, are made within equal quantities of measured-time, then they are as exchangeable as the weather at any given moment. Hence for Marx, it is the quantity of work-time in commodities which allows them to negotiate their exchangeability with each other: A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours (45).

It is the socially-acceptable work-time within which the worker produces the commodity which is of paramount importance in determining the commodity’s value and exchange-value. Socially-acceptable worktime refers to the average time that it takes to produce a commodity. Marx focuses on the average work-time production of society and not on the work-time production of particular individuals. The market also configures prices according to the average work-time production of society and not on particular work-time commodity production. In the quote below, Marx uses the concepts of “labour” and “labour-power”–the one denoting work and the other, the capacity to work–interchangeably. He states: “the labour that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour-power.” The question then arises: what determines the homogeneity of work and the “expenditure of one uniform labour-power”? In order to answer this question, one has to differentiate between work-time and clock-time, I believe. Whilst work-time comprises a temporal space for creating value, human-energy is the “content” form of such value. In other words, work-time is the temporal space within which

34

Chapter Three

work takes place and human-energy is the “material entity”; the two combine to produce the value of a commodity. The social arrangement of the temporal space regulates the flow of human-energy as the content. Whilst idleness takes place within a temporal space, it is idle-time that is devoid of the active dispensation of human-energy, and hence contributes zero value. Therefore, “time” in and of itself does not contribute an ounce of value. But under capitalism, time or temporality is considered an important “commodity”. Different individuals may work with different speeds at which they dispense human-energy in the work process, but Marx takes the average speed of human-energy dispensation as measured by clock-time. Under the capitalist mode of production, value is also not determined solely by the quantity of human-energy dispensed in commodity production per se. To illustrate: if a worker working for a capitalist takes two days, expending 1,000 kilojoules of human-energy, to make a coat, and another worker takes one day to make a coat, and still expends 1,000 kilojoules of human-energy, then the worker that takes two days “robs” the capitalist of a day’s wages. Whilst time is the shell of value, human-energy is the kernel of value. If the human-energy of one worker is expended in a commodity, then all commodities moving about at a particular-time in the exchange sphere are that of the sum-total of the human-energy of many workers, which I refer to as social human-energy. Marx also introduces for the first time the combination of power and technology in the production process. In the example provided, whilst machinery may have reduced work-time needed to make cloth from yarn by 50%, the workers still worked for the same duration of work-time as when the power-looms were absent. Even with machinery included in the production process, the value of the cloth produced fell to 50% of its original value. Through this illustration, Marx argues that whilst individual workers may work for the same duration of time, it is the average worktime of the production of commodities which determines their value: Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labourpower. The total labour-power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour-power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

35

socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value (45-46).

What clock-time, which is different from work-time, does is to regulate the quantity of work done and hence to regulate the quantity of commodities produced according to socially acceptable norms as determined by the capitalist mode of production. We may hence deduce that the value of any one commodity is determined by the rate of humanenergy expenditure. We see in Marx’s statement the equity relations in the determination of value: “equal quantities of labour”, “same time” and “same value”. In other words, equal work for equal work-time for equal value. Whether the worker gets “equal” wages for the value which she or he produces is not relevant at this point in the discussion, but it is nevertheless a burning issue with workers throughout the world: We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production. Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class. Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time (46).

Marx proceeds to discuss the various factors which influence the productivity of work–the favourableness or unfavourableness of the seasons, the skill-levels of workers, the level of scientific and technological development, the manner in which the ruling class organises work, etc. By pointing to these objective factors, Marx is implying that the determination of value is also influenced by such factors. We should keep in mind that in capitalist society, there is neither participatory nor representative democracy regarding how work is organised or should be organised. Marx argues that if work-time remains constant then value will also remain constant. But if work-time fluctuates then the quantity of human-energy expended will also fluctuate, and hence value will fluctuate

36

Chapter Three

as well. The range of variables which may increase or decrease the worktime during which commodities are produced has implications for the supply and demand of commodities. Marx views the scarcity of raw materials in relation to geographical location, and hence the quantity of human-energy that is required to access raw materials. He does not view scarcity as an absolute variable in and of itself. For example, whilst diamonds may be abundant below the earth’s surface, their rarity or scarceness on the earth’s surface will mean that more time and more human-energy are required to access them from below the earth’s surface. Such diamonds will therefore embody more value that those that require less human-energy and less time to mine. Marx also uses a thoughtprovoking example to illustrate his point as to the nature of value regarding “converting carbon into diamonds”. Interestingly, there are business enterprises in different parts of the globalised world which compress carbon under tremendous pressure and convert it into diamonds. But such compression requires huge quantities of energy. However, whether these diamonds are taken to be of lower value than diamonds that are actually mined from below the earth’s surface would make for an interesting study. It is nevertheless a very secretive industry. We are also introduced to the concept of the “productiveness of labour”, which I believe speaks to the dialectical interaction between energy and time: The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average quantity of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same quantity of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

37

bricks. In general, the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the quantity of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it (47).

In the following thought, Marx explores the use-value/exchange-value dichotomy of a commodity. He also deciphers that there are entities that are of use-value but are not the products of work–these are aspects of nature in their original state. In capitalist society, where an individual worker produces commodities for another’s use, he thereby creates “social use-values”. When early man picked up a stone to crack open a nut, the stone had a use-value. However, the stone was not the product of work but of nature. Had the stone been sharpened on a rock, then human-energy would have been transferred into the stone tool, and the effect of such work would be changes in the shape, size or weight of the stone. In subsistence communities we find the prevalence of use-value i.e. the production of things for the satisfaction of the producer and her immediate family. In such instances, that which is produced does not assume the life of a commodity. However, in communities where some kind of subjection is the order of the day, individuals or families may produce use-values which they do not consume entirely, but hand over to those who rule. In such a case, this handing over does not constitute an exchange as such. Marx, I believe, emphasises the use-value and exchange-value dichotomy in order to understand the different economic and cultural contexts governing commodities. Such an analysis also reveals the ongoing transition or transformation from one economic epoch to the next– although such ongoing transitions are all too often peppered by violent episodes. If a commodity is not produced or does not function for its intended purpose, then it counts as being of no value and hence a useless commodity. The following thought also speaks to the quality of work imparted when commodities are produced: A thing can be a use-value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use-values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce usevalues, but use-values for others, social use-values. Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is

38

Chapter Three the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value (47-48).

After deciphering the nature of commodities, Marx turns his analytical microscope to that of work itself. We are given a glimpse of the two-fold character of work in capitalist society: because of its two-fold character, human-energy will also take on the life of a commodity. Work serves as a use-value and human-energy as an exchange-value. Whereas humanenergy has exchange-value for the worker, it has use-value for the capitalist. Under the capitalist mode of production, work is divided into work for the production of subsistence and work for the production of surplus-value. With scholarly confidence, Marx correctly points out that he was the first to discover the two-fold nature of work; political economy had not uncovered it: At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things–use-value and exchange-value. Later on, we saw also that labour too, possesses the same two-fold nature; for, so far as it finds expression in value, it does not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use-values. I was the first to point out and to examine critically this two-fold nature of the labour contained in commodities. As this point is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political economy turns, we must go more into detail (48).

Marx uses the examples of the coat and linen not to only understand their two-fold nature as commodities, but to better understand the two-fold nature of work. First and foremost, the coat secures its existence in society because it satisfies a particular want, hence its use-value or utility status. Use-value work therefore produces use-value commodities. But when viewed in relation to each other, we find that the coat is different from the linen, possibly in shape, size, colour, weight, aesthetics, use, etc. In Marx’s terms, they are qualitatively different from each other. The work that produced them is also of different types or species–and it is precisely for this reason that the “entity” responsible for work secures nomination to the role of a commodity as well. Hence the multitude of commodities which we encounter on a daily basis. However, whilst different forms of work are required in order to produce different use-values, all forms of work are governed by the manner and rate in which the mechanical-energy of the worker is dispensed. Different types or species of work will constitute different types of mechanical movements, evident in the movement of the hands, arms and legs of the worker. Different types or qualities of mechanical movements will produce different types or qualities of commodities. The hands that produce a yard of linen will move

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

39

differently from the hands that produce a coat, irrespective of whether they are the hands of two different workers or the hands of the same worker. We must keep in mind that all qualities of movement entail the expenditure of human-energy in the form of mechanical energy. However, not all qualities of movement necessarily require the expenditure of the same quantity of human-energy: As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use-values, so also are the two forms of labour that produce them, tailoring and weaving. Were these two objects not qualitatively different, not produced respectively by labour of different quality, they could not stand to each other in the relation of commodities. Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use-value is not exchanged for another of the same kind (48-49).

In the following excerpt, Marx provides an insight into the transitory nature of exchange-value; in the final analysis, the coat has to be of use to its owner, hence the use-value nature that a commodity potentially has. He is also untangling the web of social labelling in the sphere of productive activity, with labels such as “tailor”, “teacher”, “cook”, etc. pinned onto man. In so doing he is attempting to pry open the social armour that encases that which is ultimately responsible for the creation or production of value. Whether man will break free from the social labelling attached to him in a future society, only history will make transparent. Marx believed man to be naturally multi-talented, but the capitalist epoch herds man into a particular work species, if he is fortunate enough to be employed in capitalist work. We also get a peek into the relevance and integral interconnectedness of the natural environment in the production of commodities: Anyhow, whether the coat be worn by the tailor or by his customer, in either case it operates as a use-value. Nor is the relation between the coat and the labour that produced it altered by the circumstance that tailoring may have become a special trade, an independent branch of the social division of labour. Wherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the human race made clothes for thousands of years, without a single man becoming a tailor. But coats and linen, like every other element of material wealth that is not the spontaneous produce of nature, must invariably owe their existence to a special productive activity, exercised with a definite aim, an activity that appropriates particular nature-given materials to particular human wants. So far therefore as labour is a creator of use-value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man and Nature, and therefore no life (49-50).

40

Chapter Three

Marx demonstrates through examples that humans have the capacity to modify their work. Many of us may have done different types of work in our lifetimes, or know someone that has. It is only under capitalism that the worker dilutes his nature-given potential as a “jack of all trades” and transforms himself into a “master” of one. Hence Marx tells us that a worker is able to modify his work in order to produce different use-values, but it is the human-energy of the same individual which realises itself into qualitatively different use-values. In so doing, Marx is gradually eliminating those qualitative variables which are part of the work process, but which play no part in determining the value and hence the exchangevalue of commodities. That honour will go to the “substance”, which is identical in all forms of work, regardless of who performs the work. Whatever the mode or species of work, all work pours out or objectifies an identical but “peculiar” entity. In this excerpt, Marx also provides a glimpse of the capitalist system, which is built on the specialisation instead of the hybridisation of work. So factually speaking, it is not the nature of work itself that determines value, but the common denominator of all work–whatever its species. Marx also introduces the concept of “friction”. It was friction that the captains of industry of the Industrial Revolution would identify as an obstacle to continuous production. They would “work hard” to overcome friction in order to ensure the continuous, homogenous and free flow of work: Let us now pass from the commodity considered as a use-value to the value of commodities. By our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the linen. But this is a mere quantitative difference, which for the present does not concern us. We bear in mind, however, that if the value of the coat is double that of 10 yds of linen, 20 yds of linen must have the same value as one coat. So far as they are values, the coat and the linen are things of a like substance, objective expressions of essentially identical labour. But tailoring and weaving are, qualitatively, different kinds of labour. There are, however, states of society in which one and the same man does tailoring and weaving alternately, in which case these two forms of labour are mere modifications of the labour of the same individual, and not special and fixed functions of different persons, just as the coat which our tailor makes one day, and the trousers which he makes another day, imply only a variation in the labour of one and the same individual. Moreover, we see at a glance that, in our capitalist society, a given portion of human labour is, in accordance with the varying demand, at one time supplied in the form of tailoring, at another in the form of weaving. This change may possibly not take place without friction, but take place it must (50-51).

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

41

Even the skill of the worker–for Marx–is measured in quantitative terms. In the examples of the weaving and tailoring species of work, Marx states that that which is common to both species of work is human-energy. Human-energy is embodied in all humans, i.e. the human body is a personification of energy. Whether water comes out of a bottle or a glass, it is still water–it is that which quenches man’s thirst or maybe is used to water a sapling. So too is it with human-energy; whether it comes in the form of weaving or tailoring, it is human-energy which is the key ingredient in both the formation of a commodity and the “formation” of value in the commodity. Hence we may conclude that human-energy is common to all species of work, and to all modes of production in measured time and across geographical place. The skill of the worker may be considered the efficiency with which a worker is able to expend his human-energy in the work process. A worker who can expend more human-energy per unit of time in the formation of a commodity may be considered more skilled than a worker who expends less human-energy per unit of time. Hence, a skilled worker expends human-energy efficiently, i.e. friction is reduced and the “wastage” of human-energy is mitigated in the work process. An “unskilled” worker may be perceived to lack efficiency or economy in human-energy expenditure. It may be deduced that x quantity of intensified human-energy expenditure is equal to y quantity of simple human-energy expenditure. As a worker gains experience in his or her work, his or her human-energy expenditure becomes more efficient. Hence Marx’s statement: “experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made.” Human-energy transcends race, nationality, gender, class, etc. It is present in all humans, and all humans irrespective of race, gender or nationalities are capable of performing different species of work. As Marx stated in the previous quote: “it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man and nature, and therefore no life”: Productive activity, if we leave out of sight its special form, viz., the useful character of the labour, is nothing but the expenditure of human labourpower. Tailoring and weaving, though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, and in this sense are human labour. They are but two different modes of expending human labour-power. Of course, this labour-power, which remains the same under all its modifications, must have attained a certain pitch of development before it can be expended in a multiplicity of modes. But the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general. And just as in society, a general or a banker plays a great part, but mere man, on the other hand, a very shabby part, so here with mere human labour. It is the

42

Chapter Three expenditure of simple labour-power, i.e., of the labour-power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given. Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone. The different proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to unskilled labour as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, consequently, appear to be fixed by custom. For simplicity’s sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making the reduction (51-52).

In order for human-energy to be expended in commodity production, it is necessary that the worker works. Human-energy hence provides the capacity for the worker to work. When considering differences in value, it is the quantity of work that is embodied in the commodity which determines the magnitude of value. In the examples of the coat and the linen, the coat’s value is twice that of the linen, because the quantity of human-energy expended on the coat has taken 100% more work-time than that expended on the linen. Value is hence a function of both humanenergy expenditure and measured time as reflected by the clock. Speaking in energy terms, if 200 joules of human-energy was expended in two hours in making the coat, then 100 joules of human-energy was expended in one hour in making the 10 yards of linen: Coats and linen, however, are not merely values, but values of definite magnitude, and according to our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the ten yards of linen. Whence this difference in their values? It is owing to the fact that the linen contains only half as much labour as the coat, and consequently, that in the production of the latter, labour-power must have been expended during twice the time necessary for the production of the former (52).

The qualitative nature of work is determined by “what” needs to be produced and “how” the work is done. Such variables contribute to the utility or use-value of a commodity. The quantitative nature of work is determined by “how much” work needs to be done in “how long a time” in order for a commodity to be produced. Whereas previously Marx focused

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

43

on work-time, he now introduces the notion of clock-time, which he refers to as simply “time”. Marx separates the qualitative nature of work from that of its quantitative nature; by this abstraction, all the commodities occupying the world’s stage are, at least in principle, exchangeable with each other: While, therefore, with reference to use-value, the labour contained in a commodity counts only qualitatively, with reference to value it counts only quantitatively, and must first be reduced to human labour pure and simple. In the former case, it is a question of How and What, in the latter of How much? How long a time? Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value (52-53).

Since value is a function of both clock-time and human-energy expenditure, the productiveness and efficiency with which work is done and human-energy is expended may alter the value of a commodity. A man’s wealth increases when the quantity of use-value commodities that he comes to possess also increases. But an increase in his material wealth may not necessarily result in an increase in the total value of his material wealth. This contradictory phenomenon speaks to the “two-fold character” of work. With an increase in the productivity of work, more use-values are produced. However, the value of the average commodity will decrease. This is due to human-energy, as value, being distributed over a larger quantity of products or commodities as a result of the shortening of the work-time “necessary for their production”: An increase in the quantity of use-values is an increase of material wealth. With two coats two men can be clothed, with one coat only one man. Nevertheless, an increased quantity of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in the magnitude of its value. This antagonistic movement has its origin in the twofold character of labour. Productive power has reference, of course, only to labour of some useful concrete form, the efficacy of any special productive activity during a given time being dependent on its productiveness. Useful labour becomes, therefore, a more or less abundant source of products, in proportion to the rise or fall of its productiveness. On the other hand, no change in this productiveness affects the labour represented by value. Since productive power is an attribute of the concrete useful forms of labour, of course it can no longer have any bearing on that labour, so soon as we make abstraction from those concrete useful forms. However then productive power may vary, the same labour, exercised during equal periods of time, always yields equal quantities of value. But it will yield, during equal periods of time, different

44

Chapter Three quantities of values in use; more, if the productive power rise, fewer, if it fall. The same change in productive power, which increases the fruitfulness of labour, and, in consequence, the quantity of use-values produced by that labour, will diminish the total value of this increased quantity of usevalues, provided such change shorten the total labour time necessary for their production; and vice versâ (53-54).

We recall that Einstein’s formula E=mc2 denotes that energy may remain in the form of energy, or it may assume a mass form, i.e. mass and energy are interchangeable with each other. From an energy perspective, the two-fold character of work means that human-energy “takes on” a concrete form (mass-form) when it produces use-values, and it takes on an abstract form (energy-form) when it takes on the form of value in commodities. In a commodity’s utility, the nature of the concrete form of work and human-energy is made evident. It is in the sphere of exchange that the abstract nature of work and human-energy is made evident: On the one hand all labour is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human labour-power, and in its character of identical abstract human labour, it creates and forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is the expenditure of human labour-power in a special form and with a definite aim, and in this, its character of concrete useful labour, it produces use-values (54).

It is the fundamental logic of capitalism to reproduce itself, and it does so by churning out unimaginably large volumes of commodities destined for the market. The many large ships which carry huge quantities of cargo are a prevalent feature of the seas, and are testimony to the internal logic of capitalism regarding commodity production and distribution. As commodity production increases in scale, cargo containers and the ships which shoulder them are also compelled to undergo increases in size. Although the size of most commodities has undergone shrinkage during their lifetimes, the infrastructure that enables their production and distribution continues to expand in width, length and height. Under the capitalist mode of production, commodities enter the world as use-values but they travel the world as exchange-value–the former as in their physical or natural form and the latter as a value form: Commodities come into the world in the shape of use-values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something twofold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

45

form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form (54-55).

In the following excerpt, Marx highlights the impossibility of identifying value in a commodity–it is “something” concealed. Matter and mass are the material components of a commodity and its value is the human-energy component, but the latter is not evident to the naked eye. The only aspects of a commodity that are evident to the naked eye are its form, shape and/or any other qualitative property it may possess; its usevalue is as clear as daylight. It is only in relation to other commodities that the evidence of the value of commodities emerges from its slumber. After delving into the nature of value, Marx wishes to return to the concrete form of value–as it first appears in the exchange market–to our naked eye. In doing so, he is stating that a commodity already has a value “stamped” on it when it enters the market–a place where its value is manifested, realised, made evident or objectified. It is then up to the market to decode the quantity of such value, which rests dormant in the commodity. When one dismantles a coat, one can identify its different parts–sleeves, lapels, buttons, cloth, cotton, etc.–but one cannot identify value. One will only find value when one places the coat next to a piece of linen, a shirt, shoes, meat, etc. Value is hence made evident through a social relationship. It appears that there is a link between the physical world and the social world, in so far as energy is concerned. In other words, energy’s “playground” is just as much the social world as the physical and economic worlds: The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, as we will, yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it seems impossible to grasp it. If, however, we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity. In fact we started from exchange-value, or the exchange relation of commodities, in order to get at the value that lies hidden behind it. We must now return to this form under which value first appeared to us (55).

Money! We all love it. We all want more of it. Some want much more than others. Value first appears to us in the form of money. Mainstream economic science portrays money as determining the value of commodities in exchange. However, Marx would go on to argue that

46

Chapter Three

money is not a determinant of value, but its real, tangible, concrete, and visible form. We keep in mind that E=mc2. If we are not able to see value in its human-energy form, then we are able to see it in its money or mass form. By introducing money into the chapter on commodities, Marx identified money as just another commodity–but a special one. More importantly, he identified money to be the “purely social reality” of value; this is when human-energy transforms into a social variable, and in money, it makes itself visible. Money, therefore, is the magician’s hat from which the value-rabbit appears: Everyone knows, if he knows nothing else, that commodities have a value form common to them all, and presenting a marked contrast with the varied bodily forms of their use-values. I mean their money form. Here, however, a task is set us, the performance of which has never yet even been attempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money form, of developing the expression of value implied in the value relation of commodities, from its simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money-form. By doing this we shall, at the same time, solve the riddle presented by money (55).

It is only when human-energy becomes “embodied” in commodities through the work process that it transforms itself into value; it creates value as soon as it “implants” or “embeds” itself in an object via the work process. Its “presence” in a commodity may be speculated on based on changes in the mass and/or shape of the raw material or object worked on during the work process. In the following quote, Marx is preparing us for an analysis of the social evolution of money. He commences with simple scenarios, or the conceptualisation phase of the emergence of money. He tells us in his authoritative style that “the problem is already solved”– obviously by himself: Human labour-power in motion, or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object. In order to express the value of the linen as a congelation of human labour, that value must be expressed as having objective existence, as being a something materially different from the linen itself, and yet a something common to the linen and all other commodities. The problem is already solved (59).

When exchanging one commodity for another, one does not normally say to another that it took eight hours of work-time or eight hours of human-energy expenditure to make the commodity. One also does not say that a commodity is of a certain value due to the fact that it comprises x quantity of joules of human-energy. Hence the language of the quantitative

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

47

nature of value is “absent” in the exchange process. But we should keep in mind that in the exchange process, the quantity variable is what matters, as when in early forms of bartering, two pumpkins may have been exchanged for one chicken, for example. From then onwards it was imperative to further investigate the quantitative variable inherent in commodities. According to Marx, Aristotle came to realise that exchange “cannot take place without equality, and equality not without commensurability”. But Aristotle could not have uncovered the variable which enabled the exchange of commodities, because inequality amongst man was naturalised in Greek society in his time. In his analysis, Marx alludes to one of his most famous of adages: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” For Marx, the material world finds expression in the mental world of man, and not the other way around, as proclaimed by Hegelianism and neo-Hegelianism. To acknowledge that all human-energy is equal is to acknowledge that “all men are born equal”–a doctrine that would have left Aristotle confused in a society of unequals: There was, however, an important fact which prevented Aristotle from seeing that, to attribute value to commodities, is merely a mode of expressing all labour as equal human labour, and consequently as labour of equal quality. Greek society was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its natural basis, the inequality of men and of their labour-powers. The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. This, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities. The brilliancy of Aristotle’s genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in the expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, ‘in truth,’ was at the bottom of this equality (69).

Marx proceeds to take a peek at the changing nature of the commodity in history. For much of man’s existence on earth, man’s work has produced articles for direct use and for indirect use, through barter and exchange. The gradual historical transformation of products into commodities developed on an equal footing with the historical development of the value form, as value became the determinant of the equality, commensurability and exchangeability of commodities. The concept of price is the end-form of equality between commodities and not

48

Chapter Three

its beginning. If money is the material and concrete form of value of a commodity, then price is its symbolic, name or label form. Value “articulates” itself symbolically in the market in the form of price: Every product of labour is, in all states of society, a use-value; but it is only at a definite historical epoch in a society’s development that such a product becomes a commodity, viz., at the epoch when the labour spent on the production of a useful article becomes expressed as one of the objective qualities of that article, i.e., as its value. It therefore follows that the elementary value form is also the primitive form under which a product of labour appears historically as a commodity, and that the gradual transformation of such products into commodities, proceeds pari passu [side by side] with the development of the value form. We perceive, at first sight, the deficiencies of the elementary form of value: it is a mere germ, which must undergo a series of metamorphoses before it can ripen into the price form (71).

Marx commenced the chapter on commodities by analysing the nature of a single commodity. He now moves on to analysing the nature of relationships between and amongst many commodities. The examples of commodities he uses are diverse, but it is their qualitative nature that makes them diverse, not their quantitative nature. In so far as commodities comprise human-energy in equal quantities, they are as similar as “two peas in a pod”; it is this and only this which bequeaths to them the right to exchange. Human-energy is the supreme leveller, whatever form of work it emerges from, and when expressed as value in money, the forms of money can be in various use-value forms as well. One interesting commodity amongst the many others which Marx identified in the melting pot of exchange is that of the commodity gold: The value of a single commodity, the linen, for example, is now expressed in terms of numberless other elements of the world of commodities. Every other commodity now becomes a mirror of the linen’s value. It is thus, that for the first time, this value shows itself in its true light as a congelation of undifferentiated human labour. For the labour that creates it, now stands expressly revealed, as labour that ranks equally with every other sort of human labour, no matter what its form, whether tailoring, ploughing, mining, &c., and no matter, therefore, whether it is realised in coats, corn, iron, or gold. The linen, by virtue of the form of its value, now stands in a social relation, no longer with only one other kind of commodity, but with the whole world of commodities. As a commodity, it is a citizen of that world. At the same time, the interminable series of value equations implies, that as regards the value of a commodity, it is a matter of indifference under what particular form, or kind, of use-value it appears (72-73).

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

49

Marx is both logically and historically constructing, piece-by-piece, the social evolution of the world of commodities and their “right” to be exchanged with each other. With a myriad of commodities entering the world of exchange, we also have the complications and cumbersomeness of exchanging one commodity for the other, since a myriad of commodities may be present at the same time and place. In Marx’s construction, he uses 20 yards of linen as the yardstick against which to measure the value of other commodities. In doing so he is revealing how the historical evolution of the exchange of commodities forced trading societies to seek out a common standard of exchange, one that would oil the processes of such exchange. In Marx’s hypothetical example, the linen is the commodity against which all other commodities are measured. In this illustration, linen becomes a standard measure of the exchangeability of commodities: 20 yards of linen = 1 coat 20 yards of linen = 10 lbs of tea, etc. Each of these implies the corresponding inverted equation, 1 coat = 20 yards of linen 10 lbs of tea = 20 yards of linen, etc. In fact, when a person exchanges his linen for many other commodities, and thus expresses its value in a series of other commodities, it necessarily follows, that the various owners of the latter exchange them for the linen, and consequently express the value of their various commodities in one and the same third commodity, the linen. If then, we reverse the series, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 lbs of tea, etc., that is to say, if we give expression to the converse relation already implied in the series, we get, The General Form of Value 1

Coat

10

lbs of tea

40

lbs of coffee

1

quarter of corn

2

ounces of gold

½

a ton of iron

X

Commodity A, etc.

(74-75)

= 20 yards of linen

Chapter Three

50

A society transforming from barter to more complex bartering or exchange is on its way to isolating that commodity which would best serve the function of a common standard of exchange viz., the money form of a commodity. Of all the commodities occupying the world stage, gold would rise incrementally to take on the role of money. As long as gold, regardless of its shiny form, “embodies” an equal quantity of humanenergy to that of the other commodities, then gold is in the same boat with all the other commodities which “comprise” an equal quantity of humanenergy. The point that Marx is arguing is that whilst “value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity”, the presence of money in the form of gold is a tangible, concrete, material reminder that “value shows itself in its true light as a congelation of undifferentiated human work”: The particular commodity, with whose bodily form the equivalent form is thus socially identified, now becomes the money commodity, or serves as money. It becomes the special social function of that commodity, and consequently its social monopoly, to play within the world of commodities the part of the universal equivalent. Amongst the commodities which, in form B, figure as particular equivalents of the linen, and, in form C, express in common their relative values in linen, this foremost place has been attained by one in particular–namely, gold. If, then, in form C we replace the linen by gold, we get, The Money-Form 20 1 10 40 1 ½ X

yards of linen Coat lbs of tea lbs of coffee quarter of corn a ton of iron Commodity A

= 2 ounces of gold

(80)

Gold has risen from its status of a simple commodity to take its socially “chosen” place on the world stage as money. Its glorious rise is due to its physical and chemical nature and not its shine. Most importantly, it serves as money because it “embodies” human-energy as a result of work performed on it. Gold has outperformed all other commodities to triumph victorious as concrete, real and metallic money. Its social standing

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

51

is owing to its nature-given properties. In early bartering, gold was like all other commodities, relatively unknown and probably insignificant. However, whilst money is gold, gold itself is not necessarily money. From deep within the bowels of planet earth, gold gloriously ascended to the throne of the world’s economic system as the ultimate common denominator–as Lord or Lady Money: The progress consists in this alone, that the character of direct and universal exchangeability–in other words, that the universal equivalent form–has now, by social custom, become finally identified with the substance, gold. Gold is now money with reference to all other commodities only because it was previously, with reference to them, a simple commodity. Like all other commodities, it was also capable of serving as an equivalent, either as simple equivalent in isolated exchanges, or as particular equivalent by the side of others. Gradually it began to serve, within varying limits, as universal equivalent. So soon as it monopolises this position in the expression of value for the world of commodities, it becomes the money commodity… (80-81).

We have journeyed from the material world and now enter into the symbolic realm which has such an overwhelming “presence” in the life of man in the 21st century. As soon as value assumes a price form, it enters into the symbolic sphere of society. In tracing value from its material nature to that of its symbolic nature, Marx has made transparent the “umbilical cord” joining the two forms of money–its material form and its symbolic form: The elementary expression of the relative value of a single commodity, such as linen, in terms of the commodity, such as gold, that plays the part of money, is the price form of that commodity. The price form of the linen is therefore 20 yards of linen = 2 ounces of gold, or, if 2 ounces of gold when coined are £2, 20 yards of linen = £2 (81).

With regards to the chapter on commodities, our journey with Marx “ends” in the sphere of exchange–that social space where the commodity assumes a mystical form. We also get glimpses of the fundamental role that the natural environment plays in the production of commodities. According to Marx, we create our world with nature as its starting point. It is from and through nature that we physically and mechanically create commodities. Mainstream economic thought continues to de-link value from its natural birthplace, inadvertently “allocating” to commodities illusory attributes; what Marx refers to as the “fetishism of commodities”. However, Marx states that all is not what it seems. We have to move beyond the “curtain of appearance”, so as to understand the nature of the

52

Chapter Three

commodity, and the impact that the commodity has on our modern psyche. The example given, the table as use-value, is nothing more than a piece of wood carved out to serve as a table. However, as soon as it becomes a commodity, then it assumes an extraordinary status or standing in capitalist society; the commodity assumes “mystical” or “supernatural” powers over man. Marx’s humour emerges in his ambiguous use of the term “table-turning” when explaining the two-fold nature of a commodity: A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every-day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than ‘table-turning’ ever was (82).

Value is primarily a function of the physiological process of work; the psychological realm merely “registers” this function. In the following passage, Marx seems to be saying that capitalist society ascribes to the commodity an inflated and unwarranted importance. The social work and the human-energy that went into producing the commodity are negated. The commodity, it seems, has appropriated man’s “standing” in society. In getting to the bottom of the commodity, Marx alerts us to the place where man should belong–“centre-stage”–at least in relation to the world of things. He therefore reiterates the human-energy imperative in commodity production. Marx proceeds to introduce the social nature of work in a globalised world, i.e. as long as man works to produce for others, then work has attained a social profile. Work under capitalism is a social activity. The commodity is therefore a social product. We are also introduced to the “definition” of the value of human-energy: The mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use-value. Just as little does it proceed from the nature of the determining factors of value. For, in the first place, however varied the useful kinds of labour, or productive activities, may be, it is a physiological fact, that they are functions of the human organism, and that each such

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

53

function, whatever may be its nature or form, is essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, &c. Secondly, with regard to that which forms the ground-work for the quantitative determination of value, namely, the duration of that expenditure, or the quantity of labour, it is quite clear that there is a palpable difference between its quantity and quality. In all states of society, the labour-time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence, must necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages of development. And lastly, from the moment that men in any way work for one another, their labour assumes a social form (82).

We get “a sense” of the duality of the body and mind–and their estrangement from each other under capitalism. Capitalistic economic imperatives overrule all common sense, and dilute or make non-existent the organic relationships amongst the human species. Capitalistic logic dictates the rules by which man should live his life. Life itself is viewed through capitalistic-economic lenses. Relationships are viewed primarily through capitalistic-economic lenses. Work is viewed through a capitalistic-economic lens. Time is viewed through a capitalistic-economic lens. But the commodity, it seems, is viewed through a mystical and supernatural lens. The “human-factor” in the commodity is concealed. Capitalism compels us to depend on and develop relationships with things, and weakens and erodes our interdependence and relationships with people; humans take “second place” to commodities. Under capitalism, there is a striving for the ultimate independent individual, but one who is totally commodity-dependent. In capitalist society our relationships to other humans are mostly superficial, but they are intense and intimate with things or commodities. Humans are measured according to the material wealth that they have accumulated at any one point in time; capitalism does away with the humanity of society. Just as looking up to the gods in “heaven” tends to obscure the misery on earth, so too does the capitalist economic doctrine of value obscure the human-energy contained within commodities. Instead of using our human-energy to capacitate us to relate directly with each other, things or commodities become the medium through which people attempt to “find each other”. In the workplace and in the marketplace, relationships seem to exist between people and things. In a similar manner to that in which people worship the symbols of the religious world, capitalist society tends to worship commodities. “Nobody” asks how such religious symbols are psychologically and socially constructed in society. In a similar manner, “no one” really knows or seems to care how a commodity is produced, who produces it or under what conditions it is produced. Marx refers to the entire process of commodity worship, the ignorance of the production process of the

54

Chapter Three

commodity, the overwhelming faith in commodities instead of in our fellow man, etc., as the “fetishism of commodities”: There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities. This Fetishism of commodities has its origin, as the foregoing analysis has already shown, in the peculiar social character of the labour that produces them (83).

Human-energy is the common “substance” found in all races of mankind; it is what capacitates humans to perform work. It is what capacitates man to produce and reproduce life. However, in the exchange process, the quantity of human-energy is not the “substance” around which the different parties negotiate, at least not at face-value. The impact of the producers’ work is far removed in real time and place. It is in this farremoved real time and place that the producers engage indirectly with each other, and their respective commodities interact directly with each other. It is the “embodied” human-energy within the commodities which enables commodities to size each other up, but this human-energy is obscured or rendered anonymous during the exchange process. The exchange of commodities gives impetus to the construction of the economic science of society. Man has created the objective world, and he must now make sense, or make science, of this world: Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it. Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language (85).

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

55

In the example below–when individual members of a peasant family work–their work serves as a social function, in the interests of all members of the family. Whereas in this peasant family, social work results in a socialised product, in capitalist society, social work results in a privatised commodity. Whereas in peasant society the social nature of work is immediately observable, in capitalist society, this social nature is obscured because production takes place in private (property). Division of work occurs within peasant families just as it occurs in capitalist society, but in the former, the products do not assume the character of a commodity, but that of a social form within the family. Division of work itself seems to have occurred spontaneously in historical time: For an example of labour in common or directly associated labour, we have no occasion to go back to that spontaneously developed form which we find on the threshold of the history of all civilised races. We have one close at hand in the patriarchal industries of a peasant family, that produces corn, cattle, yarn, linen, and clothing for home use. These different articles are, as regards the family, so many products of its labour, but as between themselves, they are not commodities. The different kinds of labour, such as tillage, cattle tending, spinning, weaving and making clothes, which result in the various products, are in themselves, and such as they are, direct social functions, because functions of the family, which, just as much as a society based on the production of commodities, possesses a spontaneously developed system of division of labour. The distribution of the work within the family, and the regulation of the labour time of the several members, depend as well upon differences of age and sex as upon natural conditions varying with the seasons. The labour-power of each individual, by its very nature, operates in this case merely as a definite portion of the whole labour-power of the family, and therefore, the measure of the expenditure of individual labour-power by its duration, appears here by its very nature as a social character of their labour (89-90).

That the world is awash with a mind-boggling array of commodities is testimony to the brilliant creative ability of man’s work, more specifically the creative ability of his hands, working in conjunction with his brain and nature. That the world is awash with a mind-boggling array of commodities is also testimony to the intrinsic nature of the capitalistic logic of accumulation. It is man’s human-energy and work that keeps him alive and sustains him and his family. There are many more excerpts on commodities, written in an arduous style, in Capital, but I have selected those that I feel are important and admittedly, much easier to interpret. This is the case for the entire of Capital itself. I have also attempted– where possible–to make the energy connection to Marx’s thoughts. You could say it is an attempt at energising Marx’s Capital. One of the more

56

Chapter Three

important aspects to note about the section on commodities is that humanenergy is “intertwined” with the energy of the commodity. Smith (1998: 238) gives us an insight into how energy “travels” from one medium to the next: In fact, whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in time, there must be a medium or substance in which energy exists after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other, for energy, as Torricelli remarked, ‘is a quintessence of so subtle a nature that it cannot be contained in any vessel except the inmost substance of material things’.

If energy is a “quintessence of so subtle a nature”, as stated by Toricelli, then human-energy is a “peculiar commodity”, as stated by Marx. Marx commenced Capital not with the history of capitalism, nor with the worker and class struggle, nor with money and profit, but with commodities. One might say, in a true Marxist outlook, that he commenced with the real thing, the material object, the concrete object, the tangible product, the commodity. Using Einstein’s E=mc2 as a framework, we acknowledge that all products–as long as they have mass– also comprise energy i.e. mass can be transformed into energy and energy into mass. When a product assumes the role of a commodity, then x quantity of the energy content of that commodity is that of human-energy. In the complex economic world that man has thus far created, the quantity of human-energy “embedded” in commodities is the only underlying “force” that facilitates the exchangeability of commodities: it “asserts itself like an over-riding law of nature.” The content form of work viz. human-energy becomes in the final analysis the “content” of the commodity, i.e. the commodity now embodies human-energy, which was previously embodied in the worker. As to how such human-energy comes to be transposed into a product, this will be explored later on. For now we start from the premise that human-energy is the “common substance”, the “common denominator”, the “quintessence” of value, which is “present” in all commodities and which determines the exchangeability of commodities on the world’s stage of exchange. Marx looks at the commodity mostly through an abstract lens in chapter one. He then proceeds to consider the “life” of value and commodities in the market–the sphere from which capitalist society draws its needs and wants. Consumerism is one of the hallmarks of capitalism, and daily life is saturated with visits to shopping malls, shopping centres, etc. Shopping via the world wide web, also known as “the net”, has revolutionised the manner in which modern man buys and sells commodities. “Special” days mean expressing love through the giving of gifts, and even “holy” days

Commodities: Mass Embodying Human-Energy as Value

57

such as Christmas have been turned into a frenzied time for shopping and consuming. The natural environment is an innocent casualty of a predominantly consumerist society. The next chapter in Capital deals with the market viz. “exchange”–that economic space where value reveals itself to the world in symbolic form; value that always lies hidden, long before it makes the journey to the market. If human-energy “disappears” as value in the commodity, then it reappears in money form in a mass of gold; a wonderful illustration of the interchangeability of matter and energy. If human-energy and value lie concealed in a commodity, then it is as bright as sunshine in a mass of gold. We are empowered to understand this transformation because of the “beauty” of the law of energy conservation and Einstein’s equation: E=mc2.

CHAPTER FOUR THE EVOLUTION OF ECONOMIC MAN: EXCHANGE

Man is an animal that makes bargains, no other animal does this, no dog exchanges bones with another. —Adam Smith The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. —Henry David Thoreau

This chapter is titled “Exchange” in Capital. The economic world has transformed leaps and bounds since man first picked up a stick or a stone to supplement his human-energy for survival. Economic man has also come a long way since the social act of bartering. From a subsistence animal, man transformed into an exchange animal. Unlike in primitive societies, there is hardly a product in our homes, in the main, which is made by ourselves. We are dependent on a multitude of workers or producers, spread across the world, for our daily needs and wants. In the modern world, generally, we no longer produce articles to satisfy our needs and wants by ourselves; we buy them indirectly from other producers, through middlemen and women. Businesses engage in the process of exchange by buying and selling commodities. At an individual level, “Joe Public” or “Jane Public” engages in the exchange process for the purposes of accessing commodities such as food, clothing, homes, land, etc. Land, however, has not been an exchange-object for most of man’s lifetime on earth. That we may have an enormous quantity of commodities in our homes is verification to both the power of exchange and to the power of money. It is also evidence of the might and power of the capitalist system to produce unceasingly. Exchange is also synonymous with the Free Market, which Adam Smith, in his The Wealth of Nations (2003 [1776]: 572), referred to as the “invisible hand”. In the world of exchange, commodities are assumed to be rightfully owned by their respective producers and the act of exchange is performed through assumed consent by both parties. Any contractual agreement–whether

The Evolution of Economic Man: Exchange

59

verbal, written or laid down in legal terms–arises out of the economic life of man. In the arena of exchange, the medium through which humans interact with each other is that of their respective commodities–hence the nature of their relationship is predominantly economic instead of predominantly social. We recall that, in the previous chapter, Marx stated that capitalist society has a fetish for commodities, that commodities assume a mysterious and supernatural power over man. In this chapter, he pronounces that “commodities are things, and therefore without power of resistance against man”. He also outlines the mores and rules by which exchange is expected to take place–the fundamental rule being that of “mutual consent”. Other values associated with and integral to exchange are: “the free market”, “freedom to conduct business”, “non-regulation of the markets”, “non-intervention of the state”, “freedom to choose”, etc. Marx “accepts” the narrative of freedom under capitalism as articulated by political economy: It is plain that commodities cannot go to Market and make exchanges of their own account. We must, therefore, have recourse to their guardians, who are also their owners. Commodities are things, and therefore without power of resistance against man. If they are wanting in docility he can use force; in other words, he can take possession of them. In order that these objects may enter into relation with each other as commodities, their guardians must place themselves in relation to one another, as persons whose will resides in those objects, and must behave in such a way that each does not appropriate the commodity of the other, and part with his own, except by means of an act done by mutual consent. They must therefore, mutually recognise in each other the rights of private proprietors. This juridical relation, which thus expresses itself in a contract, whether such contract be part of a developed legal system or not, is a relation between two wills, and is but the reflex of the real economic relation between the two. It is this economic relation that determines the subjectmatter comprised in each such juridical act (96).

Commodities only find their way to the market if their respective owners find no use-value for them. In any event, the production of usevalue under the capitalist mode of production is merely incidental; capitalism produces for the conscious purpose of gaining exchange-value, surplus-value and profit. In the example used, the commodity has a potential exchange-value for its owner, but this exchange-value only realises itself in the act of exchange. It is the internal logic of commodities to seek out other commodities of equal value. Upon entering the exchangevalue world, the commodity has now to present itself as a use-value to its

60

Chapter Four

potential new owner. It is also in the act of exchange that the work-time embodied in the commodity demonstrates whether it is useful or not: What chiefly distinguishes a commodity from its owner is the fact, that it looks upon every other commodity as but the form of appearance of its own value. A born leveller and a cynic, it is always ready to exchange not only soul, but body, with any and every other commodity, be the same more repulsive than Maritornes herself. The owner makes up for this lack in the commodity of a sense of the concrete, by his own five and more senses. His commodity possesses for himself no immediate use-value. Otherwise, he would not bring it to the Market. It has use-value for others; but for himself its only direct use-value is that of being a depository of exchange-value, and, consequently, a means of exchange. Therefore, he makes up his mind to part with it for commodities whose value in use is of service to him. All commodities are non-use-values for their owners, and use-values for their non-owners. Consequently, they must all change hands. But this change of hands is what constitutes their exchange, and the latter puts them in relation with each other as values, and realises them as values. Hence commodities must be realised as values before they can be realised as use-values (97).

A commodity-owner who wishes to “get rid” of his commodity exchanges it for a commodity that has use-value for him. Money, through a socio-historical process, emerged as a necessary solution to the cumbersome process of the exchange of goods. Out of the fluid movement of commodities, a single commodity “solidifies” and emerges as money. It does not enter the world of commodities from outside but emerges from the world of commodities itself. A commodity starts out as one of the products of exchange, but then becomes a means of such exchange: money. The emergence of money was an objective process, independent of the will of man. It is only after it appeared as a means of exchange from the great ocean of commodity exchange that man recognised it as such–as money. Intelligence, it seems, is a child of reality. Hence we explain the origin of money from the perspective of the exchange of commodities, and not the origin of the exchange of commodities from the perspective of money: Money is a crystal formed of necessity in the course of the exchanges, whereby different products of labour are practically equated to one another and thus by practice converted into commodities. The historical progress and extension of exchanges develops the contrast, latent in commodities, between use-value and value. The necessity for giving an external expression to this contrast for the purposes of commercial intercourse, urges on the establishment of an independent form of value, and finds no

The Evolution of Economic Man: Exchange

61

rest until it is once for all satisfied by the differentiation of commodities into commodities and money. At the same rate, then, as the conversion of products into commodities is being accomplished, so also is the conversion of one special commodity into money (99).

In tracing the history of exchange, Marx argues that the value-form of exchange, money, was not evident during the early stages of exchange. It was only with the development of exchange that the value-form became more pronounced. The early stages of exchange were “imperfect”. Just like a child who could not have perfected the art of walking and running without first having to crawl, so too is it with money, which first “crawls” out of the commodity world of exchange, to finally take on its perfect money form. If man is a “political animal”, a “social animal”, a “toolmaking animal”, an exchange animal, he also reveals himself to be a learning animal. The exchange process chose its ideal money-commodity by accident. The value-form of commodities, money, was necessitated by the reality of particular livelihoods in past historical time; hence nomads were the first to develop the money form of commodities. Marx reminds us that under slavery, man was used as the “primitive form of money”, but never land. However, in the 21st century, land is a sought-after commodity and is regularly exchanged for huge sums of money: In the direct barter of products, each commodity is directly a means of exchange to its owner, and to all other persons an equivalent, but that only in so far as it has use-value for them. At this stage, therefore, the articles exchanged do not acquire a value-form independent of their own usevalue, or of the individual needs of the exchangers. The necessity for a value-form grows with the increasing number and variety of the commodities exchanged. The problem and the means of solution arise simultaneously. Commodity-owners never equate their own commodities to those of others, and exchange them on a large scale, without different kinds of commodities belonging to different owners being exchangeable for, and equated as values to, one and the same special article. Such lastmentioned article, by becoming the equivalent of various other commodities, acquires at once, though within narrow limits, the character of a general social equivalent. This character comes and goes with the momentary social acts that called it into life. In turns and transiently it attaches itself first to this and then to that commodity. But with the development of exchange it fixes itself firmly and exclusively to particular sorts of commodities, and becomes crystallised by assuming the moneyform. The particular kind of commodity to which it sticks is at first a matter of accident. Nevertheless there are two circumstances whose influence is decisive. The money-form attaches itself either to the most important articles of exchange from outside, and these in fact are primitive

62

Chapter Four and natural forms in which the exchange-value of home products finds expression; or else it attaches itself to the object of utility that forms, like cattle, the chief portion of indigenous alienable wealth. Nomad races are the first to develop the money-form, because all their worldly goods consist of moveable objects and are therefore directly alienable; and because their mode of life, by continually bringing them into contact with foreign communities, solicits the exchange of products. Man has often made man himself, under the form of slaves, serve as the primitive material of money, but has never used land for that purpose. Such an idea could only spring up in a bourgeois society already well developed. It dates from the last third of the 17th century, and the first attempt to put it in practice on a national scale was made a century afterwards, during the French bourgeois revolution (100-101).

The value-form of commodities, money, finds its natural home in the materials of nature, which enables money to function in its role with relative ease. The commodities of gold and silver naturally gravitated towards the role of money. Their malleability enabled them to be nominees for money. However, it was the human-energy embodied in gold and silver, and the fact that gold and silver can be divided into smaller portions, that meant commodities of respective portions would be commensurable. Differences in values are quantitative–hence different quantities of gold can express different quantities of value. Gold and silver could also be united to denote a larger quantity of value. Money, at this point in the historical development of exchange, served only as “the form of manifestation of the value of commodities”. It was when money started to take on different functions in economically changing society that we could observe the birth of contradictions of sorts: The truth of the proposition that, ‘although gold and silver are not by nature money, money is by nature gold and silver,’ is shown by the fitness of the physical properties of these metals for the functions of money. Up to this point, however, we are acquainted only with one function of money, namely, to serve as the form of manifestation of the value of commodities, or as the material in which the magnitudes of their values are socially expressed. An adequate form of manifestation of value, a fit embodiment of abstract, undifferentiated, and therefore equal human labour, that material alone can be whose every sample exhibits the same uniform qualities. On the other hand, since the difference between the magnitudes of value is purely quantitative, the money commodity must be susceptible of merely quantitative differences, must therefore be divisible at will, and equally capable of being reunited. Gold and silver possess these properties by nature (101-102).

The Evolution of Economic Man: Exchange

63

Gold does not start off in nature as money, but becomes money in conjunction with the historical evolution of economic society. However, it is the quantity of human-energy that a specific quantity of gold represents which ultimately gives it value, and is the principal reason why it evolves into money. Gold requires human-energy to be mined and shaped. Its natural properties are important but secondary to its function as money. If value is the concealed form of human-energy, then money is its mass, tangible and concrete form. In tracing the genesis of money, Marx is stating emphatically that money is rooted in a material world. That it appears to have taken on a life of its own in capitalistic society is indeed an interesting phenomenon. With the ever-increasing rate and intensity of exchange, the symbolic world increases incrementally, and seems to take prominence over, and at most times mask, the real world. We should keep in mind that the symbolic sphere is a reflection of the material world and not the other way around. Capitalism has also perfected the art of delinking the symbolic world from the real world. Like all other material commodities, the value of gold is determined by the quantity of humanenergy that it embodies through socially necessary work-time. Like diamonds, the magnitude of its value is dependent on the magnitude of human-energy that it takes to mine gold, and to transform it into its final money-form. Like all other commodities, the value of gold originates in the workplace, but only realises or reveals itself in the act of exchange. And because the exchange of a commodity presupposes the handing over of money, the value of the commodity is perceived to emerge from money. Money is a mobile bank for human-energy. Human-energy is an energycommodity, and money is its concrete form: We have seen that the money-form is but the reflex, thrown upon one single commodity, of the value relations between all the rest. That money is a commodity is therefore a new discovery only for those who, when they analyse it, start from its fully developed shape. The act of exchange gives to the commodity converted into money, not its value, but its specific value-form. By confounding these two distinct things some writers have been led to hold that the value of gold and silver is imaginary. The fact that money can, in certain functions, be replaced by mere symbols of itself, gave rise to that other mistaken notion, that it is itself a mere symbol. Nevertheless under this error lurked a presentiment that the money-form of an object is not an inseparable part of that object, but is simply the form under which certain social relations manifest themselves. In this sense every commodity is a symbol, since, in so far as it is value, it is only the material envelope of the human labour spent upon it. But if it be declared that the social characters assumed by objects, or the material forms assumed by the social qualities of labour under the régime of a definite

64

Chapter Four mode of production, are mere symbols, it is in the same breath also declared that these characteristics are arbitrary fictions sanctioned by the so-called universal consent of mankind. This suited the mode of explanation in favour during the 18th century. Unable to account for the origin of the puzzling forms assumed by social relations between man and man, people sought to denude them of their strange appearance by ascribing to them a conventional origin (103-104).

Commodities! We are surrounded by them! In capitalistic society, if they are in our homes and they are our homes it is because of exchange. If they are in our packets and in our pockets, it is because of exchange. If they stare at us from the shop windows and from the shop shelves, it is because they are ready to be exchanged. If they are on our desks and at our docks, it is because of exchange. If they are in our cabinets and our cupboards, it is because of exchange. If they tug at our pockets with more force at the end of the month and even more so during “special” days of the year, it is owing to the power of exchange. Where exchange once took place between communities, it is now a common feature of countries. At the country to country level, exchange takes on the form of international trade, one country exchanging its products with another. On a regular basis, different types of raw materials are exchanged between countries. Food commodities, clothing, buildings and household commodities, military weapons, nuclear technology, different modes of transport, iron, steel, copper, silver and gold, etc., are exchanged between countries. In the hurly-burly world of exchange, money would go on to perform strange and wonderful things. When we peel away all of the symbolic forms of money and the money-forms of commodities, we find that the exchange of commodities is in the final analysis based on the equivalence of the human-energy embodied in them. A commodity that has x quantity of human-energy is entitled to and will be exchangeable for any other commodity that contains x quantity of human-energy, whatever the shape, size, colour or usefulness of that commodity. Hence, the exchange of commodities is but the exchange of the “concrete” bodily-form of humanenergy on a world-wide scale. Exchange as value is the exchange of “abstract” human-energy embodied in commodities. There are elaborate structures in place to facilitate exchanges. Markets occupy a myriad of spaces in the globalised world–but the world wide web has now turned out to be a global market par excellence. However, exchange in this instance differs in both clock-time and place. Exchange has grown in leaps and bounds from the days when Marx wrote Capital. Billions of dollars’ worth of shares are exchanged on the New York Stock Exchange, the London Stock Exchange, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the Shanghai Stock

The Evolution of Economic Man: Exchange

65

Exchange, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange etc. on a daily basis. Hence a huge quantity of money is moved about in the capitalist economy. Marx began Capital with his thoughts on “commodities”, and then proceeded to discuss the nature of “exchange”. He looked at the history of exchange, with the main focus on value and the social necessity of quantifying it. In both these chapters, Marx introduced the commodity–money. In the footnote on page 102 Marx states: “silver and gold, coined or uncoined, though they are used for a measure of all other things, are no less a commodity than wine, oil, tobacco, cloth, or stuffs.” If exchange is what makes commodities go around the world then money, it is said, “makes the world go round!”

CHAPTER FIVE MONEY AND ITS CHANGING NATURE

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. —Timothy 6:10. No complaint is more common than that of a scarcity of money. —Adam Smith

Chapter three of Capital is titled “money or the circulation of commodities”. The chapter discusses in much more detail the specific commodity of money; it is a chapter which is quite difficult to get one’s head around. Marx distinguishes the circulation of commodities from direct barter or simple exchange. He proceeds in painful detail–especially for the reader–to unpack the distinction between the two processes, examining both processes with a tortuous writing style. The wealth of people is measured in money. The poverty of people is measured in money. There are people who have killed for money. There are people who marry for money. Relationships are scarred because of money. Presidents are elected on the backs of huge sums of money. Businesses are set up at home and abroad to make money. Money is sought-after in order to make more money. Capitalists can buy raw materials, tools and humanenergy with money and make commodities that the world supposedly needs and wants. Through such recurring processes, the capitalist can make even more money. Careers are chosen on the basis of money. In many parts of the world, land is made productive in order to make money. For example, with the birth of agricultural capitalism, land-owners evicted people and made land available for sheep farming–an economic program which secured large sums of money for the new owners of the land. In many parts of the world, workers and work are transformed to be more productive in order to make money. Money is loved; the institution of slavery allowed slave dealers to make ship-loads of money. Money is a powerful social indicator of the way we live our lives under the capitalist epoch. There are various views on money, but we all want more of it–no matter our religious, moral or ideological inclinations. For those of us that are fortunate to be employed as physical or mental workers under

Money and its Changing Nature

67

capitalism, dispensing our human-energy on a daily basis, we look forward to the end of the week or the end of the month to get money for the work we have done, whatever the nature of that work. So we exchange a quantity of time–hours, days, weeks, months–for a quantity of money. Almost everyone, at least the employed, carries a wallet in order to allow their money-forms to accompany them to the gas station, to the shop around the corner, to the informal vegetable stall on the way home from work, etc. Those of us who are even more fortunate can exchange our money for lights and water, etc., via the world wide web. As long as we have the right quantity of money, we can get just about any commodity we may need or want, from any part of the world. According to Galbraith (1975: 7): Money is a very old convenience but the notion that it is a reliable artefact to be accepted without scrutiny or question is, in all respects, a very occasional thing–mostly a circumstance of the last century. For some four thousand years earlier, there had been agreement on the use of one or more of the three metals for the purposes of exchange, these being silver, copper, and gold, with silver and gold being also once used in the natural combination called electrum.

There is no better technology than money, and its symbolic forms, to sustain the age-old process of complicated “bartering”. Many objects have served as money since the evolution of a bartering society to an exchange society, eased on by the “invention” of money. That gold became money was acknowledged and accepted. Marx introduced the emergence of money in chapter one, built on its concept in “exchange” in chapter 2, and proceeds by discussing money in much more detail in chapter 3. He commences by discussing money as a “measure of values” and considers this to be the “first chief function of money”. If the thermometer is used to measure temperature, then money is a value-meter that measures the value of commodities: Throughout this work, I assume, for the sake of simplicity, gold as the money-commodity. The first chief function of money is to supply commodities with the material for the expression of their values, or to represent their values as magnitudes of the same denomination, qualitatively equal, and quantitatively comparable. It thus serves as a universal measure of value. And only by virtue of this function does gold, the equivalent commodity par excellence, become money (106).

In the circulation world, or market of commodities, it appears that money is responsible for making commodities equate to each other.

68

Chapter Five

However, it is because commodities are equitable to each other that they can and do find their expression in the money commodity. Since winning over all other money types, gold functions as the ideal traffic cop for exchange, and therefore for the circulation of commodities. Language has evolved out of the need for man to communicate with each other in order to ensure his survival. Signs, symbols, names, labels etc. form an integral component of man’s livelihood strategy. It is through our symbolic, naming and labelling world that we attempt to understand our material world. In the world of commodity exchange, price is the sign, symbol, name or label for money, which in turn is the sign, symbol, name or label for value–which in turn is the sign, symbol, name or label for the quantity of socially necessary human-energy embodied in commodities. Price symbolises money, but is itself not money. The meaning that price “conveys” to man and his fellow man is that of the quantity of money which is equivalent to a said commodity. When one purchases a beer or a pair of shoes, one pays in token money. In the scenario below that Marx has constructed, the owner of a commodity is “compelled” to represent money in a symbolic form, as price. Whether the sum of metallic money exists for the sum represented by the money-symbols in the market is not of concern at this moment in the discussion on money. However, in each of the commodities to be exchanged, there lies a certain quantity of socially necessary human-energy that can only be exchanged with another commodity which has an equal quantity of socially necessary humanenergy embodied in it. It is such equitability that gives rise to the law of exchange. Once this law of exchange is satisfied, the condition for the circulation of commodities is ensured. A person, before taking her commodity to the market, attaches an ideal or imaginary price to it. However, it is in the market that the real price is realised, through consensus, by the different persons engaging in exchange. Whilst the price of a commodity may not always reflect its value, it does however gravitate towards value, if and when supply and demand of a said commodity acquires equilibrium in the market. Whilst price is attached at home, its validity of value is tested in the market. If consensus is reached between traders of commodities, then and only then does price realise itself in money. When commodities enter the market, they shed their clothes and confront each other as naked, socially necessary human-energy. It is their “nakedness”–rather than their “dress”–which determines their attraction to each other, and hence their commensurability or exchangeability with each other: The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable bodily form; it is,

Money and its Changing Nature

69

therefore, a purely ideal or mental form. Although invisible, the value of iron, linen and corn has actual existence in these very articles: it is ideally made perceptible by their equality with gold, a relation that, so to say, exists only in their own heads. Their owner must, therefore, lend them his tongue, or hang a ticket on them, before their prices can be communicated to the outside world. Since the expression of the value of commodities in gold is a merely ideal act, we may use for this purpose imaginary or ideal money. Every trader knows, that he is far from having turned his goods into money, when he has expressed their value in a price or in imaginary money, and that it does not require the least bit of real gold, to estimate in that metal millions of pounds’ worth of goods (107-108).

Gold is the socially acceptable value-meter that measures the value in commodities. Therefore, a small quantity of gold will serve as a valuemeter for a small quantity of value or human-energy in a commodity, and a large quantity of gold will serve as a value-meter for a large quantity of value or human-energy in a commodity, and so on. Having secured itself as the agent and facilitator of exchange, gold’s natural qualities can be further examined by examining what quantity or mass of gold would be required in order for a person to part with his commodity. When a person has in his possession a specific quantity of money, then he has in his possession potential commodities to the same specific value. In other words, he has representatives of commodities to the same specific value. Gold has mass and such mass can be broken up into smaller masses of gold–e.g. 1,000g of gold = 1kg of gold. Two ounces of gold = 0.057kg or 57g of gold. Hence a commodity can be commensurable with a specific quantity of gold, either in ounces, grams, kg, etc. If money was coral, man would be mining the sea to harvest as much coral as he possibly could. But money is gold, and gold must be mined in order for the circulation of commodities to continue. The natural properties of gold allow it to be so configured as to contain an array of pockets of socially necessary humanenergy of varying quantities; hence a very small quantity of gold may be exchanged for a carpet and a much larger quantity of gold may be exchanged for a house. Mining for gold in different countries is mining for the most suitable money–the most suitable agent of exchange. In the quote below, the money-name or money-symbol, “pound”, does not truly signify the mass of gold. It is an example from the social world of the symbol taking on a life of its own. The price name–pound–was in actual fact the name allocated to a mass of silver. So a pound of silver was the valuemeter for the value of commodities that contained the same quantity of socially necessary human-energy. Like a shadow emerging out of, but always attached to its object, the symbolic world grows out of the material world and is the mirror image of this material world. However, sometimes

70

Chapter Five

this mirror image becomes distorted, in the same way that the names of objects do not always reflect the real objects–like when we speak about the value of gold as being two pounds an ounce. However far the money-name becomes removed from the money commodity, it cannot and will not conceal the power of socially necessary human-energy when it comes to finding its exchange partner–whatever symbolic attire such exchange partner may appear in: Hence, in spite of the confusing variety of the commodities themselves, their values become magnitudes of the same denomination, goldmagnitudes. They are now capable of being compared with each other and measured, and the want becomes technically felt of comparing them with some fixed quantity of gold as a unit measure. This unit, by subsequent division into aliquot parts, becomes itself the standard or scale. Before they become money, gold, silver, and copper already possess such standard measures in their standards of weight, so that, for example, a pound weight, while serving as the unit, is, on the one hand, divisible into ounces, and, on the other, may be combined to make up hundredweights. It is owing to this that, in all metallic currencies, the names given to the standards of money or of price were originally taken from the pre-existing names of the standards of weight (109).

Whilst money serves as “a measure of value”, it also serves as “a standard of price”, meaning that money itself has to be sub-divided into its smallest common denominator. Whilst value is a function of the quantity of socially necessary human-energy, the standard of price is the function of the mass of the nominated metal. Hence, we see that mass and humanenergy collude to give money its all-powerful social meaning. Interestingly, Marx uses the concept of “incarnation” to denote the embodiment of socially necessary human-energy in a commodity. Since price is a moneyname, different prices will have different money-names. The value of a pair of shoes, for example, may be of the same value as contained in two pounds of actual silver, or in x ounces of gold, but the “x ounces of gold” will be the price or money-name of this value. If the “second” serves as the unit of measured time, then money serves as a standard of price, with the ounce being its unit of measurement: As measure of Value, and as standard of price, money has two entirely distinct functions to perform. It is the measure of value inasmuch as it is the socially recognised incarnation of human labour; it is the standard of price inasmuch as it is a fixed weight of metal. As the measure of value it serves to convert the values of all the manifold commodities into prices, into imaginary quantities of gold; as the standard of price it measures those quantities of gold. The measure of values measures commodities

Money and its Changing Nature

71

considered as values; the standard of price measures, on the contrary, quantities of gold by a unit quantity of gold, not the value of one quantity of gold by the weight of another. In order to make gold a standard of price, a certain weight must be fixed upon as the unit. In this case, as in all cases of measuring quantities of the same denomination, the establishment of an unvarying unit of measure is all-important. Hence, the less the unit is subject to variation, so much the better does the standard of price fulfil its office. But only in so far as it is itself a product of labour, and, therefore, potentially variable in value, can gold serve as a measure of value (109110).

Under general conditions, a greater mass of gold production will require a greater quantity of socially necessary human-energy. If the value of gold changes, the value of commodities will change accordingly. Since the value of gold influences the price of all commodities, no one commodity will have an advantage over another, since the proportional differences between commodities will remain constant. Hence, this does not alter the function of gold as a measure of value. Therefore, as long as gold is the benchmark by which all commodities are measured, then value and the standard of price may change–but only in relation to and not independent of the change in the value and quantity of gold. A change in the value of gold does not discriminate amongst commodities. If the value of gold drops, the prices of all commodities drop. They will all then have “inferior” prices. If the value of gold rises, the prices of all commodities rises. They will all then have “superior” prices. However, the net equity between commodities remains the same, whether the value of gold increases or decreases. For example, whilst the price of tomatoes and bread may decrease with a decrease in the value of gold, the net difference in the price, if tomatoes were exchanged for bread, will be the same: It is, in the first place, quite clear that a change in the value of gold does not, in any way, affect its function as a standard of price. No matter how this value varies, the proportions between the values of different quantities of the metal remain constant. However great the fall in its value, 12 ounces of gold still have 12 times the value of 1 ounce; and in prices, the only thing considered is the relation between different quantities of gold. Since, on the other hand, no rise or fall in the value of an ounce of gold can alter its weight, no alteration can take place in the weight of its aliquot parts. Thus gold always renders the same service as an invariable standard of price, however much its value may vary (110).

The continuous, socially evolving process of exchange forces society to seek more efficient ways of commodity exchange. It is how money emerged in the first place as an efficient tool for the exchange of

72

Chapter Five

commodities in various places and in various times. This efficiency is further explored by evolving society through the discarding of the money commodity in favour of its mass name, sign, symbol or code. When we take a pound or a dollar note out of our wallets, we think that it is money. We call it money. In reality it is the name for money. It is like calling a picture of a horse a horse, when in fact it is a representation of a horse and not a real horse. However, this discarding of the money commodity seems to occur only at the place of exchange and not as a total discarding of metallic money per se. In the modern era, gold, which was once a money commodity, is held in the many reserve banks of the world–the majority of it being held in Fort Knox in the United States of America. But since the 1970s, symbolic money has been severed from its material base–from its energy home. We should keep in mind that gold was the money used in Marx’s lifetime, and that England was then the economic powerhouse of the world. Strangely, or interestingly, the symbolic world remains intact in the face of a materially fast-changing world. Labels or names are attached to different quantities or aliquots of gold. In the same way we name our children, pets, cars, countries, cities, etc., we also name our money. Some people take their names from nature, others from religious books and so on. The money commodity took its name from the “standards of weight”. Different masses of gold are given various names. The dollar, for example, is the name for “a certain quantity of gold” (Foley, 1986: 23) and “the gold ten-dollar eagle was ordained to contain 24.75 grains of pure gold per dollar” (Galbraith, 1975: 7). Smaller denominations of money, with a view to representing smaller prices, have been allocated legal names such as “shilling”, “penny”, etc.: These historical causes convert the separation of the money-name from the weight-name into an established habit with the community. Since the standard of money is on the one hand purely conventional, and must on the other hand find general acceptance, it is in the end regulated by law. A given weight of one of the precious metals, an ounce of gold, for instance, becomes officially divided into aliquot parts, with legally bestowed names, such as pound, dollar, &c. These aliquot parts, which thenceforth serve as units of money, are then subdivided into other aliquot parts with legal names, such as shilling, penny, &c. But, both before and after these divisions are made, a definite weight of metal is the standard of metallic money. The sole alteration consists in the subdivision and denomination (112).

New money-forms start to replace gold at the place of exchange. Hence, commodities are exchanged for money-forms. At first there was the direct exchange of products. Then gold served as a go-between. Now

Money and its Changing Nature

73

money-forms have taken the place of gold. The real medium of exchange has given way to a symbolic medium of exchange. The money commodity now finds expression in its legally authorised names. By virtue of this fact–we learn that the state is indeed an active and key agent in the world of the circulation of commodities i.e. the market. The market seems to function with the helping hand of the state. The value of a commodity now finds its representation not in its money commodity, but in the name allocated to the money commodity. More specifically, the quantity of socially necessary human-energy no longer finds its expression in the money commodity, but in the symbols allocated to the money commodity. From an energy perspective, I deduce that the names of money are in actual fact the names for quantities of socially necessary human-energy embodied in commodities. So dollars, shillings, pennies, etc. are moneynames for different quantities of socially necessary human-energy embodied in commodities. Hence, £3 17s. 10 1/2d represents an ounce of gold, which in turn represents £3 17s. 10 1/2d of socially necessary human-energy. If a quarter of wheat contains the same quantity of socially necessary human-energy as that of an ounce of gold, then its price or money-name will also be £3 17s. 10 1/2d: The prices, or quantities of gold, into which the values of commodities are ideally changed, are therefore now expressed in the names of coins, or in the legally valid names of the subdivisions of the gold standard. Hence, instead of saying: A quarter of wheat is worth an ounce of gold; we say, it is worth £3 17s. 10 1/2d. In this way commodities express by their prices how much they are worth, and money serves as money of account whenever it is a question of fixing the value of an article in its money-form (113).

Marx proceeds to discuss money as the medium of circulation. It is easier for coins and notes to circulate than it is for gold–especially in a capitalist economy that is decidedly dependent on the speed of movement. Objects which contain less mass move faster than objects which contain more mass. Notes or paper money are lighter than gold, and hence travel much faster. We first encountered money as a measure of value, and thereafter as a standard of price. In the section on “the medium of circulation”, I believe Marx is also attempting to uncover the genesis of the privatisation of money, which started off as a social property, as a “social necessity”. Could this be the door through which “evil” entered the world? In so far as man has a use for commodities, these commodities will find a way of gravitating towards the respective persons who require them for their use-value, and eventually fall out of circulation. When commodities

74

Chapter Five

circulate, we may conclude that matter is circulating. When matter is circulating, we may further conclude that energy is circulating. It is hence an interesting description that economists use, when referring to the quantity of money in the market, when they use the term “liquidity of the market”. I think Einstein’s formula E=mc2, which denotes that energy and mass are inextricably linked, resonates with Marx’s view of the circulation of commodities as “a social circulation of matter”. With the circulation of commodities, there is matter floating and moving about, in, from, and to different places on planet earth. I think that the law of energy conservation is also applicable to the circulation of commodities in the market. As long as different commodities contain the same quantity of human-energy, then they qualify to be replaced with each other in exchange-space. By abiding by this law, the exchange of commodities is made possible: In so far as exchange is a process, by which commodities are transferred from hands in which they are non-use-values, to hands in which they become use-values, it is a social circulation of matter. The product of one form of useful labour replaces that of another. When once a commodity has found a resting-place, where it can serve as a use-value, it falls out of the sphere of exchange into that of consumption. But the former sphere alone interests us at present. We have, therefore, now to consider exchange from a formal point of view; to investigate the change of form or metamorphosis of commodities which effectuates the social circulation of matter (116-117).

Marx proceeds to construct an exchange scenario involving commodities of two different use-values. In the example presented, the exchange process is a relatively simple one, but with money as the go-between. The end result of the exchange is commodities for the purposes of utility or use-value. The sometimes humorous Marx speaks of the market as the place where the “action” takes place. It is where the weaver takes his linen to exchange for a commodity pertaining to his taste. He parts with this linen to a person who has a use for it. However, he first exchanges his linen for a quantity of money, the common representative of his commodity. The owner of the linen parts with it, and the owner of the money parts with his social technology of exchange viz. money. The former owner of the linen now becomes the owner of £2. He is now on the prowl, seeking out his end goal–not to exchange his linen for money, but to get his hands on the good book, probably to secure salvation for himself and his family in the afterlife. That this belief may evidently be unfounded is of no concern in matters regarding the circulation of commodities. Nonetheless, beliefs, whether founded or unfounded, do influence the circulation of commodities. In attaining his end goal viz. the bible, he had

Money and its Changing Nature

75

to perform two functions in the circulation process; one being the conversion of his linen into money and two, the reconversion of money into a bible. Using the law of conservation of energy, we may infer that energy in the mass-form of the linen transformed itself into money, and then emerged in the form of the bible. This example gives us an insight into both the mystery and the brilliance of energy and the laws which govern it. We note that all of the mentioned commodities have different use-values, and it is these that their would-be owners are interested in. But it is their socially necessary quantity of human-energy which enables any of these commodities to be transposed into each other. In the example illustrated by Marx, the person going to the market is the owner of a commodity that he himself has produced viz. the linen. He is the rightful and legal owner of the linen. It is his self-earned property. He has a right to do with it as and when he pleases. The sanctity of “private property” reveals itself in the right of the master to do as he pleases with his slave– never mind that the slave is a man or a woman, and never mind that “all men are born equal”. If “all men are born equal”, then capitalistic private property ensures that some men are more equal than others: Let us now accompany the owner of some commodity–say, our old friend the weaver of linen–to the scene of action, the market. His 20 yards of linen has a definite price, £2. He exchanges it for the £2, and then, like a man of the good old stamp that he is, he parts with the £2 for a family Bible of the same price. The linen, which in his eyes is a mere commodity, a depository of value, he alienates in exchange for gold, which is the linen’s value-form, and this form he again parts with for another commodity, the Bible, which is destined to enter his house as an object of utility and of edification to its inmates. The exchange becomes an accomplished fact by two metamorphoses of opposite yet supplementary character–the conversion of the commodity into money, and the reconversion of the money into a commodity. The two phases of this metamorphosis are both of them distinct transactions of the weaver– selling, or the exchange of the commodity for money; buying, or the exchange of the money for a commodity; and, the unity of the two acts, selling in order to buy. The result of the whole transaction, as regards the weaver, is this, that instead of being in possession of the linen, he now has the Bible; instead of his original commodity, he now possesses another of the same value but of different utility. In like manner he procures his other means of subsistence and means of production. From his point of view, the whole process effectuates nothing more than the exchange of the product of his labour for the product of someone else’s, nothing more than an exchange of products. The exchange of commodities is therefore accompanied by the following changes in their form Commodity–Money– Commodity, C–––––– M ––––––C (118-119).

76

Chapter Five

In so far as this is the case, the circulation of commodities has been terminated: it has come to an end! Circulation is finite! There are no contradictions, no disruptions to the exchange of commodities. The circulation process is not unlimited, boundless or infinite. The “social circulation of matter” abides by the law of conservation of energy; the respective and legal owners exchange their self-earned property and head on home to consume them. There is no crisis of the market of any sort. Each is satisfied with his “catch” for the day. The market is the place where commodities are exchanged and not where value is increased, so no owner of commodities leaves the market with more value than that he arrived with. Each owner of commodities heads on home with different commodities, but they are of the same value as those he had when he first entered the market: The result of the whole process is, so far as concerns the objects themselves, C–C, the exchange of one commodity for another, the circulation of materialised social labour. When this result is attained, the process is at an end (119).

But if owners of commodities go home with their newly acquired commodities, who goes home with the money commodity? If nobody goes home with the money commodity, then where does the money commodity go to? If it rests, where does it rest? For how long does it rest? If it rests for too long, what are the consequences of such prolonged rest on the circulation of commodities? If the money commodity moves, how slow or fast does it move? Or what is its velocity? Bear in mind that gold is the money commodity par excellence. Marx allocates a fair quantity of chapter space to deciphering the first phase of the exchange process, i.e. the transformation of the commodity to its money-form (C–M viz., the first metamorphosis or sale). We also gain an insight into how society evolved to that of a predominantly exchange-value society, spurred on by the social division of work. Objective conditions arise to enable man to access products made by others in society. These products are the offspring of “specialised” natural “substances” found in different geographical locations on planet earth. If the social division of work causes man to produce commodities of a singular nature, then exchange allows man to attain commodities of a pluralistic nature. Man requires other commodities in order to survive, and the technological social tool that he uses in order to access such commodities is that of money, or what I sometimes refer to as a commodity replacement or commodity representative. The owner of money will part with his money if the product on offer will be of use-value or useful to him and his family. Marx

Money and its Changing Nature

77

then proceeds to examine the second part of the exchange process viz. the transformation of the money-form into the commodity-form, or what is commonly called the purchase (M–C). Whilst circulation involves the mechanics of movement of commodities, and the mechanics of the movement of money, money is the energy-medium that allows the mass of energy of the first commodity to be transformed into the mass of energy of the second commodity and so on. Out of this mega ocean of commodities, we seek to pick out those commodities that appeal to our stomachs, our hearts and our minds. The law of conservation of energy thus ensures that no more energy is retrieved in the form of commodities or money than is poured into the process of circulation. Hence, the circulation process cannot produce more money than that which already exists in circulation. So if the circulation process–or the market–cannot produce or create more money than that which was thrown into circulation, then where does the “extra” money come from? From where does surplus-value and profit originate? The circulation of commodities differs from the direct exchange of products (barter), not only in form, but in substance. Only consider the course of events. The weaver has, as a matter of fact, exchanged his linen for a Bible, his own commodity for that of someone else. But this is true only so far as he himself is concerned. The seller of the Bible, who prefers something to warm his inside, no more thought of exchanging his Bible for linen than our weaver knew that wheat had been exchanged for his linen. B’s commodity replaces that of A, but A and B do not mutually exchange those commodities. It may, of course, happen that A and B make simultaneous purchases, the one from the other; but such exceptional transactions are by no means the necessary result of the general conditions of the circulation of commodities. We see here, on the one hand, how the exchange of commodities breaks through all local and personal bounds inseparable from direct barter, and develops the circulation of the products of social labour; and on the other hand, how it develops a whole network of social relations spontaneous in their growth and entirely beyond the control of the actors. It is only because the farmer has sold his wheat that the weaver is enabled to sell his linen, only because the weaver has sold his linen that our Hotspur is enabled to sell his Bible, and only because the latter has sold the water of everlasting life that the distiller is enabled to sell his eau-de-vie [colourless brandy distilled from fermented fruit juice], and so on (126).

Unlike barter, the circulation of commodities becomes ad infinitum. Money proves itself to be the work-horse of commodity circulation. Money is a slave to circulation. It does not rest. In the hurly-burly world of commodity circulation, money allows us to pick out our commodities of

78

Chapter Five

need and want with relative ease. Hence in the absence of money, the “transformation” of commodities into other commodities would be impossible, and it would therefore lead to a total breakdown in the circulation of commodities. Without money, the flow of commodities would grind to a halt. Money is to the circulation of commodities what water is to fish. Remove either and their “dependents” will cease to exist as use-value. In the modern financial system, reserve banks lower interest rates if they wish for money to increase in circulation. As to why money “drops out” of circulation, this is a social phenomenon that will soon be explored: The process of circulation, therefore, does not, like direct barter of products, become extinguished upon the use-values changing places and hands. The money does not vanish on dropping out of the circuit of the metamorphosis of a given commodity. It is constantly being precipitated into new places in the arena of circulation vacated by other commodities. In the complete metamorphosis of the linen, for example, linen–money– Bible, the linen first falls out of circulation, and money steps into its place. Then the Bible falls out of circulation, and again money takes its place. When one commodity replaces another, the money-commodity always sticks to the hands of some third person. Circulation sweats money from every pore (126-127).

The circulation of commodities differs from barter, in that in the latter, the circuit is closed at a particular place, and at a particular exchange-time. Hence one can speak of an energy equilibrium having been achieved in the process of barter. However, in the circulation of commodities, owing to the elasticity of exchange-time and exchange-space, equilibrium is not necessarily reached, especially if the exchange-time between a purchase and a sale becomes too large. It is in order to identify the crisis “needle in the haystack” of commodity circulation that Marx painstakingly dismembered the processes of commodity circulation to the extent that he did, I think. A person can hold onto money in order to exchange it later on for a commodity of choice and of use-value. As to when this will happen, this is a decision made by the owner or possessor of the money. Marx challenges earlier economic thinking about the illusion of the equilibrium nature of a purchase and sale phenomenon involving money. This incorrect thought assumed the form of “Say’s Law” (Harvey, 2010: 66). The economic depressions and recessions occurring during the lifetime of capitalism have put to rest such erroneous science. Just as money shrinks or contracts time and place for commodity acquisition, it could just as well expand time and place as a result of factors beyond its control. People may decide the time and place to purchase, and they may decide the time and

Money and its Changing Nature

79

place to sell. If the expansion in exchange-time and place of exchange is too large, then a money crisis may loom. All previous contradictions which were lying dormant now converge and start to boil and bubble into a real crisis: Nothing can be more childish than the dogma, that because every sale is a purchase, and every purchase a sale, therefore the circulation of commodities necessarily implies an equilibrium of sales and purchases. If this means that the number of actual sales is equal to the number of purchases, it is mere tautology. But its real purport is to prove that every seller brings his buyer to Market with him. Nothing of the kind. The sale and the purchase constitute one identical act, an exchange between a commodity-owner and an owner of money, between two persons as opposed to each other as the two poles of a magnet. They form two distinct acts, of polar and opposite characters, when performed by one single person. Hence the identity of sale and purchase implies that the commodity is useless, if, on being thrown into the alchemistical retort of circulation, it does not come out again in the shape of money; if, in other words, it cannot be sold by its owner, and therefore be bought by the owner of the money. That identity further implies that the exchange, if it does take place, constitutes a period of rest, an interval, long or short, in the life of the commodity. Since the first metamorphosis of a commodity is at once a sale and a purchase, it is also an independent process in itself. The purchaser has the commodity, the seller has the money, i.e., a commodity ready to go into circulation at any time. No one can sell unless someone else purchases. But no one is forthwith bound to purchase, because he has just sold. Circulation bursts through all restrictions as to time, place, and individuals, imposed by direct barter, and this it effects by splitting up, into the antithesis of a sale and a purchase, the direct identity that in barter does exist between the alienation of one’s own and the acquisition of some other man’s product. To say that these two independent and antithetical acts have an intrinsic unity, are essentially one, is the same as to say that this intrinsic oneness expresses itself in an external antithesis. If the interval in time between the two complementary phases of the complete metamorphosis of a commodity become too great, if the split between the sale and the purchase become too pronounced, the intimate connexion between them, their oneness, asserts itself by producing–a crisis. The antithesis, use-value and value; the contradictions that private labour is bound to manifest itself as direct social labour, that a particularised concrete kind of labour has to pass for abstract human labour; the contradiction between the personification of objects and the representation of persons by things; all these antitheses and contradictions, which are immanent in commodities, assert themselves, and develop their modes of motion, in the antithetical phases of the metamorphosis of a commodity. These modes therefore imply the possibility, and no more than the possibility, of crises. The conversion of this mere possibility into a reality

80

Chapter Five is the result of a long series of relations, that, from our present standpoint of simple circulation, have as yet no existence (127-128).

In the 21st century financial world, money is usually referred to as “currency”. However, Marx refers to the course or path taken by money in the circulation process as “currency”. For Marx, the purchase and sale of commodities is process and flow-oriented. What money does is to displace a use-value commodity from the hands of owners that no longer have use for it and to replace it with another commodity that does have a use-value to the owners. In the exchange process, commodities “melt away” their form and reappear in a different form on the other end. Whereas commodities have use-value in the hands of the buyer and no use-value in the circulation process, money has use-value in the circulation process and no use-value in the hands of the hoarder. Marx probes further into the circulation process through a mathematical lens: he starts to look at the circulation process in terms of quantities of commodities and quantities of money. Commodities drop out of circulation, but money is the medium of circulation. Given that the purpose of exchange is to access commodities for their use-values, it stands to reason that the quantity of commodities will continue to decrease as a result of the consumption of such commodities. That being the general trend, Marx proceeds to analyse what quantity of money would be required for the circulation of commodities at any given circulation time. This is indeed a brain-wracking process and one that Marx continued with, even in the midst of extreme livelihood challenges. His mathematical and accounting brain was at work. He categorised the circulation process into two parts: that of the commodities for money viz. sales, and that of money for commodities viz. purchases. However, the sale and purchases of commodities may take place in series or in parallel forms. By working out the prices of all the commodities in a given country, an estimate of the quantity of money required in order for the circulation of commodities to take place can be worked out. The volume of exchange determines “the quantity of money needed to carry out the circulation of commodities” (Brewer, 1984: 31). The quantity of money in circulation depends on the value of gold. Since the value of gold is dependent on the quantity of socially necessary human-energy embodied in gold, then the total value of gold in circulation must equal the total value of the commodities in circulation. If this is not the case then a crisis will emerge. The speed or velocity of money is equal to the number of moves divided by the circulation time of such commodities. The velocity of money is also a powerful indicator of the strength of an economy. Money that moves fast is indicative of a strong economy. Money that moves slowly is indicative of an economy that is slowing

Money and its Changing Nature

81

down. The quantity of money is equal to the sum of the prices divided by the number of moves that the money makes in the circulation process. One of the methods employed by capitalism to accumulate is to increase the velocity of commodities; it does this by increasing the speed at which money moves or travels. In days gone by, it could take many hours to make a payment. However, with the technological ability of money to move in energy form through the world wide web, money is able to move at break-neck speed, and payment can be made within seconds in clock time. Contrary to the view held by political economy, Marx emphasises that it is the sum of the price of commodities which determines the quantity of money in circulation, and not the quantity of money in circulation which determines the prices of commodities: The law, that the quantity of the circulating medium is determined by the sum of the prices of the commodities circulating, and the average velocity of currency may also be stated as follows: given the sum of the values of commodities, and the average rapidity of their metamorphoses, the quantity of precious metal current as money depends on the value of that precious metal. The erroneous opinion that it is, on the contrary, prices that are determined by the quantity of the circulating medium, and that the latter depends on the quantity of the precious metals in a country; this opinion was based by those who first held it, on the absurd hypothesis that commodities are without a price, and money without a value, when they first enter into circulation, and that, once in the circulation, an aliquot part of the medley of commodities is exchanged for an aliquot part of the heap of precious metals (138-139).

Marx has thus far discussed the oscillating nature of money–from its material form to its symbolic forms–as a result of the “social necessity” of a transforming society. We should keep in mind that the transformation of society is a function of energy and not of time, although we often say, or sing, in the colloquial that “the times they are a changing”. In the section on “means of payment”, Marx traces “future money” or credit to the constraints presented by exchange as a result of the differences in production times, changing seasons, etc. There may emerge a difference between the production time of a commodity and the payment time for such a commodity. In other instances, the exchange economy does allow for immediate “exchange”, as in the case of a house, but with money exchanged over a longer period of time. In the hunter-gatherer society, man did not expend large quantities of his human-energy constructing a house for himself and his family. In a more materially developed society, only a very rich man or woman can exchange money for a house at the

82

Chapter Five

same time. The majority of people have to rely on “future-money” or credit: In the simple form of the circulation of commodities hitherto considered, we found a given value always presented to us in a double shape, as a commodity at one pole, as money at the opposite pole. The owners of commodities came therefore into contact as the respective representatives of what were already equivalents. But with the development of circulation, conditions arise under which the alienation of commodities becomes separated, by an interval of time, from the realisation of their prices. It will be sufficient to indicate the most simple of these conditions. One sort of article requires a longer, another a shorter time for its production. Again, the production of different commodities depends on different seasons of the year (151).

Money first evolved out of the social evolution of trading amongst nomads. With the development of trade, we also observe the continuing evolution of money itself. It has come a long way since its function as a “measure of value”, as a “medium of circulation” and a “standard of price”. Money also functions as a “means of payment”. Credit or “future money” requires the expenditure of “future” human-energy. The many people who cannot immediately exchange cash for commodities use futuremoney to purchase commodities. They usually pay their debts at the end of the month–in the future. There are hundreds of millions of people who possess credit cards, who can “buy now and pay later”. Future money does indeed have magical qualities! Nothing like credit, with interest, to catapult one’s mind into the illusion of a brighter future–however many lifestyle books attempt to convince man that he should strive to live in the moment. Credit or future-money coerces man to “live in the future”, no matter how unnatural or alienating this is to the human species. The Outstanding Public Debt of the United States of America is about 18.5 trillion dollars! The estimated population of the United States is 320 million, so each citizen’s share of this debt is about $58,000. In energy terms, this means that the human-energy of America’s children will have to be harnessed in order to pay off this debt in the future. Many countries have, in effect, placed the human-energy of their children in debt. By artificially creating “money” and lending to people, it is assumed that people will work and build up a value to match the quantity of “money” borrowed. When this happens, we see the scam for what it is: trying to stimulate the creation of value by using artificial money, instead of real money representing actually existing value. The circulation of commodities becomes saturated with artificial money representing zero value. Capitalism has converted hundreds of millions of people into credit

Money and its Changing Nature

83

slaves. In the following passage, Marx uncovers the damaging effects of unending credit on the economy. If money is a means of payment, then it also needs a medium for this payment; otherwise a contradiction becomes embedded in the circulation process. In common parlance in the modern world, this contradiction is known as a bubble–an example being that of the housing bubble that led to the 2008 financial crisis in the USA. Its domino effect on the world’s economy was obvious. In their quest to “make money”, banks offered Americans house commodities on credit, without ensuring that this credit could be honoured by the buyers of these house commodities. This has come to be known as “NINJA loans: no income, no job, no assets, meaning that the borrower does not have to undergo a credit check in advance of the loan being approved” (Posner, 2009: 23). The banks had in effect handed out housing on the premise that the buyers would continue to expend their human-energy in the economy over a period of time, and in this way secure a reservoir of human-energy in money form. After all, banks are, in the final analysis, repositories of large quantities of human-energy in the form of gold. I put forward the thesis that a monetary crisis indicates the violation of the first law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of conservation of energy. The “creation” of money is indeed an attempt at the “creation” of humanenergy if symbolic or fiat money is not matched by real money. A financial crisis is hence a violent reaction to the fraudulent or artificial creation of human-energy in the form of fiat money. As depositors queue in front of banks to demand their money during so-called bank runs, they come to realise that there is no money; that money has been “wiped out”. Money can only be “wiped out” if it was not there in the first place! That a financial crisis occurs indicates that the circulation of commodities is an attempt at reasserting the energy equilibrium in a capitalist society. Under the credit system, money serves only as the embodiment of a specific quantity of potential human-energy. It does not serve as a “means of circulation” nor as a “measure of value” nor as a “means of purchase”, but as a “means of payment” of a specific quantity of potential human-energy. In the absence of an energy equilibrium, the circulation process experiences a crisis. During the 2008 financial crisis, the United States of America used tax-payers’ money–social money–to pay for the continuation of private businesses to benefit private individuals–mostly the owners of such businesses. If the “invisible hand” is believed to be the market’s “Lady Justice” in the exchange process, then society’s “blind faith” in the capitalistic market becomes shockingly evident during a financial crisis. Just like oxygen is vital for the metabolic processes of the human body, money is vital for the metabolic process of exchange in

84

Chapter Five

society. If either is deficient, then their metabolic processes are threatened with crisis–the former a health crisis, the latter a financial or monetary crisis: The function of money as the means of payment implies a contradiction without a terminus medius. In so far as the payments balance one another, money functions only ideally as money of account, as a measure of value. In so far as actual payments have to be made, money does not serve as a circulating medium, as a mere transient agent in the interchange of products, but as the individual incarnation of social labour, as the independent form of existence of exchange-value, as the universal commodity. This contradiction comes to a head in those phases of industrial and commercial crises which are known as monetary crises. Such a crisis occurs only where the ever-lengthening chain of payments, and an artificial system of settling them, has been fully developed. Whenever there is a general and extensive disturbance of this mechanism, no matter what its cause, money becomes suddenly and immediately transformed, from its merely ideal shape of money of account, into hard cash. Profane commodities can no longer replace it. The use-value of commodities becomes valueless, and their value vanishes in the presence of its own independent form. On the eve of the crisis, the bourgeois, with the self-sufficiency that springs from intoxicating prosperity, declares money to be a vain imagination. Commodities alone are money. But now the cry is everywhere: money alone is a commodity! As the hart pants after fresh water, so pants his soul after money, the only wealth. In a crisis, the antithesis between commodities and their value-form, money, becomes heightened into an absolute contradiction. Hence, in such events, the form under which money appears is of no importance. The money famine continues, whether payments have to be made in gold or in credit money such as bank-notes (154-156).

In the section on “universal money”, Marx states that within the domestic economy, money-forms have different colours, shapes, sizes and symbols. However, in the sphere of international trade, national money gives way to the real money commodity, i.e. gold. However, since the latter part of the 20th century, the American dollar has been the international standard of money: When money leaves the home sphere of circulation, it strips off the local garbs which it there assumes, of a standard of prices, of coin, of tokens, and of a symbol of value, and returns to its original form of bullion. In the trade between the markets of the world, the value of commodities is expressed so as to be universally recognised. Hence their independent value-form also, in these cases, confronts them under the shape of universal money. It is only in the markets of the world that money acquires

Money and its Changing Nature

85

to the full extent the character of the commodity whose bodily form is also the immediate social incarnation of human labour in the abstract. Its real mode of existence in this sphere adequately corresponds to its ideal concept (159).

In the chapter on “money or the circulation of commodities”, Marx takes the reader through many pages of analysis. Money has come a long way since Marx’s lifetime, where gold was the socially recognised money. According to Galbraith (1975: 42-43): “Keynes calculated in 1930 that an ocean liner could carry across the Atlantic all that had been mined, worked or dredged in the previous seven thousand years.” But the pursuit of gold has a rather chequered history. Whilst gold was the ideal money, its history has not been ideal. For a ship-load of gold, the world has been “turned upside down” for thousands of years. If gold had made the circulation of commodities convenient, then it had also made the lives of millions of people a “living hell”. According to Vigna and Casey (2015: 25): Through history, blood has been spilled, lands have been conquered, and nations have been built and destroyed in the pursuit of this shiny material thing. All of that illustrious and at times ugly history stems from the fact that societies from early on recognised gold as an excellent, practical currency and store of value, one that fulfilled a host of key qualities needed for that monetary purpose.

We see money and money-forms evolving to take on numerous functions in relation to the transforming nature of a complex trading society. From the humble beginnings of money in the form of shells, salt, cattle, tobacco, etc., gold outshone all other forms of money to become the money for exchange, and therefore for the circulation of commodities embodying human-energy. When it did become the ideal form, “blood, sweat and tears” followed it almost everywhere. With the rise of the United States of America as a superpower of the world in the 20th century, the dollar replaced gold as the international monetary standard, but gold was still available in banking vaults to be collected on demand, at least until 1971. Post World War Two, the Allies met in July of 1944 and decided that “the international reserve currency would be the dollar rather than gold. However the link to gold as money was severed in 1971 by the Nixon government. The dollar could no longer be converted to gold on demand” (Ferguson, 2009: 306). Exchange came to be dependent on trust, and more specifically, in the capitalist ideology, “In God we Trust”. Such blind faith should have gone out of the window with the 2008 financial crisis. The wonder of money and its evolution is that man, instead of

86

Chapter Five

continuously and inconveniently carrying around a bundle of goods, carries a wallet of money. Therefore at any historical time, on the world stage, we have the circulation of pockets of human-energy of varying quantities, attempting to serve as match-makers for their new owners. With the continuing evolution of money, will money be measured in joules of energy? After all, money’s primary function is its representation of quantities of socially necessary human-energy embodied in commodities. We already see money moving in an energy medium, an example being electronic money. Instead of the dollar or the yuan or gold, will society have the joule as the unit of money at a future point in its economic transformation? At the beginning of the 21st century, the latest currency to enter the world of the circulation of commodities–as a result of the 2008 financial crisis–is the bitcoin. With mainstream economic science not being able to predict monetary crises, “social necessity” means that a new money-form is required: Cryptocurrency’s rapid development is in some ways a quirk of history: launched in the throes of the 2008 financial crisis, bitcoin offered an alternative to a system–the existing financial system–that was blowing itself up and threatening to take a few billion people down with it (Vigna and Casey, 2015: 13).

In the 21st century, money has been transformed from its mass form to reveal its energy form. One apparently has to possess an electronic wallet in order to use bitcoins as a virtual medium of exchange. With regards to money in capitalist society, it is indeed the case that “all that is solid melts into air”. Marx wrote Chapter 3 in an extremely detailed style, due precisely to the fact that the “devil is in the detail”. Marx, it seems, was looking for the “needle in the haystack”; he was searching for the kernel of contradictions that he believed may be the source of all other contradictions in previous societies in general, and capitalist society in particular. It seems that this kernel of contradiction lies in the evolving nature of money–both organic and inorganic–and particularly in the circulation of commodities. Evil, it seems, is not “bred in the bone”, but has emerged out of the complexities of the exchange processes of the circulation of commodities; out of “social necessity”. Brilliant, clever, wonderful money has become evil–through no fault of its own. Mankind is tainted with this evilness–also through no fault of its own. Greed, it seems, is made in history and not in nature. The unintended consequences of the circulation of commodities continue to destroy and reconstruct society on its path to ridding itself of this core contradiction. In Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, Shylock the money-lender demands a pound of

Money and its Changing Nature

87

Antonia’s flesh if the latter fails to pay the loan of 3,000 ducats on the stipulated date; you might say, a demand for a pound, or the literal quantity, of the mass of a man’s human-energy: This kindness will I show Go with me to a notary, seal me there Your single bond; and, in a merry sport, If you repay me not on such a day In such a place, such sum or sums as are Express’d in the condition, let the forfeit Be nominated for an equal pound Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken In what part of your body pleaseth me

Money has demonstrated its versatility in performing transformative roles, as a “medium of circulation”, as a “measure of value”, as a “standard of price”, and as a “means of payment”. The brilliance of money, it seems, is its ability to transform itself into capital. Having identified money as the first form by which capital makes itself known to the world, Marx decrypts the processes by which money is transformed into capital. Having commenced with an analysis of the commodity, he continues with a layer-by-layer analysis of capital accumulation.

CHAPTER SIX THE TRANSFORMATION OF MONEY INTO CAPITAL

It is not the creation of wealth that is wrong but the love of money for its own sake. —Margaret Thatcher No man shall sell a thing to another man for more than its worth. —Thomas Aquinas

This chapter is based on part 2 of Capital, which is titled “Transformation of Money into Capital”. I have condensed the three chapters (“The General Formula for Capital”, “The Contradictions in the General Formula for Capital” and “The Buying and Selling of LabourPower”) into a single chapter in this book. Capital in the 21st century takes on many forms: money, land, buildings, businesses, etc. Poverty also takes on many forms: no money, no land, no jobs, no food, no housing, no tools, no income, etc. There are rich countries and there are poor countries. There are rich cities and there are poor cities. There are rich people and there are poor people. Businesses producing commodities and markets selling or exchanging commodities are a common feature on planet earth. Poverty is also a common feature on planet earth. Whilst capitalism is the hegemonic system in the world, not all the peoples of the world are capitalists, although all people may wish to have lots of money to ease the harshness of capitalist life. There are capitalists and there are workers–a much greater quantity of the latter. There are hundreds of millions of people commuting to work, by foot, bicycle, motorbike, train, bus, car, etc., on a daily basis in order to earn a livelihood. They do not own business companies that make linen, or coats, or cloth, or bibles, or brandy, etc., to exchange in the market. But they do depend on businesses to make such commodities and on the markets to be able to access all of these commodities. Where people once lived off the land, they now depend on businesses to provide them with their needs and wants. But money is integral to both workers and capitalists. The one needs it in order

The Transformation of Money into Capital

89

to access a ration of commodities on a regular basis, the other to make more money and grow his business so as to make even more money. In many parts of the world, banks lend out money to promising entrepreneurs in order to start up their businesses, grow them and make more money. All businesses invest large quantities of money in order to expand their market-shares, with the aim of making more money. Whilst the US dollar is the money standard in world trade, there are hundreds of different money-forms serving as mediums of exchange in the world: pound, yen, yuan, ruble, euro, kroner, rupee, deutschmark, rand, baht, etc. Money rules the world. Money is the universal commodity. Money is intoxicating. Money is security. Money is power. However, we recall that: money, it is conventional to argue, is a medium of exchange, which has the advantage of eliminating inefficiencies of barter; a unit of account, which facilitates valuation and calculation; and a store of value, which allows economic transactions to be conducted over long periods as well as geographical distances (Ferguson, 2009: 24-25)

and that: money, too, makes life much easier than negotiating a barter transaction every time you want to buy coffee, although it is an invented placeholder for the things we value, not something we value in and of itself (Callender, 2012: 21).

Well the capitalistic truth is that money has become “something we value in and of itself”. What Margaret Thatcher may not have understood (or refused to understand) as her economic and foreign policies destroyed the livelihoods of working class families is that under capitalism, wealth accumulation is dependent on the “love of money for its own sake”. One can argue that the means and end dichotomy is a perversion of money under capitalism, but money is social power. Our love for money is one of the big mysteries of life. It is easy for those who have it to pronounce that money cannot buy happiness. But for those who do not have money, happiness may be a scarce “commodity”. The 2008 financial crisis has reignited the debate on the creation of wealth, and I would say the creation of poverty as well. Math has been invoked to describe the rich as the 1%, the few with loads of money, and the poor as the 99%, the many with very little or no money. If money is a mere “medium of exchange” of commodities in circulation, how has it come to be the wealth of people who then assume the role of capitalists? If all the money in circulation represents all of the commodities in circulation, then where does all the “extra money” come from? How did businesses come into the business of

90

Chapter Six

making money and why? Why do businesses wish to acquire objects which are really the “medium of circulation”, the “measure of value”, the “standard of price”, and the “means of payment”? For Marx, the making of wealth and poverty is not a recipe from heaven, but a very earthly production. We may not all be capitalists as such, but we do know how to grow our money, not dissimilar to a good capitalist who ventures into the terrain of profit-seeking. We see our money grow when we hand it over to banks. If we deposit $100 into the bank we may see our $100 grow into $105 dollars over a period of deposit time, we will assume over a period of one year. We shop around for a good retirement annuity, hoping that the money we hand over now will grow into a bigger fund upon retirement, when we may not be as productive to capitalism as when younger. We also invest our money in stock markets with the hope that our shares and hence our money will grow in size. Capitalists invest their money in businesses in order to get out more money than they put in. We all learn at some point in our lives that the aim of a business is to make a profit. Money, it appears, has the mysterious ability to give birth to more money! However, if money could grow then there would not have been a need for the US government to use social or communal money to bail out private businesses just because private money refused to grow during the 2008 financial crisis. Let us travel into the mind of the “millennium’s greatest thinker”, so as to get a glimpse as to how more money is produced than the quantity which is put into the circulation process. Marx argues that capital is realised with the circulation of commodities. Apart from all of its other functions, we see that money also begins to function as capital. According to Appleby (2010: 6): Capital is money destined for a particular use. Money can be socked away in the mattress for a rainy day or spent at the store. Either way, it is still money. It becomes capital only when someone invests it in an enterprise with the expectation of getting a good return from the effort. Stated simply, capital becomes capital when someone uses it to gain more money, usually by producing something.

The producer of that “something” is the worker. When workers go to work, they do so with the aim of earning money. When the capitalist takes his commodities to market, he intends to get more money than that which he put in. Hence society has transformed leaps and bounds since commodities were exchanged for commodities. We now live in a society, a major feature of whose character is that commodities are exchanged for money. The market realises the money that enables the accumulation of capital. Marx traces the beginnings of modern capitalism to the 1500s.

The Transformation of Money into Capital

91

About 200 years later, Adam Smith would write The Wealth of Nations, a book that would become the bible of capitalism. Marx reminds us that capitalism is recent in its historical making. In Capital, he states: The circulation of commodities is the starting-point of capital. The production of commodities, their circulation, and that more developed form of their circulation called commerce, these form the historical ground-work from which it rises. The modern history of capital dates from the creation in the 16th century of a world-embracing commerce and a world-embracing Market (163).

Capital first appears in the form of money. The popular and mainstream economic narrative is that money is increased when a purchaser pays more than what it costs to produce a commodity, and the more in demand the commodity is, the more a customer is willing to pay for it. In Capital, Marx goes back to the circulation of commodities in order to scrutinise how money appears to give birth to more money. The transformation of money into capital occurs in the process of the circulation of commodities, where money and not the use-value commodity is the goal of circulation. Money is sought after as an end in itself. As long as the circulation follows the form of M-C-M instead of C-M-C, then money, according to Marx, has the potential to be transformed into capital: The simplest form of the circulation of commodities is C-M-C, the transformation of commodities into money, and the change of the money back again into commodities; or selling in order to buy. But alongside of this form we find another specifically different form: M-C-M, the transformation of money into commodities, and the change of commodities back again into money; or buying in order to sell. Money that circulates in the latter manner is thereby transformed into, becomes capital, and is already potentially capital (164).

There is a difference between use-value circulation and exchangevalue circulation. The former starts with a commodity and the latter starts with money. The former ends with a commodity and the latter ends with money. The former is mediated by money and the latter is mediated by a commodity. The former is a closed system of circulation, the latter an open system of circulation. In a similar manner to that in which a commodity does not, on its own, increase in quantity whilst in the circulation process, money too does not, on its own, increase in quantity whilst in the circulation process. In either case, the circulation process does not abide by a “law of magic”. Hence we have to look elsewhere than the sphere of circulation in order to understand the presence of surplus-value in the

92

Chapter Six

circulation process. In the following passage, we begin to see the green shoots of capital formation, when a use-value society begins to transform itself into a predominantly exchange-value society. Money, the means, transforms into money, the beginning and end goal of economic life, under capitalism: In the circulation C-M-C, the money is in the end converted into a commodity, that serves as a use-value; it is spent once for all. In the inverted form, M-C-M, on the contrary, the buyer lays out money in order that, as a seller, he may recover money. By the purchase of his commodity he throws money into circulation, in order to withdraw it again by the sale of the same commodity. He lets the money go, but only with the sly intention of getting it back again. The money, therefore, is not spent, it is merely advanced (165-166).

Marx further highlights that the difference between circulation of commodities and that of money is that in the former, exchange is based on its qualitative nature whereas in the latter, the focus is on its quantitative nature. For example, one may exchange linen for a bible, but never for linen–hence it is the qualitative nature of such commodities that makes them attractive to their would-be consumers. However, one never exchanges $100 for $100, but one would advance $100 if one is assured to get back $110. In this case, it is not the qualitative nature of the circulation that is of importance to the capitalist, but that of its quantitative nature. The mystery, though, is: how does $100 transform itself into $110? Is it not obvious that in the act of exchange, if a person gains an extra $10, then someone has to lose $10? If we accept the law of equality in the exchange process, then the question is: where does the surplus $10 come from? Marx denotes this change in the quantity of original money as M‫ޖ‬, where M‫ ޖ‬represents an increase in the quantity of money, which he refers to as surplus-value. It is the accumulation of surplus-value, in money form, which gives birth to capital and continues to expand capital. Hence the logic of a business is always to make a profit. Upon leaving the hands of the capitalist, the commodity realises value in money form, larger than the quantity of money that the capitalist laid out at the beginning for the production of the commodity. His investment has paid off handsomely, or beautifully. The owner of the money has managed to transform his money into capital. Whilst it is commodities or money which appear to form the centrality of the circulation process, it is human-energy embodied in commodities and human-energy represented by money which is really central in the circulation process. But more human-energy, its representation being money, does seem to appear at the end of the circulation process

The Transformation of Money into Capital

93

characterised by M-C-M‫ޖ‬. At the end of each circulation process there is a “change in M”, i.e. more money. Any exchange that results in the same quantity of money being exchanged for the same quantity of money is a pointless exercise in exchange: In the simple circulation of commodities, the two extremes of the circuit have the same economic form. They are both commodities, and commodities of equal value. But they are also use-values differing in their qualities, as, for example, corn and clothes. The exchange of products, of the different materials in which the labour of society is embodied, forms here the basis of the movement. It is otherwise in the circulation M-C-M, which at first sight appears purposeless, because tautological. Both extremes have the same economic form. They are both money, and therefore are not qualitatively different use-values; for money is but the converted form of commodities, in which their particular use-values vanish. To exchange £100 for cotton, and then this same cotton again for £100, is merely a roundabout way of exchanging money for money, the same for the same, and appears to be an operation just as purposeless as it is absurd. One sum of money is distinguishable from another only by its amount. The character and tendency of the process M-C-M, is therefore not due to any qualitative difference between its extremes, both being money, but solely to their quantitative difference. More money is withdrawn from circulation at the finish than was thrown into it at the start. The cotton that was bought for £100 is perhaps resold for £100 + £10 or £110. The exact form of this process is therefore M-C-M', where M' = M + D M = the original sum advanced, plus an increment. This increment or excess over the original value I call “surplus-value.” The value originally advanced, therefore, not only remains intact while in circulation, but adds to itself a surplus-value or expands itself. It is this movement that converts it into capital (167-168).

Marx reminds us that “the simple circulation of commodities” is about people drawing out use-values from the circulation medium. However, under capitalism, the intention of the capitalist is to draw out exchangevalue, specifically more money than was put into circulation. With more money as the end aim, the circulation process assumes a limitless form. Its workings are predicated on infiniteness. Its goals are never-ending. Its logic is growth at all costs. Its aim is incessant profit. Its main aim is ceaseless capital accumulation: The simple circulation of commodities - selling in order to buy - is a means of carrying out a purpose unconnected with circulation, namely, the appropriation of use-values, the satisfaction of wants. The circulation of money as capital is, on the contrary, an end in itself, for the expansion of

94

Chapter Six value takes place only within this constantly renewed movement. The circulation of capital has therefore no limits (169-170).

So long as a person organises his life and his lifetime such that constantly acquiring money becomes his primary aim, then he becomes capital personified. A person is a capitalist who makes it his or her life’s aim to make money from the exchange of commodities. Whereas the miser hoards money, a capitalist advances money in order to acquire more. Due to the money-form of wealth, we gain insights into the boundlessness and infiniteness of capitalist accumulation. Capitalism is not conservative–it is radical! Its goal becomes limitless and its operations expansionist. The capitalist’s success in life is measured in material riches: the wealthier he is, the more he and others view his life as successful. But because the money-form of wealth is limitless, he views his life as less successful. Hence he has to constantly acquire more riches in order to validate himself. The presence of the poor man in society constantly reminds the rich man about his good fortune and success. The presence of the wealthier man in society constantly reminds him about his less fortunate and less successful standing in society. Capitalist man pines after money–a commodity that is a “medium of circulation”, a “measure of value”, a “standard of price”, and a “means of payment”. But money is also social power. It is the universal commodity. For the capitalist, the circulation or exchange process is not one for the accessing of use-value commodities, but one from which to draw money on a continuous basis: Thus the conscious representative of this movement, the possessor of money becomes a capitalist. His person, or rather his pocket, is the point from which the money starts and to which it returns. The expansion of value, which is the objective basis or main-spring of the circulation M-CM, becomes his subjective aim, and it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist, that is, as capital personified and endowed with consciousness and a will. Use-values must therefore never be looked upon as the real aim of the capitalist; neither must the profit on any single transaction. The restless never-ending process of profit-making alone is what he aims at. This boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase after exchange-value, is common to the capitalist and the miser; but while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser. The never-ending augmentation of exchange-value, which the miser strives after, by seeking to save his money from circulation, is attained by the more acute capitalist, by constantly throwing it afresh into circulation (170-171).

The Transformation of Money into Capital

95

Marx proceeds to discuss the “contradictions to the general formula of capital”, which forms chapter five of Capital. Simple circulation deviates from the capitalist form of circulation, in that the former is concerned with use-value and the latter with exchange-value. The law of exchange of equivalents of simple circulation is now applied to the capitalist form of circulation. The view made popular by political economy and mainstream economic science is that capitalism is based on equality and freedom, whilst also maintaining exchange processes that result in more money for the capitalist. Marx accepts the law of equivalents in exchange. He also accepts that it is during the circulation of commodities that money is transformed into capital. However, contrary to political economy doctrine, Marx maintains that the circulation process does not produce any more money than that which was put into circulation. The law of exchange is premised on the exchange of equivalents. If there is gain, then there exists loss. Such is the contradiction which exists in political economy and mainstream economic science. There might be deviations from a commodity’s natural price or value, but this is the exception to the rule rather than the norm: Abstractedly considered, that is, apart from circumstances not immediately flowing from the laws of the simple circulation of commodities, there is in an exchange nothing (if we except the replacing of one use-value by another) but a metamorphosis, a mere change in the form of the commodity. The same exchange-value, i.e., the same quantity of incorporated social labour, remains throughout in the hands of the owner of the commodity, first in the shape of his own commodity, then in the form of the money for which he exchanged it, and lastly, in the shape of the commodity he buys with that money. This change of form does not imply a change in the magnitude of the value. But the change, which the value of the commodity undergoes in this process, is limited to a change in its money-form. This form exists first as the price of the commodity offered for sale, then as an actual sum of money, which, however, was already expressed in the price, and lastly, as the price of an equivalent commodity. This change of form no more implies, taken alone, a change in the quantity of value, than does the change of a £5 note into sovereigns, half sovereigns and shillings. So far therefore as the circulation of commodities effects a change in the form alone of their values, and is free from disturbing influences, it must be the exchange of equivalents. Little as VulgarEconomy knows about the nature of value, yet whenever it wishes to consider the phenomena of circulation in their purity, it assumes that supply and demand are equal, which amounts to this, that their effect is nil. If therefore, as regards the use-values exchanged, both buyer and seller may possibly gain something, this is not the case as regards the exchangevalues. Here we must rather say, ‘Where equality exists there can be no

96

Chapter Six gain.’ It is true, commodities may be sold at prices deviating from their values, but these deviations are to be considered as infractions of the laws of the exchange of commodities, which in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing value (176-177).

Marx uses a hypothetical situation to dismiss the stubborn myth that surplus-value emanates from the circulation process as a result of supply and demand. He argues that if the seller sells at a profit, then all sellers will sell at a profit. However, if this was indeed the case, then this would leave the buyer less than what the commodity actually cost. This would mean that the buyer stands in absolute opposition to the seller. However, in the world of commodity exchange, the seller is not only a seller but a buyer as well. Hence if his role as a seller is to make a profit, then his role as a buyer would then mean that the person who sells to him will also have to make a profit. This would therefore mean that the former is first in an advantageous position in terms of profit-making, and subsequently in a disadvantageous position in terms of absorbing a loss. Hence net profit as a seller and net loss as a buyer cancel each other out, thereby pronouncing that the circulation of commodities is in reality the exchange of net equivalents. Neither the buyer nor the seller loses or gains, but in the final analysis, they engage in an exchange of equivalents. Marx dismisses outright the notion that surplus-value can be attained because buyers can buy at below the cost of production, or because sellers can sell at above the cost of production. The notion of buying cheap and selling expensive can only take place in a society that is split along the lines of absolute buyers and absolute sellers. In one way or another, all members of society are both buyers and sellers. Hence in the final analysis, nobody loses and nobody gains–the net result is the same: Suppose then, that by some inexplicable privilege, the seller is enabled to sell his commodities above their value, what is worth 100 for 110, in which case the price is nominally raised 10%. The seller therefore pockets a surplus-value of 10. But after he has sold he becomes a buyer. A third owner of commodities comes to him now as seller, who in this capacity also enjoys the privilege of selling his commodities 10% too dear. Our friend gained 10 as a seller only to lose it again as a buyer. The net result is, that all owners of commodities sell their goods to one another at 10% above their value, which comes precisely to the same as if they sold them at their true value. Such a general and nominal rise of prices has the same effect as if the values had been expressed in weight of silver instead of in weight of gold. The nominal prices of commodities would rise, but the real relation between their values would remain unchanged (179).

The Transformation of Money into Capital

97

Surplus-value does not emanate from the circulation of commodities or the market, although this is the sphere in which it reveals, realises or objectifies itself. The circulation of commodities is just that–circulation! Since commodities are exchanged, because of their equal quantities of human-energy per measured time, and money expresses that equitable quantity of human-energy, there cannot be an increase in value; neither can there be a decrease in value. After all, the circulation of commodities abides by the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value (181-182).

If the market does not generate more value than that which it absorbs, then from where does the surplus-value emanate? Marx proceeds to zoom in on the commodity that he believes is the source of value, and must also be the source of surplus-value, and therefore of profit. For the hundreds of millions of people commuting to work, by foot, bicycle, motorbike, train, bus, car, etc., on a daily basis, in order to earn a livelihood, those who do not own companies that make linen, or coats, or cloth, or bibles, or brandy, etc. to sell in the market, still possess a commodity that they exchange in the market. They exchange their commodity for money on a regular and continual basis. This commodity is human-energy, which Marx refers to as labour-power. We recall that energy is the capacity to do work, and human-energy is therefore purchased by the capitalist for precisely the reason of putting this human-energy to work. In Marx’s words: labourpower is the “capacity for labour”. In other words, labour-power is not labour. We recall that money merely realises the value and price of a commodity, and is not the cause of this value. Any change in value has to take place in the use-value sphere of economic society. Human-energy is the “vital force” that allows man to work. Through a variety of energy transformations in the human body, human-energy enables the worker to move hand and leg to work in order to produce and reproduce for himself and his family. Human-energy is that commodity which the capitalist finds in the market, and which has the unique and natural quality of creating use-value, value and surplus-value. If money is the fruit of a tree, then human-energy is the water and nutrients in the soil which feed the roots of that tree:

98

Chapter Six The change of value that occurs in the case of money intended to be converted into capital, cannot take place in the money itself, since in its function of means of purchase and of payment, it does no more than realise the price of the commodity it buys or pays for; and, as hard cash, it is value petrified, never varying. Just as little can it originate in the second act of circulation, the re-sale of the commodity, which does no more than transform the article from its bodily form back again into its money-form. The change must, therefore, take place in the commodity bought by the first act, M-C, but not in its value, for equivalents are exchanged, and the commodity is paid for at its full value. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the change originates in the use-value, as such, of the commodity, i.e., in its consumption. In order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the sphere of circulation, in the Market, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment of labour, and, consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of money does find on the Market such a special commodity in capacity for labour or labour-power (185-186).

For Marx, the capacity for work is a function of both the body and the mind. They work in tandem to produce a product of utility. Hence humanenergy enables both the mental and physical capacities of the worker, but in a capitalist society, the mind tends to work in antithesis to the body: By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description (186).

We do not as yet know how the worker has reached the historical phase whereby he is free to sell his human-energy to anyone who may be keen on purchasing it. The seller of human-energy and its buyer meet as equal traders and each is free to negotiate the trade. This is the premise from which market theory, political economy, neo-liberal theory and mainstream economic science commence when discussing the nature of the capitalist economy and man’s role in it. We also gain insights into the fact that the seller of human-energy is but a sanitised version of the slave, who is human-energy personified. Human-energy has been in big demand throughout the economic system based on slavery: in “1552 there were more than 60 slave markets in Lisbon” (Meltzer, 1993: 3 vol II). We buy our meat and vegetables in kilograms or pounds. We buy our liquid drinks–whether “hot” or cold–in litres. But the capitalist buys humanenergy in units of time. Under slavery, the slave was the private property of the slave-owner; he could put the slave’s human-energy to work from

The Transformation of Money into Capital

99

early morning until late at night. Under capitalism, the capitalist has such human-energy as his private property for a stipulated quantity of measured time and money: But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labour-power offered for sale as a commodity, various conditions must first be fulfilled. The exchange of commodities of itself implies no other relations of dependence than those which, result from its own nature. On this assumption, labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that he may be able to do this, he must have it at his disposal, must be the untrammelled owner of his capacity for labour, i.e., of his person. He and the owner of money meet in the market, and deal with each other as on the basis of equal rights, with this difference alone, that one is buyer, the other seller; both, therefore, equal in the eyes of the law. The continuance of this relation demands that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a definite period, for if he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity. He must constantly look upon his labourpower as his own property, his own commodity, and this he can only do by placing it at the disposal of the buyer temporarily, for a definite period of time. By this means alone can he avoid renouncing his rights of ownership over it. The second essential condition to the owner of money finding labour-power in the market as a commodity is this–that the labourer instead of being in the position to sell commodities in which his labour is incorporated, must be obliged to offer for sale as a commodity that very labour-power, which exists only in his living self (186-187).

Man is free to sell his human-energy. With his commodity intact, the worker waits for the capitalist in the labour market to come along to “purchase” him for a period of clock-time, during which he will be put to work. With the saturation of the labour market, owners of the humanenergy commodity have to compete for work. Human-energy is just another commodity in the market, waiting to be consumed, but as Marx has reminded us, it is a “peculiar commodity”. That the buyer of humanenergy may be ignorant of the genesis of the free worker does not negate his historical beginnings–although the worker’s arrival in the labour market may appear as natural as a tamed animal in a zoo. We also take note that whilst labour-power (human-energy) is bought and sold in the market, past and present capitalist society continue to speak erroneously of the “labour market”, and not of the “labour-power market”, let alone of a human-energy market. A machine, like a worker, also performs work. But unlike a worker, the machine market is not referred to as the “labour

100

Chapter Six

market”. It is also akin to referring to the markets for coal or oil as labour markets, since both these forms of energy enable work to be undertaken: The question why this free labourer confronts him in the market, has no interest for the owner of money, who regards the labour-market as a branch of the general market for commodities. And for the present it interests us just as little. We cling to the fact theoretically, as he does practically. One thing, however, is clear–Nature does not produce on the one side owners of money or commodities, and on the other men possessing nothing but their own labour-power. This relation has no natural basis, neither is its social basis one that is common to all historical periods. It is clearly the result of a past historical development, the product of many economic revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series of older forms of social production (188).

Human-energy is only “evident” in the form of mechanical energy– when the worker moves his hands and legs either to effect the production process, as in manufacture, or as part of the production process, as in industry. As long as the human-energy is “stored” within the worker, then it remains potential human-energy. As soon as the worker gets to work, his human-energy is converted into kinetic human-energy or human-energy in motion, more specifically, into mechanical human-energy. Such mechanical execution occurs by the worker moving his limbs according to the dictates of commodity production, underpinned by capitalist logic and design. When a substantial quantity of his human-energy is used up, then rest and food is required for the replenishment of human-energy so he can start the process of work all over again the following day. Human-energy feeds the capitalist system in the same way that oxygen feeds life. All commodities have a value and a price. This law is no different from that of the humanenergy commodity. The value of human-energy is equivalent to the value of the total quantity of human-energy which is expended in that ration of commodities required for the survival of the worker and his family in a given society and at a particular historical time and place. Man’s existence depends on human-energy for the production and reproduction of life. Within energy eco-systems, man is but an entity in the flow of nature’s energy. Just as he expends energy, he is also compelled to consume energy. He is no special or extraordinary entity, lying outside of the laws of energy conservation. He is compelled to place himself at the subjection of the law of conservation of energy. Just as he consumes energy in life, energy consumes him in death. He is not immune to nature’s hold; neither is he immune to the laws of entropy. Whilst the capitalist remains fixated on how the worker’s human-energy is expended, he is not necessarily concerned with how and from where the worker gets his energy. Even the

The Transformation of Money into Capital

101

functioning of the body’s organs, at the basic metabolic level, requires a sufficient quantity of energy to revitalise or re-energise them. The level of material development of a society influences the value of human-energy in the manner that it does all other commodities. The value of human-energy is measured in the same way by Marx as that of all other commodities viz. the socially necessary work-time that is required for the production and reproduction of human-energy in the worker: The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this special article. So far as it has value, it represents no more than a definite quantity of the average labour of society incorporated in it. Labour-power exists only as a capacity, or power of the living individual. Its production consequently pre-supposes his existence. Given the individual, the production of labour-power consists in his reproduction of himself or his maintenance. For his maintenance he requires a given quantity of the means of subsistence. Therefore the labour-time requisite for the production of labour-power reduces itself to that necessary for the production of those means of subsistence; in other words, the value of labour-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the labourer. Labour-power, however, becomes a reality only by its exercise; it sets itself in action only by working. But thereby a definite quantity of human muscle, nerve, brain, &c., is wasted, and these require to be restored. This increased expenditure demands a larger income. If the owner of labourpower works to-day, to-morrow he must again be able to repeat the same process in the same conditions as regards health and strength. His means of subsistence must therefore be sufficient to maintain him in his normal state as a labouring individual. His natural wants, such as food, clothing, fuel, and housing, vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of his country. On the other hand, the number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them, are themselves the product of historical development, and depend therefore to a great extent on the degree of civilisation of a country, more particularly on the conditions under which, and consequently on the habits and degree of comfort in which, the class of free labourers has been formed. In contradistinction therefore to the case of other commodities, there enters into the determination of the value of labour-power a historical and moral element. Nevertheless, in a given country, at a given period, the average quantity of the means of subsistence necessary for the labourer is practically known (189-190).

During the Industrial Revolution, it was not enough for capitalism to demand the human-energy of men; the human-energy of women and children was also in huge demand. Capitalism survives and thrives on

102

Chapter Six

human-energy. This hunger and thirst for human-energy may explain why the population soared in the way it did during the Industrial Revolution. Thomas Malthus observed and studied the population increase, but erroneously viewed population as the cause of poverty–a social condition that is now endemic in many parts of the global world in the 21st century. The more humans available for capitalism to draw human-energy from, the stronger, more powerful and more monstrous capitalism grows. But in order for capitalism to have continuous access to the human-energy of men, women and children, it has to ensure that they exist at the subsistence level: The owner of labour-power is mortal. If then his appearance in the market is to be continuous, and the continuous conversion of money into capital assumes this, the seller of labour-power must perpetuate himself, ‘in the way that every living individual perpetuates himself, by procreation.’ The labour-power withdrawn from the market by wear and tear and death, must be continually replaced by, at the very least, an equal quantity of fresh labour-power. Hence the sum of the means of subsistence necessary for the production of labour-power must include the means necessary for the labourer’s substitutes, i.e., his children, in order that this race of peculiar commodity-owners may perpetuate its appearance in the market (190-191).

To recap, the value of human-energy is found in all of those combined commodities that are required for the subsistence of the worker and his family, at a given standard of livelihood, at a particular place and at a given historical time. If the price of subsistence goods go up, then there will be a corresponding increase in the value and price of human-energy. If the price of subsistence commodities goes down, then there will be a corresponding decrease in the value and price of human-energy: In order to modify the human organism, so that it may acquire skill and handiness in a given branch of industry, and become labour-power of a special kind, a special education or training is requisite, and this, on its part, costs an equivalent in commodities of a greater or less quantity. This quantity varies according to the more or less complicated character of the labour-power. The expenses of this education (excessively small in the case of ordinary labour-power), enter pro tanto into the total value spent in its production. The value of labour-power resolves itself into the value of a definite quantity of the means of subsistence. It therefore varies with the value of these means or with the quantity of labour requisite for their production (191).

The following of Marx’s thoughts entails a fair level of math and accounting, used to “decide” on the daily cost of human-energy, which

The Transformation of Money into Capital

103

again is represented in units of clock-time. The capitalist pays the price of human-energy, as per the ration of commodities that the worker and his family need in order to produce and reproduce themselves. However, in the example presented, the worker needs to work six hours in a day if he is to secure the commodities needed to produce and reproduce himself and his family. But the capitalist makes him work for a clock-time of 12 hours. The ration of commodities relied upon by the worker is not converted into units of clock-time. If they were, we would be speaking of commodities in terms of six hours. It is also not converted into the quantity of joules of human-energy which such commodities contain. Interestingly, Marx speaks about the “vital energy” of the worker, and how this “vital energy” is dependent on basic commodities for its replenishment. We may conclude that the worker requires the energy contained in food in order to maintain him at subsistence level. Human-energy itself is dependent on energy from food and other commodities made from human-energy for its reproduction: The minimum limit of the value of labour-power is determined by the value of the commodities, without the daily supply of which the labourer cannot renew his vital energy, consequently by the value of those means of subsistence that are physically indispensable. If the price of labour-power fall to this minimum, it falls below its value, since under such circumstances it can be maintained and developed only in a crippled state. But the value of every commodity is determined by the labour-time requisite to turn it out so as to be of normal quality (192).

Marx makes a significant comparison between the market, where commodities and human-energy are bought, and the production sphere, where such commodities are put to work to create value and surplus-value. For Marx, transparency is “for all to see” in the market, but production takes place behind “smoke and mirrors”, in the so-called private sphere. If surplus-value is created in the workplace, then capital is also created in the workplace. Like all other forms of production, it is in the workshop or on the factory floor that the ingredients for capital come together. That it assumes the shape of money in the market does not qualify the latter sphere as the creator of capital. Like all other commodities, human-energy is also consumed outside of the market sphere: We now know how the value paid by the purchaser to the possessor of this peculiar commodity, labour-power, is determined. The use-value which the former gets during the exchange process, manifests itself only in the actual usufruct, in the consumption of the labour-power. The money owner buys everything necessary for this purpose, such as raw material, in the market,

104

Chapter Six and pays for it at its full value. The consumption of labour-power is at one and the same time the production of commodities and of surplus-value. The consumption of labour-power is completed, as in the case of every other commodity, outside the limits of the market or of the sphere of circulation. Accompanied by Mr. Moneybags and by the possessor of labour-power, we therefore take leave for a time of this noisy sphere, where everything takes place on the surface and in view of all men, and follow them both into the hidden abode of production, on whose threshold there stares us in the face ‘No admittance except on business.’ Here we shall see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced. We shall at last force the secret of profit making (194-195).

In a protesting, ironic and sarcastic fashion, Marx accepts the argument of Adam Smith and political economy of the naturalness of self-serving individuals, and the benefits that such selfishness presumably brings to broader society. But capitalist society is cut in half when it comes to freedom, equality, property and Bentham. These are sacred rights for the market or exchange sphere, but the total opposite for the sphere of production. Whereas there is democracy in the market, there is dictatorship in the work sphere. Whereas there is freedom of movement in the market, there is iron-fisted rule and disciplined movement in the workplace. Whereas there is individualism in the market, there is teamwork in the workplace. Democracy in capitalist society, it seems, is only 50% real. If we view capitalist society through the cultural lens of the market, then it is entirely democratic. If we view capitalist society through the cultural lens of the workplace, then it is entirely dictatorial. Democracy in capitalist society rests upon a schizophrenic foundation: This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labourpower, are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression to their common will. Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. The only force that brings them together and puts them in relation with each other, is the selfishness, the gain and the private interests of each. Each looks to himself only, and no one troubles himself about the rest, and just because they do so, do they all, in accordance with the pre-established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an all-shrewd providence,

The Transformation of Money into Capital

105

work together to their mutual advantage, for the common weal and in the interest of all (195).

With one commodity, e.g. cloth, in hand, purchased in the free market, we now journey into the place where another commodity, e.g. a shirt, is produced. Before such a commodity is produced, there is another commodity that must also be purchased, viz. human-energy, which is required to produce the shirt. From the democratic layer of capitalist society (the free market) we journey into the autocratic layer of capitalist society: the workplace. Surplus-value creation and profit-making, it seems, require society to be 50% democratic and 50% autocratic. It is in the autocratic layer of capitalist society that we gain insight as to how humanenergy is compelled to incidentally produce use-value, and primarily produce surplus-value. But first, Marx outlines the natural propensity of man to produce for himself and his family, without any compulsion or coercion from society as such. He can only produce through movement, even if he has not as yet acquired the concept of measured time. If time is a crucial variable for capitalism, then movement is a crucial variable for all times. Movement is the function of man’s hands and legs, aided by his brain. It is his life-long occupation, if he is to produce and reproduce his life. But first, his human-energy must be used to produce and reproduce capital: “we shall see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced. We shall at last force the secret of profit making.”

CHAPTER SEVEN NATURE, HUMAN-ENERGY AND THE CHANGING NATURE OF WORK

Labour is the father and active principle of wealth, as the earth is its mother. —William Petty The capitalist cannot store labour-power in warehouses after he has bought it, as he may do with the raw material. —Karl Marx

The name of this chapter in Capital is “The Labour Process and the Process of Producing Surplus-Value”. The first section of the chapter is titled “The Labour-Process or the Production of Use-Values”, and the second section is titled “The Production of Surplus-Value”. Work is the main human activity of men and women under the capitalist mode of production. They overwork for a living. Their human-energy allows them to work and produce commodities for the capitalist; workers are required to expend their human-energy for hours on end, on a daily basis. But work under the capitalist mode of production is meant to produce surplus-value through the production of use-values. Hence use-value commodities are produced as merely a means towards producing surplus-value. I have indicated that the commodity comprises human-energy, which expresses itself as value. In this and subsequent chapters we will explore how such human-energy is “transposed” into a commodity. In this chapter, Marx shows through a myriad of examples the “seamless” nature of production through the ages; this “seamlessness” is made possible by energy transformations. This is done in order to highlight the nature of work under the capitalist mode of production in comparison to “natural” forms of work in earlier societies. The fundamental mechanisms by which all economic processes occur in all time periods require an understanding of the role of energy (Hall and Klitgaard, 2012: 6). Energy is the “ability to do work” (Haverly, 1996: 9; Rosa et al., 1988: 149), and when things change it is through the use of energy (Ward and Dubos, l972). We should

Nature, Human-Energy and the Changing Nature of Work

107

also keep in mind that energy is a precondition for capitalist accumulation (Newell and Paterson, 1998: 695). Of all the many activities which man engages in and which require human-energy, work under the capitalist mode of production is the activity which consumes most of man’s humanenergy. Man works first for capitalism and then for himself and his family. It is in the free market that the worker sells her human-energy to the “highest” bidder, and it is in the workplace that her human-energy is consumed. According to Fowler (1975: 33): Work is a measure of the quantity of energy which is converted from one form to another. It is a term usually associated with man’s use of energy, with a conversion for some useful purpose. Work, therefore, represents a change in energy, or energy in transit from one form to another.

In the first section of this chapter, Marx considers the production of use-values, or products for purely the purposes of utility. What distinguishes man from other animals is his creative ability to use his hands to make tools, to produce his means of living. In the work process, the worker’s potential energy or stored energy is converted into kinetic energy, i.e. energy in motion. Through work, the chemical and electrical energy in the worker is transformed into mechanical energy, which in turn transforms the raw material into a useful commodity. In the example given below, the worker expends his human-energy under the command and control of the capitalist and his representatives: supervisors and workplace managers. The human-energy purchased serves a particular use-value for the capitalist and is consumed in the work process: The capitalist buys labour-power in order to use it; and labour-power in use is labour itself. The purchaser of labour-power consumes it by setting the seller of it to work. By working, the latter becomes actually, what before he only was potentially, labour-power in action, a labourer. In order that his labour may re-appear in a commodity, he must, before all things, expend it on something useful, on something capable of satisfying a want of some sort. Hence, what the capitalist sets the labourer to produce, is a particular use-value, a specified article. The fact that the production of usevalues, or goods, is carried on under the control of a capitalist and on his behalf, does not alter the general character of that production. We shall, therefore, in the first place, have to consider the labour-process independently of the particular form it assumes under given social conditions (197).

Whilst much has been written about man in his natural and economic environments, Marx’s work stands out in so far as man’s transformation of nature into use-value products is concerned, given that he looked at man’s

108

Chapter Seven

interaction with nature through a “microscopic lens”. Planet earth has an abundance of natural resources: rivers, lakes, plants, fruits, vegetables, animals, land, sticks, stones, etc. A use-value product is a conglomeration of nature and human-energy. Human-energy is a nature-given entity that allows man to survive and to sustain his livelihood. From this vein of thought, we also gain an insight into the inextricable link between man and nature. As to why modern man is perceived by the modern mind to be separate from nature, is indeed a perplexing question. “In the beginning” man produced out of his own free will, not under the roving eye of any capitalist. The selling of human-energy as a commodity is unique to the capitalist mode of production. It has taken many centuries to reach the stage where man is free to sell his human-energy to the highest or lowest bidder. He has to do this in order to get by on earth, a planet of plenty; but not if nature is subjected to the logic of capitalist accumulation. First, however, Marx abstracts work from the capitalist mode of production and views the work process as a natural activity, independent of any socioeconomic context: Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We presuppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the

Nature, Human-Energy and the Changing Nature of Work

109

nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be (197-198).

The soil, together with the land, is the provider of natural ingredients for the survival of man and his family. This is provided as a free gift from nature. However, under capitalism, a piece of land is expensive and is beyond the financial reach of many of the peoples of the world. We recall that “man has often made man himself, under the form of slaves, serve as the primitive material of money, but has never used land for that purpose”. What was once freely available to man becomes an expensive commodity under capitalism. In the following quote, we are once again reminded of the centrality of the role of nature in the work process, and man’s dependency on both nature and work for his survival. Those constituents of nature that exist in their natural form, and are merely separated from their ecosystems, Marx refers to as “subjects of work”. Material nature, which undergoes certain degrees of transformation by human-energy in the work process, is what Marx refers to as “raw material”. From the very beginning of his interaction with nature, man’s human-energy has allowed him to work: The elementary factors of the labour-process are 1, the personal activity of man, i.e., work itself, 2, the subject of that work, and 3, its instruments. The soil (and this, economically speaking, includes water) in the virgin state in which it supplies man with necessaries or the means of subsistence ready to hand, exists independently of him, and is the universal subject of human labour. All those things which labour merely separates from immediate connexion with their environment, are subjects of labour spontaneously provided by Nature. Such are fish which we catch and take from their element, water, timber which we fell in the virgin forest, and ores which we extract from their veins. If, on the other hand, the subject of labour has, so to say, been filtered through previous labour, we call it raw material; such is ore already extracted and ready for washing. All raw material is the subject of labour, but not every subject of labour is raw material: it can only become so, after it has undergone some alteration by means of labour (198-199).

Nature, in the form of simple and complex tools, supplements the human-energy of man in the work process. In other words, all instruments or tools of work, whatever form or size they are, or function they perform, can be traced back to nature itself. When man first picked up a stone or a stick, he supplemented his human-energy with an external form of energy. Together with the transformation and development of the work process, the implements of work also underwent a transformation. This transformation

110

Chapter Seven

would take on a revolutionary form when work, under the capitalist mode of production, perfected the “division of labour”, which has its roots in nature and history. The earth is the sole provider of all of man’s physical needs, whether they are for the purposes of subsistence, or for the production of instruments or tools. Heaven, it seems, is not part of the equation for man’s production and reproduction on earth, despite what the good book tells us. That instruments or tools of work have achieved sophisticated forms and functions does not negate nature as their source of origin. In ancient civilisation, man not only tamed wild beasts to exploit their animal-energy, but also combined his human-energy with the energy of domesticated animals so as to attain a larger energy output, and hence a larger yield of work products. Taming animals for their animal-energy in turn makes them instruments of work, and adds to the cumulative energy harnessed by man for his production and reproduction. In many parts of less developing countries, we see man and beast combining their energies and working the land. “In the beginning”, by using stones, wood and other bits and pieces from nature, man was able to both supplement his humanenergy and use it more effectively. With its gradual but contentious development, capitalism would use human-energy, the energy stored in tools and machines, and the energy of nature to maximum effect and for maximum gain. Ancient civilisation was built on the expropriation of loads of animal-energy and human-energy. Coal and other fossil energies were the foundation on which modern civilisation was built. However, the link connecting the two forms of civilisations is still that of human-energy: An instrument of labour is a thing, or a complex of things, which the labourer interposes between himself and the subject of his labour, and which serves as the conductor of his activity. He makes use of the mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of some substances in order to make other substances subservient to his aims. Leaving out of consideration such ready-made means of subsistence as fruits, in gathering which a man’s own limbs serve as the instruments of his labour, the first thing of which the labourer possesses himself is not the subject of labour but its instrument. Thus Nature becomes one of the organs of his activity, one that he annexes to his own bodily organs, adding stature to himself in spite of the Bible. As the earth is his original larder, so too it is his original tool house. It supplies him, for instance, with stones for throwing, grinding, pressing, cutting, &c. The earth itself is an instrument of labour, but when used as such in agriculture implies a whole series of other instruments and a comparatively high development of labour. No sooner does labour undergo the least development, than it requires specially prepared instruments. Thus in the oldest caves we find stone implements and weapons. In the earliest period of human history domesticated animals, i.e.,

Nature, Human-Energy and the Changing Nature of Work

111

animals which have been bred for the purpose, and have undergone modifications by means of labour, play the chief part as instruments of labour along with specially prepared stones, wood, bones, and shells. The use and fabrication of instruments of labour, although existing in the germ among certain species of animals, is specifically characteristic of the human labour-process, and Franklin therefore defines man as a toolmaking animal. Relics of bygone instruments of labour possess the same importance for the investigation of extinct economic forms of society, as do fossil bones for the determination of extinct species of animals. It is not the articles made, but how they are made, and by what instruments, that enables us to distinguish different economic epochs. Instruments of labour not only supply a standard of the degree of development to which human labour has attained, but they are also indicators of the social conditions under which that labour is carried on. Among the instruments of labour, those of a mechanical nature, which, taken as a whole, we may call the bone and muscles of production, offer much more decided characteristics of a given epoch of production, than those which, like pipes, tubs, baskets, jars, &c., serve only to hold the materials for labour, which latter class, we may in a general way, call the vascular system of production. The latter first begins to play an important part in the chemical industries (199-200).

Man builds his material world with energy, on the material worlds built by past workers. (William) “Petty referred to “wealth, stock, or the provision of the nation as being the effect of the former or past labour” (Roll, 1973: 104). Marx considers planet earth the “universal instrument” for work, and the built infrastructure the result of past work. All infrastructure on planet earth “embodies” the human-energy of past work. In many such statements in Capital, we observe the relevance of the law of conservation of energy. In this particular illustration, the human-energy of past work has neither been created nor destroyed, but materialised or objectified in the instruments of work. In the same way that a beehive embodies the energy of bees, or the ant-heap the energy of ants, likewise man-made pyramids, canals, roads, railways, bridges, commodities, etc. embody the human-energy of previous work and workers: In a wider sense we may include among the instruments of labour, in addition to those things that are used for directly transferring labour to its subject, and which therefore, in one way or another, serve as conductors of activity, all such objects as are necessary for carrying on the labourprocess. These do not enter directly into the process, but without them it is either impossible for it to take place at all, or possible only to a partial extent. Once more we find the earth to be a universal instrument of this sort, for it furnishes a locus standi to the labourer and a field of employment for his activity. Among instruments that are the result of

112

Chapter Seven previous labour and also belong to this class, we find workshops, canals, roads, and so forth (200-201).

In the following illustration we observe the fluidity of the work process, a process which abides by the law of energy conservation and reflects Einstein’s view of the interchangeability of mass and energy: In the labour-process, therefore, man’s activity, with the help of the instruments of labour, effects an alteration, designed from the commencement, in the material worked upon. The process disappears in the product, the latter is a use-value, Nature’s material adapted by a change of form to the wants of man. Labour has incorporated itself with its subject: the former is materialised, the latter transformed. That which in the labourer appeared as movement, now appears in the product as a fixed quality without motion. The blacksmith forges and the product is a forging (201).

Marx alludes to the transformation of energy through historical time, or the history of energy transformations through the ages. If history happens in time, then it happens with and through the transformation of energy. Nature forms an integral component of the work process, but never has nature been more transformed than by the capitalist mode of production. Throughout the history of man and nature, we observe the medium of human-energy as a fundamental energy source for the existence of man, his production, and his reproduction. Like sand particles that form the building blocks of mountains, human-energy forms the building blocks of past and present society’s material development: With the exception of the extractive industries, in which the material for labour is provided immediately by Nature, such as mining, hunting, fishing, and agriculture (so far as the latter is confined to breaking up virgin soil), all branches of industry manipulate raw material, objects already filtered through labour, already products of labour. Such is seed in agriculture. Animals and plants, which we are accustomed to consider as products of Nature, are in their present form, not only products of, say last year’s labour, but the result of a gradual transformation, continued through many generations, under man’s superintendence, and by means of his labour. But in the great majority of cases, instruments of labour show even to the most superficial observer, traces of the labour of past ages (201202).

Production is a process, a series of energy transformations from one stage to the next, and human-energy is an integral “substance” at different points in the production process. Marx introduces the concept of “living

Nature, Human-Energy and the Changing Nature of Work

113

labour”, thereby suggesting the presence of “dead work” as it exists in machines and other instruments of work. The law of entropy “at work” is evident in the statement “iron rusts and wood rots”: A machine which does not serve the purposes of labour, is useless. In addition, it falls a prey to the destructive influence of natural forces. Iron rusts and wood rots. Yarn with which we neither weave nor knit, is cotton wasted. Living labour must seize upon these things and rouse them from their death-sleep, change them from mere possible use-values into real and effective ones. Bathed in the fire of labour, appropriated as part and parcel of labour’s organism, and, as it were, made alive for the performance of their functions in the process, they are in truth consumed, but consumed with a purpose, as elementary constituents of new use-values, of new products, ever ready as means of subsistence for individual consumption, or as means of production for some new labour-process (203-204).

Nature is the source of all material wealth, but human work and human-energy are the creators of such wealth. In order to survive, man has to expend his human-energy so as to convert nature into use-values. According to Marx, society and nature are an interconnected whole, each transforming the other in their dialectical relationship with each other: The labour-process, resolved as above into its simple elementary factors, is human action with a view to the production of use-values, appropriation of natural substances to human requirements; it is the necessary condition for effecting exchange of matter between man and Nature; it is the everlasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence, and therefore is independent of every social phase of that existence, or rather, is common to every such phase. It was, therefore, not necessary to represent our labourer in connexion with other labourers; man and his labour on one side, Nature and its materials on the other, sufficed. As the taste of the porridge does not tell you who grew the oats, no more does this simple process tell you of itself what are the social conditions under which it is taking place, whether under the slave-owner’s brutal lash, or the anxious eye of the capitalist, whether Cincinnatus carries it on in tilling his modest farm or a savage in killing wild animals with stones (204-205).

After discussing the work process independent of any particular social context, Marx now directs us to the nature of work during the capitalist epoch. He constructs a scenario whereby human-energy is amongst one of the commodities purchased by the capitalist-to-be. For Marx, a worker is the personification of his human-energy. Human-energy is what the capitalist seeks and what he pays for, after ensuring that the worker has the necessary skill and experience in converting raw materials into

114

Chapter Seven

commodities. We should keep in mind that work cannot be consumed, but human-energy is consumed by work. Use-value commodities are, after all, purchased in order to be consumed. Marx states that the existence of human-energy in the market presupposes the existence of the capitalist. Whilst work is a nature-imposed necessity, under capitalism, humanenergy is a commodity exchanged for a wage, and instead of working for himself, the worker works for the capitalist: Let us now return to our would-be capitalist. We left him just after he had purchased, in the open market, all the necessary factors of the labour process; its objective factors, the means of production, as well as its subjective factor, labour-power. With the keen eye of an expert, he has selected the means of production and the kind of labour-power best adapted to his particular trade, be it spinning, bootmaking, or any other kind. He then proceeds to consume the commodity, the labour-power that he has just bought, by causing the labourer, the impersonation of that labour-power, to consume the means of production by his labour. The general character of the labour-process is evidently not changed by the fact, that the labourer works for the capitalist instead of for himself; moreover, the particular methods and operations employed in bootmaking or spinning are not immediately changed by the intervention of the capitalist. He must begin by taking the labour-power as he finds it in the market, and consequently be satisfied with labour of such a kind as would be found in the period immediately preceding the rise of capitalists (205).

The premise from which we begin is that of the law of exchange: the worker exchanges his human-energy for a given quantity of clock-time, in return for a given quantity of money, known as a wage. What also distinguishes work under capitalism from work “in the beginning” is the coercion of the worker to expend human-energy under the command and control of the capitalist and his representatives. Capitalism means that, in order to maximise surplus-value and profit, waste has to be minimised. The worker expends his human-energy primarily for the benefit of the capitalist. His human-energy, his property, becomes the property of the capitalist for the contractual clock-time that they have both agreed on. The human-energy of the worker serves as an exchange-value for him, but as a use-value for the capitalist. It is the human-energy commodity, its usevalue in work, which in turn goes on to produce commodities for the capitalist: The labour-process, turned into the process by which the capitalist consumes labour-power, exhibits two characteristic phenomena. First, the labourer works under the control of the capitalist to whom his labour belongs; the capitalist taking good care that the work is done in a proper

Nature, Human-Energy and the Changing Nature of Work

115

manner, and that the means of production are used with intelligence, so that there is no unnecessary waste of raw material, and no wear and tear of the implements beyond what is necessarily caused by the work. Secondly, the product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the labourer, its immediate producer. Suppose that a capitalist pays for a day’s labourpower at its value; then the right to use that power for a day belongs to him, just as much as the right to use any other commodity, such as a horse that he has hired for the day. To the purchaser of a commodity belongs its use, and the seller of labour-power, by giving his labour, does no more, in reality, than part with the use-value that he has sold. From the instant he steps into the workshop, the use-value of his labour-power, and therefore also its use, which is labour, belongs to the capitalist. By the purchase of labour-power, the capitalist incorporates labour, as a living ferment, with the lifeless constituents of the products (206).

Marx then moves on to the second section of this chapter, sub-titled “The Production of Surplus-Value”–production that is unique to the capitalist mode of production. He proceeds to uncover the processes by which surplus-value is created, beyond the market and out of sight of the general population. During the work process, the capitalist aims to prise out more than he put in, i.e. he wishes to secure surplus-value from his purchase and consumption of human-energy. That surplus-value originates in the production process and not in the market is information that the capitalist is not necessarily privy to. In fact, he may genuinely believe that his surplus-value comes from his commodities being sold at a higher price in the market. We recall that the circulation logic of the capitalist is money-commodity-more money (M-C-M‫)ޖ‬. Capitalist work is meant to produce use-value for the public, and exchange-value and surplus-value for the capitalist. Hence the capitalist organises his workshop with this logic in mind. Exchange-man has become money-man. Man becomes capital personified. Society becomes organised with money as the end goal; all “human” aspects of life under capitalism become incidental. With the development of capitalism, profit-making becomes as natural as breathing: Use-values are only produced by capitalists, because, and in so far as, they are the material substratum, the depositories of exchange-value. Our capitalist has two objects in view: in the first place, he wants to produce a use-value that has a value in exchange, that is to say, an article destined to be sold, a commodity; and secondly, he desires to produce a commodity whose value shall be greater than the sum of the values of the commodities used in its production, that is, of the means of production and the labourpower, that he purchased with his good money in the open market. His aim

116

Chapter Seven is to produce not only a use-value, but a commodity also; not only usevalue, but value; not only value, but at the same time surplus-value (207).

Marx conjures up a “poetic” scenario of the worker’s body in motion, and the flow of his “vital force” (human-energy) in the work process. In the example he uses, it is the spinning of yarn into cotton. We see Marx looking at the worker through a physiological “microscope”. The worker’s movement and hence the expenditure of his human-energy is regulated by the clock, i.e. measured time as calculated by the movement of the earth around the sun. This measurement is made possible by the sun’s energy, which travels to earth. In terms of the quantity of human-energy of the worker, which has become embodied in the yarn, this is put down to an hour’s quantity of work. So the clock is the instrument, and the hour is the standard, by which the quantity of human-energy expended is measured by Marx. The motion or movement of the worker converts mechanical-energy into work, thereby resulting in the production of the commodity: While the labourer is at work, his labour constantly undergoes a transformation: from being motion, it becomes an object without motion; from being the labourer working, it becomes the thing produced. At the end of one hour’s spinning, that act is represented by a definite quantity of yarn; in other words, a definite quantity of labour, namely that of one hour, has become embodied in the cotton. We say labour, i.e., the expenditure of his vital force by the spinner, and not spinning labour, because the special work of spinning counts here, only so far as it is the expenditure of labourpower in general, and not in so far as it is the specific work of the spinner (211).

Marx begins to shine the spotlight on that powerful “weapon” of capitalism which helps secure the profit for the capitalist: time, more specifically clock-time or measured time. The entire production process is bound by clock-time: In the process we are now considering it is of extreme importance, that no more time be consumed in the work of transforming the cotton into yarn than is necessary under the given social conditions. If under normal, i.e., average social conditions of production, a pounds of cotton ought to be made into b pounds of yarn by one hour’s labour, then a day’s labour does not count as 12 hours’ labour unless 12 a pounds of cotton have been made into 12 b pounds of yarn; for in the creation of value, the time that is socially necessary alone counts (211).

The world, in the 21st century, is highly dependent on coal as an energy source for the production of electricity. In the following quote, Marx

Nature, Human-Energy and the Changing Nature of Work

117

makes the link between human-energy and coal, implying that humanenergy is necessary for the mining and harvesting of coal energy or fossil fuels. Human-energy, it seems, presupposes the availability of coal as an energy source for generating steam. During the Industrial Revolution, the human-energy of children was integral for the extraction of coal energy from deep below the earth’s surface. In the 21st century, in parts of India, children are used to pick, shovel and pull the coal from “rat holes” (Al Jazeera, 2015). This in the Land of Thousands of Gods and Great Piety, which gave the world The Mahatma. Upon the mining and extraction of coal, a certain quantity of the human-energy of the worker is embodied in a certain quantity of coal. Coal is the medium through which humanenergy is burnt in order to boil water, in order to make steam, in order to create electricity. I think that this principle is also applicable to all other forms of energy, such as nuclear, solar, wind, etc. In other words, it takes human-energy to harvest and harness other energy forms found in nature. A human can work as a coal miner just as he can as a spinner, in turning cotton into yarn. In the example of coal mining, a definite quantity of coal mined is a result of a definite quantity of work done, measured in units of clock-time: We are here no more concerned about the facts, that the labour is the specific work of spinning, that its subject is cotton and its product yarn, than we are about the fact that the subject itself is already a product and therefore raw material. If the spinner, instead of spinning, were working in a coal mine, the subject of his labour, the coal, would be supplied by Nature; nevertheless, a definite quantity of extracted coal, a hundredweight for example, would represent a definite quantity of absorbed labour (212).

Marx attempts to understand the mathematical relationship amongst the different variables in the production process: clock-time, the quantity of human-energy expended, the quantity of the finished product, and the quantity of its value, measured in terms of the quantity of money; in this case, gold, which has six hours’ worth of human-energy absorbed in it. Since three shillings of gold takes six hours of work to mine, and since converting 10 lbs of yarn into 10 lbs of cotton will also take six hours of work, then the six hours of work can be equated to three shillings in gold, i.e. money. The quantity of work expended in a definite quantity of gold, and the same quantity of work expended in a definite quantity of yarn, is what makes a definite quantity of yarn commensurate or equivalent to a definite quantity of gold. It is this mathematical fact which makes money an integral technology in trading, which involves a myriad of commodities:

118

Chapter Seven We assumed, on the occasion of its sale, that the value of a day’s labourpower is three shillings, and that six hours’ labour is incorporated in that sum; and consequently that this quantity of labour is requisite to produce the necessaries of life daily required on an average by the labourer. If now our spinner by working for one hour, can convert 1 2/3 lbs. of cotton into 1 2/3 lbs. of yarn, it follows that in six hours he will convert 10 lbs. of cotton into 10 lbs. of yarn. Hence, during the spinning process, the cotton absorbs six hours’ labour. The same quantity of labour is also embodied in a piece of gold of the value of three shillings. Consequently by the mere labour of spinning, a value of three shillings is added to the cotton (212).

In many countries, businesses and investors threaten to disinvest if workers strike for more wages. If and when governments attempt to change policies to improve the livelihoods of the workers and the poor, they are threatened with non-investment and disinvestment. The salvo in the capitalist’s toolkit is that she provides employment for the unemployed. The capitalists’ vested interest may be whispered, but never articulated with the same zeal and loudness as the irresponsibility of government in not following free market rules. After all, capitalists demand a “business-friendly environment!” That Marx observed this powerful capitalist ideology 150 years ago is testimony to the staying power of his thought. Hidden behind all capitalist talk lurks the insatiable appetite for surplus-value and profit: ‘Can the labourer,’ he asks, ‘merely with his arms and legs, produce commodities out of nothing? Did I not supply him with the materials, by means of which, and in which alone, his labour could be embodied? And as the greater part of society consists of such ne’er-do-wells, have I not rendered society incalculable service by my instruments of production, my cotton and my spindle, and not only society, but the labourer also, whom in addition I have provided with the necessaries of life? And am I to be allowed nothing in return for all this service?’ (214).

From Marx’s thought, we gain insights into the capitalistic rationale as to how surplus-value is “allowed” to be appropriated from the worker during the working day. All other energy feedstock, such as wood, coal and oil, belongs to the capitalist after he has purchased it, and he may decide how he will consume these. So too is it with human-energy; the capitalist decides on how it will be consumed after he has purchased it. However, capitalist society measures the exchange-value of human-energy by the working day, but measures the exchange-value of the bundle of commodities that the worker and his family needs in order to survive by the quantity of socially necessary work-time embodied in those commodities. Why is there a difference in the measurement standard of

Nature, Human-Energy and the Changing Nature of Work

119

human-energy and that of all other commodities floating about in the market? How long should a working day be? Marx contends that a man only need work for about half a day in order for him and his family to live, produce and reproduce themselves. In this example, the socially necessary work-time, or survival time, is six hours; when represented as money, three shillings: Let us examine the matter more closely. The value of a day’s labour-power amounts to 3 shillings, because on our assumption half a day’s labour is embodied in that quantity of labour-power, i.e., because the means of subsistence that are daily required for the production of labour-power, cost half a day’s labour. But the past labour that is embodied in the labourpower, and the living labour that it can call into action; the daily cost of maintaining it, and its daily expenditure in work, are two totally different things. The former determines the exchange-value of the labour-power, the latter is its use-value. The fact that half a day’s labour is necessary to keep the labourer alive during 24 hours, does not in any way prevent him from working a whole day. Therefore, the value of labour-power, and the value which that labour-power creates in the labour-process, are two entirely different magnitudes; and this difference of the two values was what the capitalist had in view, when he was purchasing the labour-power. The useful qualities that labour-power possesses, and by virtue of which it makes yarn or boots, were to him nothing more than a conditio sine qua non [absolute condition]; for in order to create value, labour must be expended in a useful manner. What really influenced him was the specific use-value which this commodity possesses of being a source not only of value, but of more value than it has itself. This is the special service that the capitalist expects from labour-power, and in this transaction he acts in accordance with the “eternal laws” of the exchange of commodities. The seller of labour-power, like the seller of any other commodity, realises its exchange-value, and parts with its use-value. He cannot take the one without giving the other. The use-value of labour-power, or in other words, labour, belongs just as little to its seller, as the use-value of oil after it has been sold belongs to the dealer who has sold it. The owner of the money has paid the value of a day’s labour-power; his, therefore, is the use of it for a day; a day’s labour belongs to him. The circumstance, that on the one hand the daily sustenance of labour-power costs only half a day’s labour, while on the other hand the very same labour-power can work during a whole day, that consequently the value which its use during one day creates, is double what he pays for that use, this circumstance is, without doubt, a piece of good luck for the buyer, but by no means an injury to the seller (215-216).

The most important tool that the worker finds in the capitalist’s workshop is the clock. In the workplace, the clock does not measure work

120

Chapter Seven

but measures the working day. Measured time is endemic under capitalism. We tend to measure our lives using measured time. We tend to measure our relationships and marriages in relation to measured time, e.g. wedding anniversaries. But it is the perplexing nature of time under capitalism which secures surplus-value for the capitalist. Measured time, whether in hours, days or weeks, is capitalism’s social tool, enabling the capitalist to convert his money into capital. If the capitalist throws money into the circulation sphere, then he ensures that he gets back more money via the production sphere; the former is a place of freedom and choice, the latter a place of discipline, command and control: Our capitalist foresaw this state of things, and that was the cause of his laughter. The labourer therefore finds, in the workshop, the means of production necessary for working, not only during six, but during twelve hours. Just as during the six hours’ process our 10 lbs. of cotton absorbed six hours’ labour, and became 10 lbs. of yarn, so now, 20 lbs. of cotton will absorb 12 hours’ labour and be changed into 20 lbs. of yarn. Let us now examine the product of this prolonged process. There is now materialised in this 20 lbs. of yarn the labour of five days, of which four days are due to the cotton and the lost steel of the spindle, the remaining day having been absorbed by the cotton during the spinning process. Expressed in gold, the labour of five days is thirty shillings. This is therefore the price of the 20 lbs. of yarn, giving, as before, eighteen pence as the price of a pound. But the sum of the values of the commodities that entered into the process amounts to 27 shillings. The value of the yarn is 30 shillings. Therefore the value of the product is 1/9 greater than the value advanced for its production; 27 shillings have been transformed into 30 shillings; a surplusvalue of 3 shillings has been created. The trick has at last succeeded; money has been converted into capital (216-217).

Surplus-value in money form is money over and above money representing use-value. Surplus-value is attained from the same process as that which is responsible for value, the difference being that instead of the production process stopping at a certain clock-time, what Marx refers to as time or “point”, it continues past this clock-time or point in time. Between the time at which the value of commodities is reached and the time at which the worker is expected to stop working is the duration within which surplus-value is created. The worker works more hours, under capitalism than is really required of him, i.e. that he would need to work just to attain that ration of commodities required for him and his family to survive. It is in working over and above the socially necessary work-time that the worker produces surplus-value for the capitalist. In a use-value society, the worker would have to work just 50% of the time he does in capitalist

Nature, Human-Energy and the Changing Nature of Work

121

society. In human-energy terms, he may have to expend just 50% of his human-energy in the workplace instead of the full 100%: If we now compare the two processes of producing value and of creating surplus-value, we see that the latter is nothing but the continuation of the former beyond a definite point. If on the one hand the process be not carried beyond the point, where the value paid by the capitalist for the labour-power is replaced by an exact equivalent, it is simply a process of producing value; if, on the other hand, it be continued beyond that point, it becomes a process of creating surplus-value (218).

Marx provides an interesting outlook on work from the perspectives of use-value and exchange-value within the capitalist mode of production. If work is perceived primarily from a use-value perspective, then time as we know and experience it under capitalism may not be important. When work is perceived from an exchange-value perspective, then time becomes a crucial factor. We recall that use-value reflects the qualitative nature of commodities, and exchange-value its quantitative nature. If capitalist society is lacking in “quality”, then it is precisely for the reason that its overwhelming focus is on exchange-value. A capitalist society is a quantitative society: we measure our lives by how much we have accumulated. The focus on quantity is fundamental for capital accumulation and capitalist time secures the quantities needed for accumulation: If we proceed further, and compare the process of producing value with the labour-process, pure and simple, we find that the latter consists of the useful labour, the work, that produces use-values. Here we contemplate the labour as producing a particular article; we view it under its qualitative aspect alone, with regard to its end and aim. But viewed as a value-creating process, the same labour-process presents itself under its quantitative aspect alone. Here it is a question merely of the time occupied by the labourer in doing the work; of the period during which the labour-power is usefully expended. Here, the commodities that take part in the process, do not count any longer as necessary adjuncts of labour-power in the production of a definite, useful object. They count merely as depositories of so much absorbed or materialised labour; that labour, whether previously embodied in the means of production, or incorporated in them for the first time during the process by the action of labour-power, counts in either case only according to its duration; it amounts to so many hours or days as the case may be (218).

The capitalist makes sure that he organises his workshop to guarantee efficiency in commodity production. The level of skill of a worker is the efficiency with which he or she expends his or her human-energy in the

122

Chapter Seven

work process. Skill in the workplace is not dissimilar from skill on the sporting field. In the same way that a sportsman or sportswoman expends his or her human-energy on the sporting field, a skilled worker is able to expend human-energy efficiently in the workplace. Clock-time is the temporal form of the work process, and human-energy is its material form. Clock-time is the objective form of the work process and human-energy is its subjective form. All work must go directly into creating surplus-value for the capitalist. All human-energy must go directly into creating surplusvalue for the capitalist. The capitalist takes the utmost care to ensure that human-energy and other work materials are not “wasted” during the production process, on activities he considers useless: Moreover, only so much of the time spent in the production of any article is counted, as, under the given social conditions, is necessary. The consequences of this are various. In the first place, it becomes necessary that the labour should be carried on under normal conditions. If a selfacting mule is the implement in general use for spinning, it would be absurd to supply the spinner with a distaff and spinning wheel. The cotton too must not be such rubbish as to cause extra waste in being worked, but must be of suitable quality. Otherwise the spinner would be found to spend more time in producing a pound of yarn than is socially necessary, in which case the excess of time would create neither value nor money. But whether the material factors of the process are of normal quality or not, depends not upon the labourer, but entirely upon the capitalist. Then again, the labour-power itself must be of average efficacy. In the trade in which it is being employed, it must possess the average skill, handiness and quickness prevalent in that trade, and our capitalist took good care to buy labour-power of such normal goodness. This power must be applied with the average quantity of exertion and with the usual degree of intensity; and the capitalist is as careful to see that this is done, as that his workmen are not idle for a single moment. He has bought, the use of the labour-power for a definite period, and he insists upon his rights. He has no intention of being robbed. Lastly, and for this purpose our friend has a penal code of his own, all wasteful consumption of raw material or instruments of labour is strictly forbidden, because what is so wasted, represents labour superfluously expended, labour that does not count in the product or enter into its value (218-219).

Marx has taken us on a journey into the world of work–not only a journey into the past but also a journey into the workshop of the capitalist. In the age of democracy, we see that this nice concept–democracy–is not welcome in the workshop. The worker is under the command and control of a hierarchy of people whose tasks are to ensure that as much humanenergy as possible is siphoned off from the worker. This social set-up is

Nature, Human-Energy and the Changing Nature of Work

123

necessary in order to produce surplus-value and profit for the capitalist. Workshops are hence spaces of constant energy flow, from the bodies of the workers into the raw materials, and finally into the pockets of the capitalists. Marx identified human-energy as the value- and surplus-valuecreating entity, and he measured its expenditure in terms of time; more specifically, clock-time. If the worker produces commodities, then he also produces value and surplus-value. This is the paramount condition for the nature of work under the capitalist mode of production. That value and surplus-value arrive in the market dressed in money makes the market their place of destination and not their place of origin. If capital appears in money form in the free market, then it starts off as surplus human-energy in the production sphere. This surplus human-energy is determined by the surplus work-time that the worker is expected to work. With capitalistic time as the capitalist’s aid, money is transformed into capital. If profit makes its appearance in the democratic and free layer of capitalist society, it starts its life in the undemocratic and unfree layer of capitalist society. Even in the presence of the means of production or constant capital, human-energy is the raison d’être of profit-making. We now continue on our journey through Capital with Marx to “see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced”.

CHAPTER EIGHT CONSTANT AND VARIABLE CAPITAL: THE MASS AND ENERGY FORMS OF CAPITAL

A machine does not produce energy, but merely transforms or redirects it. —Steinhart et al. Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it is only converted from one form to another. —J.M. Fowler

According to Marx, the capitalist’s capital is used to purchase two forms of commodities: one is the means of production, and the other human-energy. In this chapter, titled “Constant Capital and Variable Capital”, he draws our attention to the fact that capital in the form of tools, raw materials, workshops, machines, etc., does not create value; it merely transposes its intrinsic value into the new commodity. The value of these tools, etc., which they transpose to the new product, cannot and will not exceed the sum of the intrinsic values of the various means of production. If new value is added to the commodity, then this value originates from the worker himself via the expenditure of human-energy. By distinguishing between constant and variable capital, the kernel of Marx’s argument, I believe, is that the means of production on its own cannot and does not create surplus-value or profit. However, there are various factors that may influence the value-formation of a commodity. Marx also alludes to the law of energy conservation in the production process when he uses the concept of “preservation” instead of “conservation”: The labourer adds fresh value to the subject of his labour by expending upon it a given quantity of additional labour, no matter what the specific character and utility of that labour may be. On the other hand, the values of the means of production used up in the process are preserved, and present themselves afresh as constituent parts of the value of the product; the values of the cotton and the spindle, for instance, re-appear again in the value of the yarn. The value of the means of production is therefore preserved, by being transferred to the product. This transfer takes place

Constant and Variable Capital: The Mass and Energy Forms of Capital 125 during the conversion of those means into a product, or in other words, during the labour-process. It is brought about by labour; but how? (221222)

In the production process, human-energy combines with the potential energy contained in the means of production (tools, machinery, etc.) to produce new commodities. Hence human-energy is kinetic energy or energy in motion, and is the motive force of production. Tools and machinery comprise the potential energy, which is dependent on humanenergy for its “revitalisation”: In so far then as labour is such specific productive activity, in so far as it is spinning, weaving, or forging, it raises, by mere contact, the means of production from the dead, makes them living factors of the labour-process, and combines with them to form the new products (223).

Marx provides ample and insightful illustrations of energytransformations in production processes involving tools, machinery and raw materials. Some transformations are visible and evident to the naked eye, whilst others are less visible, or not visible at all. However, all instruments of work have a limited lifespan, or should I say a value lifespan. Once all of its energy is transferred during measured-time into commodity production, then its use-value becomes non-existent. Using measured time, Marx compares this process to that of the dying of man. In the example he provides, the value of the machine is subsequently resident in the produced commodity. If a machine is non-functioning after 10 years, then for each of its 10 years that it has existed, it has transferred one tenth of its value into the commodities which it helped to produce: The coal burnt under the boiler vanishes without leaving a trace; so, too, the tallow with which the axles of wheels are greased. Dye stuffs and other auxiliary substances also vanish but re-appear as properties of the product. Raw material forms the substance of the product, but only after it has changed its form. Hence raw material and auxiliary substances lose the characteristic form with which they are clothed on entering the labourprocess. It is otherwise with the instruments of labour. Tools, machines, workshops, and vessels, are of use in the labour-process, only so long as they retain their original shape, and are ready each morning to renew the process with their shape unchanged. And just as during their lifetime, that is to say, during the continued labour-process in which they serve, they retain their shape independent of the product, so, too, they do after their death. The corpses of machines, tools, workshops, &c., are always separate and distinct from the product they helped to turn out. If we now consider the case of any instrument of labour during the whole period of its service,

126

Chapter Eight from the day of its entry into the workshop, till the day of its banishment into the lumber room, we find that during this period its use-value has been completely consumed, and therefore its exchange-value completely transferred to the product. For instance, if a spinning machine lasts for 10 years, it is plain that during that working period its total value is gradually transferred to the product of the 10 years. The lifetime of an instrument of labour, therefore, is spent in the repetition of a greater or less number of similar operations. Its life may be compared with that of a human being. Every day brings a man 24 hours nearer to his grave (226-227).

Marx alludes to the ability of man to predict aspects of his lifespan, as well as that of machines. More importantly, he attempts to show mathematically the depreciation of the use-value of a machine over time in the work process, whilst at the same time pointing to the appreciation of the same “lost” use-value as one of “gain” in the commodity. If “every day brings a man 24 hours nearer to his grave”, then for every day that a machine is in use, its energy transfer takes it closer to its “grave”, whilst enabling the taking of more commodities to the market. In other words, a machine has to gradually “die” in order that commodities may “live”: …but how many days he has still to travel on that road, no man can tell accurately by merely looking at him. This difficulty, however, does not prevent life insurance offices from drawing, by means of the theory of averages, very accurate, and at the same time very profitable conclusions. So it is with the instruments of labour. It is known by experience how long on the average a machine of a particular kind will last. Suppose its usevalue in the labour-process to last only six days. Then, on the average, it loses each day one-sixth of its use-value, and therefore parts with one-sixth of its value to the daily product. The wear and tear of all instruments, their daily loss of use-value, and the corresponding quantity of value they part with to the product, are accordingly calculated upon this basis (227).

Human-energy is a nature-given entity, and one which allows man to produce and reproduce his and his family’s life. However, for the capitalist and his family, the worker’s human-energy is vital for the creation of surplus-value and profit. So whilst the capitalist takes human-energy for granted when profits are pouring in, he is reminded of the significance of human-energy as a motive and creative force when the worker holds back his human-energy during a workers’ strike. Just like the “presence” of money is noticed during a financial crisis, so too is the “presence” of human-energy noticed during a work dispute: The property therefore which labour-power in action, living labour, possesses of preserving value, at the same time that it adds it, is a gift of

Constant and Variable Capital: The Mass and Energy Forms of Capital 127 Nature which costs the labourer nothing, but which is very advantageous to the capitalist inasmuch as it preserves the existing value of his capital. So long as trade is good, the capitalist is too much absorbed in moneygrubbing to take notice of this gratuitous gift of labour. A violent interruption of the labour-process by a crisis, makes him sensitively aware of it (230).

All means of production involved in the work process are of use-value and not exchange-value. A man may buy a pound of corn and consume it within a week. Hence it will have served as a use-value for him. The capitalist purchases means of production, which are then consumed in the work process. The means of production do not produce value; however, the value contained in such means of production undergoes an energy metamorphosis, and appears in the produced commodity in the form of value. There is no creation or “reproduction” of value. Neither is there a creation or reproduction of the source of such value viz. human-energy; it merely changes from one form to the next. Like cables that transfer electric energy from its point of production to its points of consumption, constant capital enables the transfer of human-energy, from past and present workers into the commodity. If the law of energy conservation has thus far been applied to the horizontal or x axis of life, then we note that it is also applicable to the vertical or y axis of life: As regards the means of production, what is really consumed is their usevalue, and the consumption of this use-value by labour results in the product. There is no consumption of their value, and it would therefore be inaccurate to say that it is reproduced. It is rather preserved; not by reason of any operation it undergoes itself in the process; but because the article in which it originally exists, vanishes, it is true, but vanishes into some other article. Hence, in the value of the product, there is a reappearance of the value of the means of production, but there is, strictly speaking, no reproduction of that value. That which is produced is a new use-value in which the old exchange-value reappears (230-231).

From a Marxian point of view, surplus work-time equals surplusvalue. In the following illustration presented by Marx, the worker works for 12 hours; six hours of the work process are used to transfer her humanenergy, and hence the value contained in the means of production, to that of the commodity being produced. In this work-time, the value of the commodity will be commensurable with the sum of the values of all of the individual means of production that collaborate to produce the use-value commodity during the given work-time. Within this duration, the humanenergy of the worker serves as the impulse or trigger for the transference

128

Chapter Eight

of human-energy from the worker, in concert with the “dead” humanenergy in the instruments of work, to that of the commodity. It then appears as value in the commodity. For the other six hours of work, present and past workers’ human-energy is metamorphosed into surplusvalue for the capitalist: We know, however, from what has gone before, that the labour-process may continue beyond the time necessary to reproduce and incorporate in the product a mere equivalent for the value of the labour-power. Instead of the six hours that are sufficient for the latter purpose, the process may continue for twelve hours. The action of labour-power, therefore, not only reproduces its own value, but produces value over and above it. This surplus-value is the difference between the value of the product and the value of the elements consumed in the formation of that product, in other words, of the means of production and the labour-power (232).

The use-value of the instruments of work, raw materials, etc. undergoes wear and tear, but its value remains constant. The same quantity of value that went into the production process at the beginning emerges at the end of the production process. From an E=mc2 perspective, I assume constant capital to be the mass form of capital: That part of capital then, which is represented by the means of production, by the raw material, auxiliary material and the instruments of labour does not, in the process of production, undergo any quantitative alteration of value. I therefore call it the constant part of capital, or, more shortly, constant capital (232).

In the production process and in value terms, human-energy produces necessary value and surplus-value. Human-energy, on the other hand, undergoes a transformation of value, i.e. it creates value. Hence Marx refers to capital that is representative of human-energy as “variable capital”. From an E=mc2 perspective, I assume variable capital to be the energy form of capital. Marx refers to the means of production as objective factors, and human-energy as a subjective factor in the production process. The former is termed constant capital and the latter variable capital; the one the mass form of capital and the other the energy form of capital: On the other hand, that part of capital, represented by labour-power, does, in the process of production, undergo an alteration of value. It both reproduces the equivalent of its own value, and also produces an excess, a surplus-value, which may itself vary, may be more or less according to circumstances. This part of capital is continually being transformed from a

Constant and Variable Capital: The Mass and Energy Forms of Capital 129 constant into a variable magnitude. I therefore call it the variable part of capital, or, shortly, variable capital. The same elements of capital which, from the point of view of the labour-process, present themselves respectively as the objective and subjective factors, as means of production and labour-power, present themselves, from the point of view of the process of creating surplus-value, as constant and variable capital (232233).

I believe that the two important arguments made by Marx in the chapter on “constant and variable capital” are: first, that without the worker and his human-energy, no new value can be created in the production process; secondly, that without the worker and his humanenergy, surplus-value and profit are impossible, even in the presence of the most powerful and sophisticated of tools, raw materials, machinery, etc. It is in this chapter that Marx sets the foundation for the rest of his arguments in Capital, i.e. explains that it is the human-energy of the worker which creates surplus-value and hence wealth for the capitalist. Hence, in a 21st century world, where the narrative of the “99%” and the “1%” is rapidly gaining ground, the Marxist deduction can be drawn that the wealth of the 1% is, in the final analysis, the cumulative result of the value-creating human-energy of the 99%. In other words, it is not the constant component of the capitalists of the world that is, in the final analysis, responsible for their burgeoning wealth, but the mass of human-energy which is daily employed and appropriated in their production spheres. Subsequent chapters will delve further into the workings of the capitalist system in order to map out its modus operandi for surplus value-creation and profit maximisation. Like all other commodities, the creation of surplus-value and profit occurs in the “base structure” of capitalist society. We remain in the production sphere, the unfree layer of capitalist society, to “see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced” through the exploitation of human-energy.

CHAPTER NINE THE DEGREE OF EXPLOITATION OF HUMAN-ENERGY IN THE PRODUCTION OF SURPLUS-VALUE

In war, the strong make slaves of the weak, and in peace the rich make slaves of the poor. —Oscar Wilde If a muscle generates 100 W for 0.1s, the mechanical work done is 10 J. This means that 10 J of mechanical energy has been transferred from the muscle to the limb segments. —D.A. Winter

The title of this chapter in Capital is “The Rate of Surplus-Value”. Marx commences this chapter with the following subheading: “The Degree of Exploitation of Labour-Power”, and not “The Degree of Exploitation of Labour”. In the field, the farmer exploits the animalenergy of the ox. In the workplace, the capitalist exploits the humanenergy of the worker. In the field, the animal-energy of the ox creates wealth in the form of crops for the farmer. In the factory, the humanenergy of the worker creates wealth in the form of commodities for the capitalist. That the worker is continuously exploited for his human-energy is but one of Marx’s main arguments in Capital. He uses many illustrations in order to uncover the math and science of human-energy exploitation. Marx has separated capital into two broad categories: constant capital and variable capital. Capital “C” is used to denote capital which is made up of constant capital “c” and variable capital “v”. To recap–constant capital represents the means of production which does not create new value, i.e. its value is kept constant. Variable capital, on the other hand, represents human-energy, the commodity that creates value and surplus-value. In the illustration used by Marx below, the surplusvalue which is derived from a financial capital outlay of £500 is £90. Of the £500, £410 consists of constant capital and £90 consists of variable

The Degree of Exploitation of Human-Energy

131

capital. Through investing £500, the capitalist ends up with £590. Capital– in the form of money–has therefore expanded: The capital C is made up of two components, one, the sum of money c laid out upon the means of production, and the other, the sum of money v expended upon the labour-power; c represents the portion that has become constant capital, and v the portion that has become variable capital. At first then, C = c + v: for example, if £500 is the capital advanced, its components may be such that the £500 = £410 const. + £90 var. When the process of production is finished, we get a commodity whose value = (c + v) + s, where s is the surplus-value; or taking our former figures, the value of this commodity may be (£410 const. + £90 var.) + £90 surpl. The original capital has now changed from C to C', from £500 to £590. The difference is s or a surplus-value of £90. Since the value of the constituent elements of the product is equal to the value of the advanced capital, it is mere tautology to say, that the excess of the value of the product over the value of its constituent elements, is equal to the expansion of the capital advanced or to the surplus-value produced (235).

Given that constant capital does not produce value, but gradually reappears as value in the final commodity, it is mathematically sound to equate constant capital to a zero factor. Since variable capital amounts to £90, and since £90 of surplus-value was produced, then in percentage terms, the net surplus-value for the capitalist is 100%. Marx calls this “the rate of surplus-value”. Hence the rate of surplus-value is the ratio of surplus-value to variable capital i.e. finance capital for human-energy: In the first place then we equate the constant capital to zero. The capital advanced is consequently reduced from c + v to v, and instead of the value of the product (c + v) + s we have now the value produced (v + s). Given the new value produced = £180, which sum consequently represents the whole labour expended during the process, then subtracting from it £90 the value of the variable capital, we have remaining £90, the quantity of the surplus-value. This sum of £90 or s expresses the absolute quantity of surplus-value produced. The relative quantity produced, or the increase per cent of the variable capital, is determined, it is plain, by the ratio of the surplus-value to the variable capital, or is expressed by s/v. In our example this ratio is 90/90, which gives an increase of 100%. This relative increase in the value of the variable capital, or the relative magnitude of the surplusvalue, I call, ‘The rate of surplus-value’ (239).

Marx divides the work process into two sets of clock-time: the first set is that during which the worker expends his human-energy for his own, and his family’s, livelihood. Since the worker and his family will require the bare necessities in order to survive, Marx refers to the work-time that

132

Chapter Nine

makes up this portion of the working day as necessary labour time. In the example given below, he equates the value of the worker’s human-energy to that of yarn, expressed by a specific quantity of money. Had the worker been working for himself, then he would have produced the goods that he and his family would need to survive in six hours. However, in the capitalist system, the worker does not receive the finished product at the end of the day, but instead receives money, in the form of wages, for his human-energy. In any event, he does not produce the finished and whole commodity, since he is no longer an individual worker, but a “collective worker”, owing to the capitalistic division of work. He will then use the wage he receives to buy those commodities which he and his family need for their survival: We have seen that the labourer, during one portion of the labour-process, produces only the value of his labour-power, that is, the value of his means of subsistence. Now since his work forms part of a system, based on the social division of labour, he does not directly produce the actual necessaries which he himself consumes; he produces instead a particular commodity, yarn for example, whose value is equal to the value of those necessaries or of the money with which they can be bought (239-240).

The second portion of the clock-time of the work process is that part of the working day during which the worker works for the capitalist, but is not paid a wage in return. Marx refers to this as “surplus labour-time” (surplus work-time). If a worker expends his human-energy for 12 hours, then six hours of his human-energy is for his and his family’s upkeep, and the expenditure of human-energy for the second set of six hours is solely for the benefit of the capitalist and the capitalist’s family. This benefit takes the form of surplus-value. Within a specific quantity of measuredtime, the worker expends a specific quantity of human-energy, so as to realise a specific quantity of surplus-value for the capitalist. We also observe that under capitalism, there is a lot of unnecessary work going on, as long as the ultimate aim is to convert surplus-value into capital. Necessary human-energy results in use-value money for the worker, and surplus human-energy results in surplus-value money for the capitalist: During the second period of the labour-process, that in which his labour is no longer necessary labour, the workman, it is true, labours, expends labour-power; but his labour, being no longer necessary labour, he creates no value for himself. He creates surplus-value which, for the capitalist, has all the charms of a creation out of nothing. This portion of the working day, I name surplus labour-time, and to the labour expended during that time, I give the name of surplus labour (240-241).

The Degree of Exploitation of Human-Energy

133

A slave-owner continuously extracts human-energy from a slave, and a capitalist attempts to continuously extract human-energy from the worker; the difference being in the socially-accepted methods by which such human-energy is extracted. The point that Marx is making, I think, is that both capitalism and slavery are based on the exploitation of man. We keep in mind that although Marx’s Capital is littered with the nuances, implications, underpinnings, etc. of the workings of energy, the science of energy, at the time that Marx was writing, was still in its infant stage: It is every bit as important, for a correct understanding of surplus-value, to conceive it as a mere congelation of surplus labour-time, as nothing but materialised surplus labour, as it is, for a proper comprehension of value, to conceive it as a mere congelation of so many hours of labour, as nothing but materialised labour. The essential difference between the various economic forms of society, between, for instance, a society based on slavelabour, and one based on wage-labour, lies only in the mode in which this surplus labour is in each case extracted from the actual producer, the labourer (241).

Marx’s verdict with regards to the exploitation of human-energy is as follows: if the rate of surplus-value is 60%, then the degree of exploitation of human-energy is 60%. If the rate of surplus-value is 120%, then the degree of the exploitation of human-energy is 120%. With surplus-value arising from the exploitation of the worker, we can infer that wealth and poverty are two sides of the same capitalist coin: The rate of surplus-value is therefore an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labour-power by capital, or of the labourer by the capitalist (241).

Marx alludes to the fact that he sometimes uses the concepts labour (work) and labour-power (human-energy) interchangeably. We often hear of the concept of the “labour market”. However, the labour market does not exist! The labour process exists, but not the labour market. What does indeed exist is the labour-power market or what I call the human-energy market. Political economy did not, could not, or would not make the distinction between the labour market and the labour-power market. If there was one outstanding discovery made by Marx, it was that the labour market does not exist. Instead, he discovered the existence of the labourpower market. 250 years after Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, the 21st century modern world still speaks of a labour market! 160 years after Marx alerted the world to such an aberration, the modern world still continues to use “slang” in its economic science. The capitalist buys

134

Chapter Nine

labour-power and not labour. Nobody is able to buy or purchase work, or labour, from a commodities market. What the capitalist is free to purchase is labour-power (human-energy). This conceptual distinction between labour (work) and labour-power (human-energy) is of crucial significance to the existence of capitalism and its ability to continue with its fraudulent economic science: In speaking of payment of labour, instead of payment of labour-power, I only talk your own slang (252).

Who gets what from the working day has been a subject of much debate. Capitalists and the scholar Senior have advocated for longer working hours, arguing that the profit of the capitalist comes from the last hour. If the working hours had to be reduced by an hour, then the capitalist would not get her profit. Typical of Marx’s wit, he titles this section of the discussion as “Senior’s Last Hour”–and dismisses outright this absurd logic regarding the acquisition of profit: But this dreadful ‘last hour,’ about which you have invented more stories than have the millenarians about the day of judgment, is ‘all bosh.’ If it goes, it will cost neither you, your net profit, nor the boys and girls whom you employ, their ‘purity of mind’ (252).

The daily measured time that the worker works for himself and the capitalist is what Marx refers to as the working day. The working day is an essential temporal organisation for the capitalist mode of production. It is the temporal space through which the worker gets his wage, and the capitalist her surplus-value. It is a temporal space whose length is almost always decided by the capitalist class, generally in collaboration with the state. The contest between the capitalist class and the working class through the centuries regarding the length of the working day will be discussed in much more detail in the following chapter: The sum of the necessary labour and the surplus labour, i.e., of the periods of time during which the workman replaces the value of his labour-power, and produces the surplus-value, this sum constitutes the actual time during which he works, i.e., the working day (254-255).

The exploitation of human-energy is not unique to the capitalist mode of production. For example, in Rome, the exploitation of thousands of slaves made great profits for their masters (Meltzer, 1993: 147). Capitalism grows strong on energy in general, and human-energy in particular. It has, and continues to, spread its tentacles to all parts of the

The Degree of Exploitation of Human-Energy

135

world in order to continually quench its infinite thirst for energy. Capitalism adores human-energy from migrant workers, as such workers are economically vulnerable, and therefore easily exploitable. Whether energy is in the form of coal, nuclear energy, hydro-energy, gas, biofuels, wind, solar power, etc., as long as it is energy, then capitalism will attempt to devour it with lightning speed. But first and foremost, its first choice of energy is human-energy, unless such energy increases in value in relation to other energy feedstocks. History through the ages has been about the exploitation of energy in general, and human-energy in particular. Finding and exploiting energy is the human story (Eberhart, 2007). From the USA to China, from the European Union to Africa, human-energy is exploited to feed the capitalist monster. Throughout the world, capitalism demands that the human-energy market be deregulated, so that the lower prices it pays for human-energy will translate into higher profits for itself. If the slave market once guaranteed that the master could exploit the humanenergy of the slave at any time of day or night that he pleased, then the human-energy market guarantees that the capitalist can exploit the humanenergy of the worker for the entire length of the working day. If the workshop or factory is the place where we “see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced”, then the working day is the measured time within which capital produces and is produced.

CHAPTER TEN THE WORKING DAY: MEASURED TIME FOR WORK AND WAGES

Time is money. —Benjamin Franklin The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once. —Albert Einstein

England ruled the world in the 18th and 19th centuries, but at home she was haggling with workers over the length of the working day, and “fooling” children into thinking that their adult years began sooner than they thought! This was all in the name of creating the ideological, social and political conditions for the appropriation of human-energy from all and sundry, in however large a quantity of measured time. “The Working Day” is the title of chapter 10 in Capital. Marx uses many reports from the factory inspectors and doctors of his time to analyse and understand “the working day” and its appalling impacts on men, women and children. This chapter outlines work-related injuries, diseases and death wrought on workers by the evolving and maturing capitalist epoch. Women and children were especially vulnerable to the long and dangerous working conditions. Man lives a measured life under capitalism. It is indeed astonishing how capitalism has organised the temporality of life, or the lifetime of man in general, and his human-energy in particular. It is a fact of life that man must work in order to maintain himself and his family at a given standard of living in the given historical, social, and geographical context that he finds himself in. Capitalist-configured time is the capitalist’s bosom buddy, and the worker’s arch enemy. Humans have been “keeping time” for many thousands of years. Some terms which are associated with time are: period, while, spell, stretch, stint, interval, phase, stage, epoch, past, present, future, era, year, etc. All of these concepts refer to the measurements of time, as seen by changing man in a changing world. The Babylonians and Egyptians measured time in order to identify the best times for ploughing, planting, harvesting, etc. Western society

The Working Day: Measured Time for Work and Wages

137

adopted time measuring technologies from the ancients, who used sundial water clocks to divide up the day and night into temporal packages (Andrewes, 2012). Whilst the sundial’s shadow was used to measure the day-time in hours, the mechanical clock made its appearance in the 13th century (Stix, 2012), and this greatly assisted the productivity and performance of society (Lande in Stix, 2012). Under capitalism, the passage of life is organised into time-pockets. The rule of life under the capitalist mode of production is aided by the clock and the calendar. When commodities fly around the world, they do so within a temporal space or measured time. When commodities are produced in the workplace, they are produced within a temporal space or measured time. It is during the working day that commodities are produced by workers utilising their human-energy. The working day is the quantity of time which is allocated to the production of commodities. Under capitalism, the working day is primarily configured for the production of surplus-value. By reconfiguring time, the capitalist is able to regulate the quantity of human-energy expended by the worker. The mechanical clock is, after all, the tool that aids capitalism, increasing “productivity and performance”. It is during the working day that the human-energy of the worker is exploited. It is during the working day that the capitalist secures his surplus-value and profit. And it is as a result of the working day, and the subsequent exploitation of human-energy, that the class struggle has taken root and grows. The chapter on the working day in Capital is rich with case-studies of men, women and children working for extraordinarily long hours in 18th and 19th century England. If the 18th and 19th centuries in England were “the best of times” for the capitalist class, then they were “the worst of times” for the working class. Marx also provides historical accounts of disease and death from over-work. Hard work–contrary to capitalist ideology–has killed many a man, woman and child. Time-control is the most powerful tool in the capitalist’s ideological cache. A working day, according to Marx, comprises the length of time that a worker takes to work for himself and the length of time that he works producing surplus-value for the capitalist. The nature of time under capitalism conceals the time that the worker works for himself and his family and the time that he works “free of charge” for the capitalist and the capitalist’s family. We note that Marx refers to time with two meanings, one being “working time”, and the other being the “working day”. The former I take to be in relation to a humanenergy activity, the latter in relation to measured time: The working day is thus not a constant, but a variable quantity. One of its parts, certainly, is determined by the working-time required for the reproduction of the labour-power of the labourer himself. But its total

138

Chapter Ten quantity varies with the duration of the surplus labour. The working day is, therefore, determinable, but is, per se, indeterminate (256).

There is a limit to the quantity of human-energy that can be expended by the worker in a given day. After this human-energy is depleted, it has to be replenished, as demanded by the law of nature. The worker also has to reserve a quantity of his human-energy so as to expend it on activities of a social, cultural and intellectual nature. As humans, our human-energy is required to perform a host of functions. But under capitalism, humanenergy is mostly appropriated by work-time, primarily for the benefit of creating surplus-value and profit. Since the development of capitalism, the working day has been known to vary considerably in terms of the quantity of hours during which the worker is expected to work. The working day has been known to extend to 18 hours and beyond. With such burdensome lengths of working time, the length of the working day has obviously been an issue of huge contention between the working class and the capitalist class. Capitalism has always tried to determine and decide the length of the working day: On the other hand, the working day has a maximum limit. It cannot be prolonged beyond a certain point. This maximum limit is conditioned by two things. First, by the physical bounds of labour-power. Within the 24 hours of the natural day a man can expend only a definite quantity of his vital force. A horse, in like manner, can only work from day to day, 8 hours. During part of the day this force must rest, sleep; during another part the man has to satisfy other physical needs, to feed, wash, and clothe himself. Besides these purely physical limitations, the extension of the working day encounters moral ones. The labourer needs time for satisfying his intellectual and social wants, the extent and number of which are conditioned by the general state of social advancement. The variation of the working day fluctuates, therefore, within physical and social bounds. But both these limiting conditions are of a very elastic nature, and allow the greatest latitude. So we find working days of 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 hours, i.e., of the most different lengths (256-257).

Human-energy is bought, not in kilograms or miles or litres or joules, but in measured time i.e. by the day. However, as to what constitutes a working day, this is an interesting question. The capitalist can own all the clocks in the world, but as long as he does not have an “ounce” of humanenergy as part of his capital, then none of his “ownership” of time as “property” will translate into money! But under the laws of exchange, and the right to his use-value, a worker’s human-energy belongs to the capitalist for a full working day. The worker himself or herself is aware of

The Working Day: Measured Time for Work and Wages

139

this when he or she decides to enter into an exchange transaction with the capitalist regarding his or her human-energy: The capitalist has bought the labour-power at its day-rate. To him its usevalue belongs during one working day. He has thus acquired the right to make the labourer work for him during one day. But, what is a working day? (257).

As long as profit is the ultimate aim of the capitalist, then the length of the working day is decided by the capitalist class. Marx uses powerful imagery to denote the sucking of human-energy in a vampire-like manner. The analogy is indeed an apt one, when one considers the appalling lives of people in many countries throughout the world, especially those of the under-developed and developing world. The vampire metaphor is also apt when one considers the appalling state of the natural environment in many regions of the world. If it is work-time for the worker, then it is also human-energy consumption time for the capitalist. Both these times occur within the same time: Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him (257).

Marx constructs a hypothetical scenario of a dialogue between a worker and a capitalist. In this scenario we witness the rumblings of the class struggle, whereby the worker questions the capitalist about a fair and just price for his human-energy, and about a fair and just working day. Marx wastes no time (or human-energy) in revealing the material nature of social relationships under capitalism. Rights, for Marx, are ideals which do not resolve the material deprivation, material challenges or material exploitation that people experience on a daily basis under capitalism. The relation of capitalist accumulation to human-energy depletion is also inferred. In the dialogue, the worker makes an argument that, whereas it takes him a measured time of three days to replenish and refuel his humanenergy, the capitalist usurps it in the measured time of a single day. The worker also alludes in layman’s terms to the conversion of human-energy from mechanical energy in work to surplus-value in the possession of the capitalist. The “presence” of the law of conservation of energy is implied in the statement: “what you gain in labour I lose in substance.” The worker makes reference to the value-creating nature of his commodity, viz. human-energy, and makes the argument that he is being defrauded of his human-energy by pointing to the discrepancy between his wage and his

140

Chapter Ten

work-time. It is also a piece of dialogue which provides insights into the growing awareness of the worker of his destitute plight under capitalism: The commodity that I have sold to you differs from the crowd of other commodities, in that its use creates value, and a value greater than its own. That is why you bought it. That which on your side appears a spontaneous expansion of capital, is on mine extra expenditure of labour-power. You and I know on the market only one law, that of the exchange of commodities. And the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, who acquires it. To you, therefore, belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to sell it again. Apart from natural exhaustion through age, &c., I must be able on the morrow to work with the same normal quantity of force, health and freshness as to-day. You preach to me constantly the gospel of ‘saving’ and ‘abstinence.’ Good! I will, like a sensible saving owner, husband my sole wealth, labour-power, and abstain from all foolish waste of it. I will each day spend, set in motion, put into action only as much of it as is compatible with its normal duration, and healthy development. By an unlimited extension of the working day, you may in one day use up a quantity of labour-power greater than I can restore in three. What you gain in labour I lose in substance. The use of my labour-power and the spoliation of it are quite different things. If the average time that (doing a reasonable quantity of work) an average labourer can live, is 30 years, the value of my labour-power, which you pay me from day to day is 1/(365×30) or 1/10950 of its total value. But if you consume it in 10 years, you pay me daily 1/10950 instead of 1/3650 of its total value, i.e., only 1/3 of its daily value, and you rob me, therefore, every day of 2/3 of the value of my commodity. You pay me for one day’s labour-power, whilst you use that of 3 days. That is against our contract and the law of exchanges. I demand, therefore, a working day of normal length, and I demand it without any appeal to your heart, for in money matters sentiment is out of place. You may be a model citizen, perhaps a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and in the odour of sanctity to boot; but the thing that you represent face to face with me has no heart in its breast. That which seems to throb there is my own heart-beating. I demand the normal working day because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodity (258-259).

The life of the capitalist has become intertwined with the livelihood of the worker; each attempts to grab from this relationship what he or she thinks is rightfully his or hers. But under capitalist law, “might is right”, and Marx reminds us that “between equal rights force decides”. We have, therefore, a long and bitter class struggle, on the part of the capitalist class to lengthen the working day, and on the part of the working class to

The Working Day: Measured Time for Work and Wages

141

shorten the working day. The capitalist has secured his territory for the production of profit through private property laws. But place alone will not secure profit for the capitalist. This would come from the manipulation of time, working in accordance with the logic of capitalist accumulation. However, attempting to secure and control the working day proves to be an arduous task. Marx also refers to human-energy as a commodity of a “peculiar nature”, in that its quantity is limited, although it can again be replenished after it has been transposed into the work process. The struggle for the working day is a fight on the part of the capitalist to usurp as much human-energy as he can, and for the worker, it is a fight to conserve his human-energy, or to receive what he thinks is a just price or wage for his human-energy, the “peculiar” commodity at the centre of class struggle: We see then, that, apart from extremely elastic bounds, the nature of the exchange of commodities itself imposes no limit to the working day, no limit to surplus labour. The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class (259).

Whilst capitalism is not the only historical epoch to have seized the human-energy of man, under feudalism, the temporal space or measured time within which the usurpation of human-energy occurred was clearly demarcated. If time heals, then time also conceals. Under capitalism, the working day conceals the surplus-time that the worker works for the capitalist without receiving an equal exchange for his surplus work-time. The law of exchange, it seems, encounters anomalies in the area of worktime and human-energy; the former appears under the guise of the working day, and the latter appears under the guise of labour. If concepts help us understand the world that we have created, then they also distract us from, or delude us about, the world we have created. The capitalistic configuration of time keeps the world in general, and the worker in particular, ill-informed about the exploitative workings of the capitalist mode of production:

142

Chapter Ten Suppose the working day consists of 6 hours of necessary labour, and 6 hours of surplus labour. Then the free labourer gives the capitalist every week 6 x 6 or 36 hours of surplus labour. It is the same as if he worked 3 days in the week for himself, and 3 days in the week gratis for the capitalist. But this is not evident on the surface. Surplus labour and necessary labour glide one into the other. I can, therefore, express the same relationship by saying, e.g., that the labourer in every minute works 30 seconds for himself, and 30 for the capitalist, etc. It is otherwise with the corvée. The necessary labour which the Wallachian peasant does for his own maintenance is distinctly marked off from his surplus labour on behalf of the Boyard. The one he does on his own field, the other on the seignorial estate. Both parts of the labour-time exist, therefore, independently, side by side one with the other. In the corvée the surplus labour is accurately marked off from the necessary labour. This, however, can make no difference with regard to the quantitative relation of surplus labour to necessary labour. Three days’ surplus labour in the week remain three days that yield no equivalent to the labourer himself, whether it be called corvée or wage-labour. But in the capitalist the greed for surplus labour appears in the straining after an unlimited extension of the working day, in the Boyard more simply in a direct hunting after days of corvée (261).

I will assume in this book that the universe exists in time. I will assume that the earth exists in time. I will assume that nature exists in time. But time itself does not move. Man has sliced time into a myriad of varying quantities: millennia, centuries, decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds, etc. He has done this with the aid of the movement of the earth around the sun, the latter of which is the hotbed of energy for life on planet earth. Depending on his standard of living, a man’s lifetime may be measured in quantities, for example decades. For most, throughout the capitalistic world, their lifetimes are transformed into work-times. With capitalism’s need for speed, time has been sliced into even smaller and tinier quantities viz., milliseconds, nanoseconds, etc. It seems that capitalism requires smaller quantities of measured time in order to raise the productivity of work. These smaller time-zones or temporal spaces are able to measure extremely fast-moving energy. I sometimes refer to sliced up time as measured time, and sometimes more specifically as clock-time, to denote the sliced up periods of hours and days. Together with his material and social development, man has deemed it “socially necessary” to measure all and sundry–except the expenditure of human-energy in the workplace. It is within these sliced-up times that we have organised or organise the activities of the world. Hence we have times allocated to numerous human activities. The basic unit that man has constructed to denote time is the second. Two of the many activity-based times that man enjoys under capitalism are meal times and recreation times. But work-

The Working Day: Measured Time for Work and Wages

143

time eats into not-for-profit time or use-value time whenever and however it can. In a society obsessed with time–and in a society in which “moments are the elements of profit” –the human-energy that is meant to capacitate the worker to have his meals, engage in recreation, conserve his humanenergy, and rest his body is usurped by work-time. Hence the worker is under constant stress, strain, anxiety, pressure and coercion to direct his human-energy towards the production process for surplus-value creation and profit-maximisation: These ‘small thefts’ of capital from the labourer’s meal and recreation time, the factory inspectors also designate as ‘petty pilferings of minutes,’ ‘snatching a few minutes,’ or, as the labourers technically called them, ‘nibbling and cribbling at meal-times.’ It is evident that in this atmosphere the formation of surplus-value by surplus labour, is no secret. ‘If you allow me,’ said a highly respectable master to me, ‘to work only ten minutes in the day over-time, you put one thousand a year in my pocket.’ ‘Moments are the elements of profit.’ (267)

If the worker has to take a meal break, then this is to ensure that he has sufficient energy intake to expend his human-energy. Food is to the worker what coal is to a machine–both types of worker require energy from nature. Marx recounts incidents reported by inspectors where workers who transported the public fell asleep at the wheel because of over-work. And in most of these cases, the capitalists are given a “rap on the knuckles”, whilst the workers are the ones that face hefty jail sentences. Marx cites one such case that occurred during his lifetime. How often have we witnessed the law serving harsher sentences to the poor, and mild ones to the rich and powerful in society! Capitalistic society is clearly an over-worked society, and measured time is the social tool within which such over-work takes place. Over-work increases the risk of injury, and sometimes of death, to the worker, and to members of the broader society, who rely on the worker for various services: So far, we have dealt with Ireland. On the other side of the channel, in Scotland, the agricultural labourer, the ploughman, protests against his 1314 hours’ work in the most inclement climate, with 4 hours’ additional work on Sunday (in this land of Sabbatarians!), whilst, at the same time, three railway men are standing before a London coroner’s jury–a guard, an engine-driver, a signalman. A tremendous railway accident has hurried hundreds of passengers into another world. The negligence of the employés is the cause of the misfortune. They declare with one voice before the jury that ten or twelve years before, their labour only lasted eight hours a-day. During the last five or six years it had been screwed up to 14, 18, and 20 hours, and under a specially severe pressure of holiday-

144

Chapter Ten makers, at times of excursion trains, it often lasted for 40 or 50 hours without a break. They were ordinary men, not Cyclops. At a certain point their labour-power failed. Torpor seized them. Their brain ceased to think, their eyes to see. The thoroughly ‘respectable’ British jurymen answered by a verdict that sent them to the next assizes on a charge of manslaughter, and, in a gentle ‘rider’ to their verdict, expressed the pious hope that the capitalistic magnates of the railways would, in future, be more extravagant in the purchase of a sufficient quantity of labour-power, and more ‘abstemious,’ more ‘self-denying,’ more ‘thrifty,’ in the draining of paid labour-power (278-279).

Ancient man measured the movement of the earth on its axis and divided it into 24 hours. Modern man has built upon and improved this temporal measurement of the heavenly bodies. During the earth’s rotation, different parts of the earth are showered with the energy from the sun, creating the effects which we call day and night. The mechanical clock measures the movement of day into night and night into day. As long as the sun is our beacon of light, day will cascade into night and night will cascade into day. Hence we have day-time and we have night-time. The measurement of the movement of the earth on its axis formed the basis for other measured times. A second is an indicator of a certain quantity of time, just as a minute is. In the same manner: one hour, 24 hours, three days, seven days, one month, one year, 10 years, 25 years, 50 years, 70 years, etc. are all indicators of quantities of time, i.e. they are examples of measured times. Capitalism distorts nature, and for the first time in the lifetime of man, the worker’s human-energy is also put to work during the entire night on a wide scale. As long as there is a steady supply of humanenergy, the capitalist hungers to put it to work, day and night, ad infinitum. The capitalist also views his or her constant capital, as standing idle, without generating surplus-value, if it is switched off. However, constant capital can only be put to work in tandem with the worker–even if it is just one worker. If human-energy is not being usurped, the capitalist views this as unproductive, and as a sign of not progressing fast enough. The work day extends its tentacles into the night, which becomes part and parcel of the working day. With the production process extending itself into nighttime, the night-shift worker emerges as a common feature of life under capitalism: Constant capital, the means of production, considered from the standpoint of the creation of surplus-value, only exist to absorb labour, and with every drop of labour a proportional quantity of surplus labour. While they fail to do this, their mere existence causes a relative loss to the capitalist, for they represent during the time they lie fallow, a useless advance of capital. And

The Working Day: Measured Time for Work and Wages

145

this loss becomes positive and absolute as soon as the intermission of their employment necessitates additional outlay at the recommencement of work. The prolongation of the working day beyond the limits of the natural day, into the night, only acts as a palliative. It quenches only in a slight degree the vampire thirst for the living blood of labour. To appropriate labour during all the 24 hours of the day is, therefore, the inherent tendency of capitalist production. But as it is physically impossible to exploit the same individual labour-power constantly during the night as well as the day, to overcome this physical hindrance, an alternation becomes necessary between the workpeople whose powers are exhausted by day, and those who are used up by night. This alternation may be effected in various ways; e.g., it may be so arranged that part of the workers are one week employed on day-work, the next week on nightwork (282-283).

Whether it was the human-energy of women or children as young as six was, historically, irrelevant; the logic of capitalism is the extraction of human-energy, and it does not “discriminate” regarding the source of this human-energy. “Time is money”, and all 24 hours of the day were yoked and thrown into the servitude of capitalism. All were put to work, as work extended itself into night-time as well. If coal energy fed the fires of the Industrial Revolution, it was because the human-energy of the children of the Industrial Revolution pulled that coal from deep within the bowels of the earth: It is well known that this relay system, this alternation of two sets of workers, held full sway in the full-blooded youth-time of the English cotton manufacture, and that at the present time it still flourishes, among others, in the cotton spinning of the Moscow district. This 24 hours’ process of production exists to-day as a system in many of the branches of industry of Great Britain that are still ‘free,’ in the blast-furnaces, forges, plate-rolling mills, and other metallurgical establishments in England, Wales, and Scotland. The working-time here includes, besides the 24 hours of the 6 working days, a great part also of the 24 hours of Sunday. The workers consist of men and women, adults and children of both sexes. The ages of the children and young persons run through all intermediate grades, from 8 (in some cases from 6) to 18 (283).

If time appears as heterogeneous measured times under capitalism, then it also occurs as lived experiences. Hence we have play time and we have work time. We have family time and time for friends or socialising time. Just as time can be related to many different phenomena, people may decide what time it is for themselves and their families; a choice that is made rather difficult by capitalism’s configuration and reconfiguration of

146

Chapter Ten

time. Lived time is related to varied types of activities, governed by the movement made possible by the human-energy of people. When one asks the time of another, it may not necessarily be the case that one wishes to know, in and of itself, what the measured time is. One may have at the back of one’s mind, so to speak, what type of activity or movement one is expected to engage in. As long as day exists, capitalism will siphon off human-energy. And even when it is night, the time that man usually sleeps to replenish his “vital force”, capitalism’s reconfiguration of the working day draws out his human-energy. Money never sleeps, and neither does the capitalist mode of production. And if capitalism never sleeps, then do not expect the owners of human-energy to sleep, let alone to have a good night’s sleep. Marx also points to the injurious nature of both night work and working long hours. The extensive use of human-energy results in fatigue and increases the injury of risk and death, especially where work involves heavy and dangerous machinery. Children were preferred over adults to work in the factories and workshops of England. They were easier to control and could be paid lesser wages in comparison to adult workers. According to Hoffman (2009: 159), Bertrand Russel believed that a four-hour working day: would be perfectly tenable for society as a whole, and the leisure hours gained thereby would allow everyone time for reading and thinking, for sport and self-cultivation, and for that idle speculation from which, he was convinced, most intellectual and creative discoveries emerge.

But the worker is all too familiar with the nature of working-time in the 21st century. Capitalistic work binds his human-energy to it. Capitalistic time binds his human-energy to work. Even when he does get the opportunity to lay his head on a pillow, his mind is restless. He looks forward to the time when he can retire, so as to have his human-energy entirely to himself and his family. As long as he works, his human-energy is, and has to be, in the servitude of capital. He is left with very little of his human-energy each day to expend on his loved ones, his social life, his cultural life, his intellectual life, etc. Working life is life under the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism robs man of his family time, his social time, his free time, his play time, his rest time, his reading time, his meal time, his television time, his sports time, etc.; all use-value times that may be necessary for man’s “species being”. The human-energy that normally characterises all of these different times is instead captured by work-time. Of all the times, work-time rules supreme. The idea that “time is money” is central to capitalism’s logic. “Time is money” is also a powerful capitalist ideology. Its intent is to turn all times into primarily

The Working Day: Measured Time for Work and Wages

147

work-time. Capitalism has successfully monopolised man’s human-energy under the guise of homogenous time. Under capitalism, as long as man is human-energy personified, then he is merely a “commodity”. Capitalism is a blind, unconscious, devouring monster of human-energy. It is a stealer and thief of human-energy, only because it needs to accumulate and grow, and grow and grow. This is in the DNA of capitalism–to grow infinitely and indefinitely. Man enters the capitalistic world with his human-energy stamped “Made to Work”. In the world of capitalism, rest time, even if it rests on a religious doctrine, is pure “moonshine”. The work ethic of capitalism devours even the Christian ethic of rest on a Sunday: What is a working day? What is the length of time during which capital may consume the labour-power whose daily value it buys? How far may the working day be extended beyond the working-time necessary for the reproduction of labour-power itself? It has been seen that to these questions capital replies: the working day contains the full 24 hours, with the deduction of the few hours of repose without which labour-power absolutely refuses its services again. Hence it is self-evident that the labourer is nothing else, his whole life through, than labour-power, that therefore all his disposable time is by nature and law labour-time, to be devoted to the self-expansion of capital. Time for education, for intellectual development, for the fulfilling of social functions and for social intercourse, for the free-play of his bodily and mental activity, even the rest time of Sunday (and that in a country of Sabbatarians!)–moonshine! But in its blind unrestrainable passion, its were-wolf hunger for surplus labour, capital oversteps not only the moral, but even the merely physical maximum bounds of the working day. It usurps the time for growth, development, and healthy maintenance of the body. It steals the time required for the consumption of fresh air and sunlight. It higgles over a meal-time, incorporating it where possible with the process of production itself, so that food is given to the labourer as to a mere means of production, as coal is supplied to the boiler, grease and oil to the machinery. It reduces the sound sleep needed for the restoration, reparation, refreshment of the bodily powers to just so many hours of torpor as the revival of an organism, absolutely exhausted, renders essential. It is not the normal maintenance of the labour-power which is to determine the limits of the working day; it is the greatest possible daily expenditure of labour-power, no matter how diseased, compulsory, and painful it may be, which is to determine the limits of the labourers’ period of repose. Capital cares nothing for the length of life of labour-power. All that concerns it is simply and solely the maximum of labour-power, that can be rendered fluent in a working day. It attains this end by shortening the extent of the labourer’s life, as a greedy farmer snatches increased produce from the soil by robbing it of its fertility (290-292).

148

Chapter Ten

Capitalism always has a steady supply of human-energy for its survival and expansionism due to “a constant excess of population”. The length of the working day has been contested for hundreds of years. Sometimes the state intervenes on behalf of capitalism in order to increase the length of the working day. A larger quantity of time will ensure a larger usurpation of human-energy. But “the establishment of a normal working day is the result of centuries of struggle between capitalist and labourer”. With the introduction of machines and the rise of industrial capitalism, the workers’ resistance grew. And where the state did introduce work laws in favour of the working class, it did not provide the necessary law-enforcement institutions to back up these laws, meaning that they were merely laws written on paper and not implemented. For the workers of 19th century England, the laws that were supposedly made in order to protect them were similar to God–always “present” but never effective in preventing or alleviating the misery of the masses. Capitalism breaks all boundaries of morality and law. It sets its own standards; standards that give it carte blanche to suck out as much human-energy as it can. It caucuses the state to set up laws to allow it free reign to exploit human-energy. It invents and reinvents the temporal lives of workers–to the point that a working life seems normal and natural. The state finds itself in a quandary about whether to legislate on behalf of capitalism or the vulnerable. While the length of the working day continued to be haggled over by the capitalist class and the working class, the age that defined a child also became the site of class struggle. If hours are important time measurements for the length of the working day, then years are just as important for the usurping of the child’s human-energy by the working world: But in no wise conciliated capital now began a noisy agitation that went on for several years. It turned chiefly on the age of those who, under the name of children, were limited to 8 hours’ work, and were subject to a certain quantity of compulsory education. According to capitalistic anthropology, the age of childhood ended at 10, or at the outside, at 11. The more nearly the time approached for the coming into full force of the Factory Act, the fatal year 1836, the more wildly raged the mob of manufacturers. They managed, in fact, to intimidate the government to such an extent that in 1835 it proposed to lower the limit of the age of childhood from 13 to 12. In the meantime the pressure from without grew more threatening. Courage failed the House of Commons. It refused to throw children of 13 under the Juggernaut Car of capital for more than 8 hours a day, and the Act of 1833 came into full operation. It remained unaltered until June, 1844 (307).

The Working Day: Measured Time for Work and Wages

149

The working class organised themselves, and in the form of the Chartist movement, were able to win concessions for the working people of England. Workers’ Day or May Day–which is celebrated on 1st May throughout the world each year, except in the United States of America, the so-called “land of the free”–has its roots in 1848. We observe that the working day became a terrain heavily contested by workers and capitalists. The capitalists agitated for larger quantities of work-time; if they could steal more hours from the 24-hour day, then they could extract more human-energy from the workers. An extensive work day meant that an extensive quantity of human-energy could be exploited. With the introduction of the “Ten Hours Act”, the class struggle began to intensify; the capitalist class began a ruthless campaign to turn back the gains won by the working class since 1833. The worker would have limited freedom to decide the duration within which he will expend his human-energy in the servitude of capitalist work. This temporal period of his life would time and time again be decided by the capitalist class, generally in cahoots with the state: The preliminary campaign of capital thus came to grief, and the Ten Hours’ Act came into force May 1st, 1848. But meanwhile the fiasco of the Chartist party whose leaders were imprisoned, and whose organisation was dismembered, had shaken the confidence of the English working-class in its own strength. Soon after this the June insurrection in Paris and its bloody suppression united, in England as on the Continent, all fractions of the ruling classes, landlords and capitalists, stock-exchange wolves and shop-keepers, Protectionists and Freetraders, government and opposition, priests and freethinkers, young whores and old nuns, under the common cry for the salvation of Property, Religion, the Family and Society. The working-class was everywhere proclaimed, placed under a ban, under a virtual law of suspects. The manufacturers had no need any longer to restrain themselves. They broke out in open revolt not only against the Ten Hours’ Act, but against the whole of the legislation that since 1833 had aimed at restricting in some measure the ‘free’ exploitation of labourpower. It was a pro-slavery rebellion in miniature, carried on for over two years with a cynical recklessness, a terrorist energy all the cheaper because the rebel capitalist risked nothing except the skin of his ‘hands.’ (313).

From the following passage we gain insights into the systemic nature of capitalism. The law itself favours capitalism. Capitalism twists and turns the law of the land in accordance with its own logic for the production of surplus-value and profit maximisation. In 19th century England, most if not all laws favoured the capitalist class. For Marx, the law was the embodiment of the capitalist class. He persuades us that it is

150

Chapter Ten

necessary for workers to consciously unite as a class, against the capitalist class, if they wish to put a halt to the exploitation of their human-energy. That the worker is free to sell his human-energy under capitalism is an illusion; he is constantly under a coercive and compulsive power to do so. If bulls and bears are reflective of how well or poorly capitalism is performing, then vampires and serpents characterise the intrinsic nature of capitalism itself: It must be acknowledged that our labourer comes out of the process of production other than he entered. In the market he stood as owner of the commodity ‘labour-power’ face to face with other owners of commodities, dealer against dealer. The contract by which he sold to the capitalist his labour-power proved, so to say, in black and white that he disposed of himself freely. The bargain concluded, it is discovered that he was no ‘free agent,’ that the time for which he is free to sell his labour-power is the time for which he is forced to sell it, that in fact the vampire will not lose its hold on him ‘so long as there is a muscle, a nerve, a drop of blood to be exploited.’ For ‘protection’ against ‘the serpent of their agonies,’ the labourers must put their heads together, and, as a class, compel the passing of a law, an all-powerful social barrier that shall prevent the very workers from selling by voluntary contract with capital, themselves and their families into slavery and death. In place of the pompous catalogue of the ‘inalienable rights of man’ comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working day, which shall make clear ‘when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins.’ Quantum mutatus ab illo! [What a great change from that time!–Virgil] (329-330).

We perceive time primarily through the mind of capitalism, in a similar manner to how we view money and people primarily through capitalist lenses. The capitalistic mind distorts the reality of social and economic life. The capitalist is not primarily concerned with time; he is concerned mainly with movement. But it is time, more specifically clocktime, which allows him to control the movement of the worker. A clock also has its own time, so a clock in Britain will have a different time to that of a clock in the United States of America. To the stillness of time society “attaches” different activities. To the stillness of time, capitalist society attaches primarily work, for the production of surplus-value and profit. Everything moves in time–work, growing old, going to school, reaching legal age, etc. If capitalism disciplines the worker to work, then it also disciplines individual capitalists to ensure that they become successful capitalists by growing their surplus-value and profit. We are taught from when we are young to “worship” time. If capitalism arranges and rearranges geographical spaces for the conducting of society’s functions,

The Working Day: Measured Time for Work and Wages

151

then it also arranges and rearranges the temporal spaces within which such activities are expected to occur. Time is a fixed or independent variable, but the human-energy activities in such spaces undergo transformations or changes. For example, man may grow old “with” time, but it is more the case that measured time gives man an indication of his transformation or ageing process. Man’s management of his human-energy has to occur in relation to the predetermined temporal spaces of capitalist society. The social tools handed to him by capitalist society in order to carry out this function are the clock and the wrist-watch. That some wrist-watches may contain gold and diamonds does not take away their use-value for the control of movement, and hence of human-energy in society. When capitalism encounters resistance or limitations to its control of the measurement of movement using clock-time, it then zooms in and controls movement itself, i.e. it takes control of energy sources in order to regulate human-energy. Where it loses control over the working day, it gains control over the working time of the worker. Where it loses control over measured time, it gains control over energy. For many centuries, the control of the working day would ensure the accrual of absolute surplusvalue by capitalists. With the loss of control over the length of the working day, and of the subsequent control and command over energy, capitalism would harvest relative surplus-value. If “moments are the elements of profit”, then capitalism soon learned that it is movements in moments that secure such profit. All men and women have a lifetime “allocated” to them. Let us call it the time or temporal space that they “possess”, and within which they may be free to expend their human-energy in a variety of activities of their choice. The time or temporal space which they are granted never changes; upon his dying a man has “lived” his time. But the activities or phenomena within that “allocated”, unchanging time or temporal space could have been many or few, intensive or extensive, exciting or boring, free or restrained, expensive or cheap, hopeful or hopeless, etc. For millions of people throughout the world, their lifetime is filled with work-time. They are compelled to fill that time or temporal space with their human-energy in the interest of capital accumulation. If the workshop or factory floor is the place where we “see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced”, we also see how capital overcomes the limitations of the contracted working day won through class struggle. If “every day brings a man 24 hours nearer to his grave”, then every joule of his human-energy is expected to give ever-lasting life to capitalism, even when the working day is contracted. In order to see how capitalism overcomes the limitations imposed on it, we must keep in mind that the quantity of human-energy that fills work-time may not necessarily

152

Chapter Ten

be equal to the quantity of human-energy that fills the working day. Whereas the former work process is “uniform and homogenous”, the latter process may entail work that is erratic, intermittent and wasteful.

CHAPTER ELEVEN LIMITS TO RATE AND MASS OF SURPLUSVALUE CONFRONTED BY CAPITALISM

One finds limits by pushing them. —Herbert Simon There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder. —Ronald Reagan

This is chapter 11 in Capital and is titled “Rate and Mass of SurplusValue”. Marx focuses on the “heart and soul” of capitalism: surplus-value and profit–the reasons for capitalism’s existence. They are the reasons for the existence of capitalistic man. Marx’s current and future arguments will reveal the re-workings of capitalism when it confronts limitations to the production and reproduction of surplus-value and profit. We recall that surplus-value is created on the workshop floor, but realised in the market in the form of money. Whilst the market may, through its law of demand and supply, influence the price of commodities, value and surplus-value leave the workshop stamped on all commodities. The combined question is: what mass of profit can and does a capitalist make in a day, with a set number of workers, and how fast? As long as the worker does not own the means of production, and as long as he works for a capitalist, then he has to work for a set quantity of clock-time. This he is compelled to do so as to get paid by the capitalist for survival purposes. For Marx, the rate of surplus-value is equivalent to the degree of exploitation of human-energy, i.e. that quantity of human-energy that is appropriated by the capitalist without payment in wages. In discussing the “rate and mass of surplus value”, the length of necessary work-time is taken as a constant: In this chapter, as hitherto, the value of labour-power, and therefore the part of the working day necessary for the reproduction or maintenance of that labour-power, are supposed to be given, constant magnitudes (331).

154

Chapter Eleven

In the example below, money is gold and represents the value of six hours of necessary work put in by the worker. This is the portion of the working day and money value which is required to keep him and his family alive for a particular quantity of time. If 100% is the rate at which the worker produces surplus-value, then he will put in six hours of surpluswork in order to also produce 3s. of money-value for the capitalist. We also keep in mind that a specific quantity of money is representative of a specific quantity of the worker’s human-energy: This premised, with the rate, the mass is at the same time given of the surplus-value that the individual labourer furnishes to the capitalist in a definite period of time. If, e.g., the necessary labour amounts to 6 hours daily, expressed in a quantum of gold = 3 shillings, then 3s. is the daily value of one labour-power or the value of the capital advanced in the buying of one labour-power. If, further, the rate of surplus-value be = 100%, this variable capital of 3s. produces a mass of surplus-value of 3s., or the labourer supplies daily a mass of surplus labour equal to 6 hours (331).

Variable capital, in money terms, is that portion of capital that is set aside by the capitalist for the purchase of human-energy. The argument that Marx is putting forward is that the mass of surplus-value is dependent on the quantity of human-energy which is employed in the production process, together with the rate of exploitation of this human-energy. Such mass employment of human-energy is also dependent on the quantity of capital that the capitalist has in his possession. If variable capital is limited, then this puts limits on employing masses of human-energy for surplus-value creation: But the variable capital of a capitalist is the expression in money of the total value of all the labour-powers that he employs simultaneously. Its value is, therefore, equal to the average value of one labour-power, multiplied by the number of labour-powers employed. With a given value of labour-power, therefore, the magnitude of the variable capital varies directly as the number of labourers employed simultaneously. If the daily value of one labour-power = 3s., then a capital of 300s. must be advanced in order to exploit daily 100 labour-powers, of n times 3s., in order to exploit daily n labour-powers (331).

Under “normal” production, there are two ways by which a capitalist can increase the mass and rate of surplus-value. These are: employing more workers and increasing the length of the working day. In order to adopt the first option, the capitalist will have to lay out more variable capital for the purchase of human-energy. The issue we are now

Limits to Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value Confronted by Capitalism

155

confronted with is: can capitalism surpass “impassable limits” in order make unlimited profits? There are only 24 hours in a day, and this fact definitely installs a cap or limit on the duration within which humanenergy can be exploited: Nevertheless, the compensation of a decrease in the number of labourers employed, or of the quantity of variable capital advanced by a rise in the rate of surplus-value, or by the lengthening of the working day, has impassable limits. Whatever the value of labour-power may be, whether the working-time necessary for the maintenance of the labourer is 2 or 10 hours, the total value that a labourer can produce, day in, day out, is always less than the value in which 24 hours of labour are embodied, less than 12s., if 12s. is the money expression for 24 hours of realised labour (333).

When considering capitalist society as a whole, the system comes up against limits in terms of the number of workers, or the quantity of humanenergy that will be available for exploitation. How can capitalism overcome the limits to the production of surplus-value imposed by the natural maximum length of the working day and the “size of the working population”? The labour which is set in motion by the total capital of a society, day in, day out, may be regarded as a single collective working day. If, e.g., the number of labourers is a million, and the average working day of a labourer is 10 hours, the social working day consists of ten million hours. With a given length of this working day, whether its limits are fixed physically or socially, the mass of surplus-value can only be increased by increasing the number of labourers, i.e., of the labouring population. The growth of population here forms the mathematical limit to the production of surplus-value by the total social capital. On the contrary, with a given quantity of population, this limit is formed by the possible lengthening of the working day. It will, however, be seen in the following chapter that this law only holds for the form of surplus-value dealt with up to the present (336).

Marx alludes to the importance of having an adequate quantity of money in order to start out as a capitalist. As to how the capitalist came into an adequate quantity of money to purchase the means of production and human-energy, this is an enigma. Marx points to the importance of the state in “partly” subsiding capitalist development, contrary to the notion of capitalism being an economic system of limited or no state intervention: The minimum of the sum of value that the individual possessor of money or commodities must command, in order to metamorphose himself into a

156

Chapter Eleven capitalist, changes with the different stages of development of capitalist production, and is at given stages different in different spheres of production, according to their special and technical conditions. Certain spheres of production demand, even at the very outset of capitalist production, a minimum of capital that is not as yet found in the hands of single individuals. This gives rise partly to state subsidies to private persons, as in France in the time of Clobber, and as in many German states up to our own epoch, partly to the formation of societies with legal monopoly for the exploitation of certain branches of industry and commerce, the forerunners of our modern joint stock companies (338).

Marx proceeds to set the stage for the technical arrangement of the productive sphere, whereby the worker is under the total command and control of the capitalist system. Disciplining the worker such that he or she expends his or her human-energy efficiently and diligently in the workplace is a key element of workplace design and arrangement. Such an arrangement constitutes one of the primary strategies of the capitalist and his management team: Within the process of production, as we have seen, capital acquired the command over labour, i.e., over functioning labour-power or the labourer himself. Personified capital, the capitalist takes care that the labourer does his work regularly and with the proper degree of intensity. Capital further developed into a coercive relation, which compels the working class to do more work than the narrow round of its own life-wants prescribes. As a producer of the activity of others, as a pumper-out of surplus labour and exploiter of labour-power, it surpasses in energy, disregard of bounds, recklessness and efficiency, all earlier systems of production based on directly compulsory labour (338-339).

In capitalist production, the worker becomes a mere means for the creation of surplus-value and hence of profit. Whereas in earlier forms of production, i.e. use-value production, he was human and working on objects, under capitalism, he is merely a personification of his humanenergy. Work under capitalism differs from work under previous modes of production. A significant work issue for “future society” is: will the nature and quality of work change, if the economic system is not informed by the logic of capitalism? The worker becomes consumed by capitalism. In the workshop, the worker is a resource like any other–just another input in the production process. After all, it is the “right” of the capitalist to consume the peculiar commodity which he has purchased. Capitalist accumulation is a physical and mechanical process; any slowing down or halting of the mechanical movements of the worker threatens the survival and growth of capitalism:

Limits to Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value Confronted by Capitalism

157

If we consider the process of production from the point of view of the simple labour process, the labourer stands in relation to the means of production, not in their quality as capital, but as the mere means and material of his own intelligent productive activity. In tanning, e.g., he deals with the skins as his simple object of labour. It is not the capitalist whose skin he tans. But it is different as soon as we deal with the process of production from the point of view of the process of creation of surplusvalue. The means of production are at once changed into means for the absorption of the labour of others. It is now no longer the labourer that employs the means of production, but the means of production that employ the labourer. Instead of being consumed by him as material elements of his productive activity, they consume him as the ferment necessary to their own life-process, and the life-process of capital consists only in its movement as value constantly expanding, constantly multiplying itself. Furnaces and workshops that stand idle by night, and absorb no living labour, are ‘a mere loss’ to the capitalist. Hence, furnaces and workshops constitute lawful claims upon the night-labour of the work-people. The simple transformation of money into the material factors of the process of production, into means of production, transforms the latter into a title and a right to the labour and surplus labour of others (339).

Capitalism’s quest is for unlimited surplus-value, and it constantly arranges and rearranges both the production sphere and society in order to realise surplus-value and profit. Whereas the lengthening of the working day finally results in what Marx calls absolute surplus-value, the lengthening of the work-time during which the worker produces surplusvalue is what he refers to as relative surplus-value. In a later chapter, he pronounces that, in so far as both absolute surplus-value and relative surplus-value are surplus-value, they are one and the same. But for the purposes of understanding the mechanisms by which capitalism overcomes limitations to extracting surplus-value from the worker, these forms of surplus-value extraction have been discussed as separate forms. An important part of Marx’s argument is that whilst individual capitalists innovate, it is capitalism as a whole which is the overarching system compelling individual capitalists to increase the productivity of work and the workers.

CHAPTER TWELVE CAPITALISM’S RELENTLESS QUEST TO OVERCOME LIMITS TO SURPLUS-VALUE: THE PRODUCTION OF RELATIVE SURPLUS-VALUE

There is no substitute for hard work. —Thomas Edison Improved productivity means less human sweat, not more. —Henry Ford

Chapter 12, titled “The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value” forms part 4 of Capital, which is titled: “Production of Relative Surplus-Value.” Marx starts to unpack how capitalism adopts creative, innovative and strategic methods to overcome conventional limits to surplus-value and profit-maximisation. Once the worker has expended his human-energy for a required quantity of time in order to sustain his and his family’s lives, the remaining number of hours he works are for the capitalist, without pay. The surplus-time in which he expends surplus human-energy is dependent on the length of the working day. This surplus-time is the time of the exploitation of the worker’s human-energy. From its “humble” but exploitative beginnings, Marx sketches the development of capitalism to its more complex forms in the mid-19th century: That portion of the working day which merely produces an equivalent for the value paid by the capitalist for his labour-power, has, up to this point, been treated by us as a constant magnitude, and such in fact it is, under given conditions of production and at a given stage in the economic development of society. Beyond this, his necessary labour-time, the labourer, we saw, could continue to work for 2, 3, 4, 6, &c., hours. The rate of surplus-value and the length of the working day depended on the magnitude of this prolongation (342).

Capitalism’s Relentless Quest to Overcome Limits to Surplus-Value

159

The conundrum we are now confronted with is: the length of the working day being constant, can the capitalist squeeze out more surplusvalue without extending the length of the working day? This challenge confronted capitalism, especially when the state set a maximum length for the working day as a result of working class resistance and the steadfastness of factory inspectors: Though the necessary labour-time was constant, we saw, on the other hand, that the total working day was variable. Now suppose we have a working day whose length, and whose apportionment between necessary labour and surplus labour, are given. Let the whole line a c, a–b–c represent, for example, a working day of 12 hours; the portion of a b 10 hours of necessary labour, and the portion b c 2 hours of surplus labour. How now can the production of surplus-value be increased, i.e., how can the surplus labour be prolonged, without, or independently of, any prolongation of a c? (342)

Capitalism “works its magic” by zoning in on that entity that creates value and surplus-value viz. human-energy. Capitalism does not suck out more surplus-value and profit by extending the length of the working day, but by eating into the time that the worker needs in order to work for his and his family’s livelihood. We begin to observe that the working day does not necessarily equate to working time; at least, that is what I think. By loosening its grip on the working day, capitalism begins to focus on working time. To recap, the working day, whatever its maximum length, is compartmentalised into that portion of time when the worker works for himself and his family and that portion of time when he works to create surplus-value for the capitalist. As Marx argues: “there would be an alteration, not in the length of the working day, but in its division into necessary labour-time and surplus labour-time” (242). The worker loses when the length of the working day is not capped, and the worker also loses when it is capped. The nature of this loss will be unpacked in this and subsequent chapters: Although the length of a c is given, b c appears to be capable of prolongation, if not by extension beyond its end c, which is also the end of the working day a c, yet, at all events, by pushing back its starting-point b in the direction of a. Assume that b'–b in the line ab'bc is equal to half of b c a–––b'–b––c or to one hour’s labour-time. If now, in a c, the working day of 12 hours, we move the point b to b', b c becomes b' c; the surplus labour increases by

160

Chapter Twelve one half, from 2 hours to 3 hours, although the working day remains as before at 12 hours. This extension of the surplus labour-time from b c to b' c, from 2 hours to 3 hours, is, however, evidently impossible, without a simultaneous contraction of the necessary labour-time from a b into a b', from 10 hours to 9 hours. The prolongation of the surplus labour would correspond to a shortening of the necessary labour; or a portion of the labour-time previously consumed, in reality, for the labourer’s own benefit, would be converted into labour-time for the benefit of the capitalist. There would be an alteration, not in the length of the working day, but in its division into necessary labour-time and surplus labour-time (342-343).

Reducing the necessary work-time means that the worker has to produce his livelihood in a relatively smaller clock-time, and this can only happen if he is more productive in the expenditure of his human-energy, or if the ration of commodities by which he and his family survives is made cheaper. A key method by which workers become more productive is when they have access to technologically advanced tools. Technologically advanced tools ensure that the worker is able to expend human-energy more efficiently, and hence more productively. We also gain insights into the fact that the productivity of work, or the creation of relative surplusvalue, is not primarily dependent on clock-time, although clock-time is an important tool in the arsenal of capital for surplus-value creation. Increasing work productivity becomes dependent on how energy, in general, and human-energy, in particular, is harnessed, organised, directed and utilised in the production sphere. Hence the material basis of work productivity is that of energy, and the index by which energy expenditure is measured is that of work-time i.e. joules of human-energy expended per unit of clock-time (second). At least this is how energy expenditure is measured in all spheres but the workplace. In all of this, the value of human-energy is constantly decreased, so that the worker’s standard of subsistence is constantly pushed downwards. If the value of that ration of commodities on which the worker and his family can live is kept at a bare minimum, then capitalism compels the worker to direct his surplus humanenergy into surplus-value. Accumulation for the capitalist occurs as a result of the depreciation of the worker. By imposing objective forces on the production sphere, capitalism assumes total command and control over the productivity of the worker and his work-time. By increased productivity, Marx means firstly that the worker has to produce a commodity in a smaller quantity of socially necessary labour time, and secondly, that he has to produce more commodities: Such a fall in the value of labour-power implies, however, that the same necessaries of life which were formerly produced in ten hours, can now be

Capitalism’s Relentless Quest to Overcome Limits to Surplus-Value

161

produced in nine hours. But this is impossible without an increase in the productiveness of labour. For example, suppose a shoe-maker, with given tools, makes in one working day of twelve hours, one pair of boots. If he must make two pairs in the same time, the productiveness of his labour must be doubled; and this cannot be done, except by an alteration in his tools or in his mode of working, or in both. Hence, the conditions of production, i.e., his mode of production, and the labour-process itself, must be revolutionised. By increase in the productiveness of labour, we mean, generally, an alteration in the labour-process, of such a kind as to shorten the labour-time socially necessary for the production of a commodity, and to endow a given quantity of labour with the power of producing a greater quantity of use-value. Hitherto in treating of surplus-value, arising from a simple prolongation of the working day, we have assumed the mode of production to be given and invariable. But when surplus-value has to be produced by the conversion of necessary labour into surplus labour, it by no means suffices for capital to take over the labour-process in the form under which it has been historically handed down, and then simply to prolong the duration of that process. The technical and social conditions of the process, and consequently the very mode of production must be revolutionised, before the productiveness of labour can be increased. By that means alone can the value of labour-power be made to sink, and the portion of the working day necessary for the reproduction of that value, be shortened (344-345).

Abracadabra! We see surplus-value being created without the prolongation of the working day, through the shortening of the work-time for the worker’s and his family’s subsistence and hence, the relative prolongation of the work-time that creates surplus-value. Surplus-value is produced not by squeezing more hours into the working day, but by squeezing out more human-energy from the worker. The difference is that the surplus human-energy benefits the capitalist and his family, instead of the worker and his family. The human-energy which is pumped out by increased work productivity, thereby creating surplus-value for the capitalist, is what Marx refers to as relative surplus-value. Surplus-value that is produced as a result of lengthening the working day is what Marx refers to as absolute surplus-value: The surplus-value produced by prolongation of the working day, I call absolute surplus value. On the other hand, the surplus-value arising from the curtailment of the necessary labour-time, and from the corresponding alteration in the respective lengths of the two components of the working day, I call relative surplus-value (345).

The value of the ration of commodities that the worker and his family subsist on may vary a great deal, and is influenced by a range of factors.

162

Chapter Twelve

So as to reduce the cost of the production and reproduction of the worker and his family, capitalism transforms the workplace in order to seek to cheapen those commodities on which the worker and his family depend. There is, therefore, a continuous drive to lower the price of the humanenergy of the worker. Hence a rise in productivity lowers the price of worker-dependent commodities, and in turn lowers the price of humanenergy. However, the cheapening of commodities is not a feature in those areas of production which are considered irrelevant to sustaining the worker and his family at a basic standard of living, examples being the manufacture of silver and gold watches, or even expensive leather handbags and expensive laptops for that matter: In order to effect a fall in the value of labour-power, the increase in the productiveness of labour must seize upon those branches of industry whose products determine the value of labour-power, and consequently either belong to the class of customary means of subsistence, or are capable of supplying the place of those means. But the value of a commodity is determined, not only by the quantity of labour which the labourer directly bestows upon that commodity, but also by the labour contained in the means of production. For instance, the value of a pair of boots depends not only on the cobbler’s labour, but also on the value of the leather, wax, thread, &c. Hence, a fall in the value of labour-power is also brought about by an increase in the productiveness of labour, and by a corresponding cheapening of commodities in those industries which supply the instruments of labour and the raw material, that form the material elements of the constant capital required for producing the necessaries of life. But an increase in the productiveness of labour in those branches of industry which supply neither the necessaries of life, nor the means of production for such necessaries, leaves the value of labour-power undisturbed (346).

To recap, the value of a commodity is the socially necessary worktime, or the socially necessary quantity of joules of human-energy, required to form and shape a required or desired commodity in a given time. The law of averages ensures that whilst the capitalist does not get a profit based on the individual production of a commodity, the functioning of the market allows him to make a small profit nonetheless. The capitalist who is able to increase work productivity through various means cheapens the cost of production, and is able to sell his commodities below the socially determined price. He therefore has the competitive edge over other producers of the same goods and their related “branches of production”. But his gain is merely temporary, since other capitalists “jump on the bandwagon” with regards to increasing productivity in their workplaces as well. This is–according to Marx–the result of the “coercive

Capitalism’s Relentless Quest to Overcome Limits to Surplus-Value

163

law of competition”. According to Fine (1989: 31), capitalism is “dominated by commodity production, and the extension of the market ensures that prices for identical products do not diverge” as “competition is created between producers in the market”. Marx states in Capital: Hence, the capitalist who applies the improved method of production, appropriates to surplus labour a greater portion of the working day, than the other capitalists in the same trade. He does individually, what the whole body of capitalists engaged in producing relative surplus-value, do collectively. On the other hand, however, this extra surplus-value vanishes, so soon as the new method of production has become general, and has consequently caused the difference between the individual value of the cheapened commodity and its social value to vanish. The law of the determination of value by labour-time, a law which brings under its sway the individual capitalist who applies the new method of production, by compelling him to sell his goods under their social value, this same law, acting as a coercive law of competition, forces his competitors to adopt the new method. The general rate of surplus-value is, therefore, ultimately affected by the whole process, only when the increase in the productiveness of labour, has seized upon those branches of production that are connected with, and has cheapened those commodities that form part of, the necessary means of subsistence, and are therefore elements of the value of labour-power (350).

Whilst relative surplus-value is directly proportional to the productivity of work, the value of commodities and hence of human-energy is inversely proportional to the productivity of work. Subsequent chapters will discuss the innovative methods embarked upon by capitalism to cheapen the cost of commodities, thereby cheapening the cost of human-energy, and therefore cheapening the worker himself or herself: The value of commodities is in inverse ratio to the productiveness of labour. And so, too, is the value of labour-power, because it depends on the values of commodities. Relative surplus-value is, on the contrary, directly proportional to that productiveness. It rises with rising and falls with falling productiveness. The value of money being assumed to be constant, an average social working day of 12 hours always produces the same new value, six shillings, no matter how this sum may be apportioned between surplus-value and wages. But if, in consequence of increased productiveness, the value of the necessaries of life fall, and the value of a day’s labour-power be thereby reduced from five shillings to three, the surplus-value increases from one shilling to three. Ten hours were necessary for the reproduction of the value of the labour-power; now only six are required. Four hours have been set free, and can be annexed to the domain of surplus labour. Hence there is immanent in capital an inclination

164

Chapter Twelve and constant tendency, to heighten the productiveness of labour, in order to cheapen commodities, and by such cheapening to cheapen the labourer himself (350-351).

Where capitalism encounters limitations in the natural working day, it turns to commanding and controlling every drop of the worker’s humanenergy. As Marx says elsewhere in Capital on the accumulation ideology of political economy: “Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!” Relative surplus-value is secured through innovations, which lead to the evolution and revolution of capitalist production. Such evolution and revolution entail the following mechanisms for relative surplus-value creation: co-operation on the work-floor, the division of work, the development of machinery, and the quest for other energy forms over and above that of human-energy. These are the methods by which capital produces and is produced. We proceed to “see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced”, even in the face of obvious limits!

CHAPTER THIRTEEN CO-OPERATION AND COLLECTIVISATION: CAPITALISM’S IDEOLOGICAL DESIGN IN THE WORKSHOP

Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much. —Helen Keller Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success. —Henry Ford

“Co-operation” is the title of chapter 13 in Capital. Co-operation and collectivisation are ideologically associated with the political systems of socialism and communism. However, upon closer examination, we see that lots of co-operation and collectivisation goes on in the capitalist mode of production–just not in full view or with the full awareness of society at large. Capitalism collects workers and tools and assumes an overarching power over them. The handicraft nature of production based on cooperation was dominant during the early stages of capitalist production. Marx distinguishes manufacture from handicraft by the fact that manufacture employs a larger quantity of workers than the former. This, for Marx, means that the sign of the commencement of “capitalist production” is the large number of workers that are hired for their humanenergy. By collecting workers and their human-energy and concentrating them in workshops, capitalism assumes control over the energy-place dynamic of commodity production. Whether the handicraft man and woman have decided to work for the capitalist of their own free will, and whether they have agreed to work under a common roof, is an issue that will be explored in a later chapter: Capitalist production only then really begins, as we have already seen, when each individual capital employs simultaneously a comparatively large number of labourers; when consequently the labour-process is carried on on an extensive scale and yields, relatively, large quantities of products.

166

Chapter Thirteen A greater number of labourers working together, at the same time, in one place (or, if you will, in the same field of labour), in order to produce the same sort of commodity under the mastership of one capitalist, constitutes, both historically and logically, the starting-point of capitalist production. With regard to the mode of production itself, manufacture, in its strict meaning, is hardly to be distinguished, in its earliest stages, from the handicraft trades of the guilds, otherwise than by the greater number of workmen simultaneously employed by one and the same individual capital. The workshop of the medieval master handicraftsman is simply enlarged (353).

Whilst in neo-liberal doctrine, there may exist the belief that “each man for himself and God for all”, the co-operative and collectivist nature of work is a reality in the capitalist factory and workshop. In the following quote we are given a glimpse into how capitalism uses communal methods in order to keep costs low in the productive sphere. With the transformation from feudal to capitalist society, not only does the nature of work change, but we are also made aware of changes in the production sphere. Many of the huge buildings on planet earth are designed and constructed so as to collect human-energy in concentrated spaces. Through this social engineering of human-energy, the cost of producing surplusvalue is drastically reduced. The concentration of human-energy in common spaces reduces its relative cost, whilst simultaneously enabling an increased rate of relative surplus-value. Concentrating many workers under a common roof revolutionised the means of production (in comparison to its previous forms) and formed the historical and logical commencement of the capitalist mode of production. If squeezing out more human-energy will result in relative surplus-value, then the squeezing in of workers into fewer workshops is one such method for realising this goal: Even without an alteration in the system of working, the simultaneous employment of a large number of labourers effects a revolution in the material conditions of the labour-process. The buildings in which they work, the store-houses for the raw material, the implements and utensils used simultaneously or in turns by the workmen; in short, a portion of the means of production, are now consumed in common. On the one hand, the exchange-value of these means of production is not increased; for the exchange-value of a commodity is not raised by its use-value being consumed more thoroughly and to greater advantage. On the other hand, they are used in common, and therefore on a larger scale than before. A room where twenty weavers work at twenty looms must be larger than the room of a single weaver with two assistants. But it costs less labour to build one workshop for twenty persons than to build ten to accommodate

Co-operation and Collectivisation

167

two weavers each; thus the value of the means of production that are concentrated for use in common on a large scale does not increase in direct proportion to the expansion and to the increased useful effect of those means (355-356).

Co-operation or the collectivisation of workers in the production sphere formed the bedrock of capitalist production in its developmental stages. In its early stages, human-energy was the preferred source of energy that capitalism sought out. In the workshop, it is out and out the planned and deliberate co-operation of the workers towards the production of exchange-value, surplus-value and finally profit: When numerous labourers work together side by side, whether in one and the same process, or in different but connected processes, they are said to co-operate, or to work in co-operation (357).

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts–and this mathematical principle holds true in the productive sphere as well. When many workers co-operate in order to execute a task, it is indeed the case that much more work can be done. We are also made aware of the collective power of the human-energy of the masses. A piece of coal on its own, if burnt, will emit only a small quantity of heat-energy as compared to a cart-load of coal. A single windmill will be able to turn a small grinding mill; less than the energy accessed from many windmills. A team of oxen will command more energy to plough more land in a specified clock-time than one ox. If a greater quantity of energy is expended per unit of clock-time, then more work is capable of being done. Likewise, many workers will be able to expend more human-energy to do more work than a single worker on his or her own: Just as the offensive power of a squadron of cavalry, or the defensive power of a regiment of infantry is essentially different from the sum of the offensive or defensive powers of the individual cavalry or infantry soldiers taken separately, so the sum total of the mechanical forces exerted by isolated workmen differs from the social force that is developed, when many hands take part simultaneously in one and the same undivided operation, such as raising a heavy weight, turning a winch, or removing an obstacle. In such cases the effect of the combined labour could either not be produced at all by isolated individual labour, or it could only be produced by a great expenditure of time, or on a very dwarfed scale. Not only have we here an increase in the productive power of the individual, by means of co-operation, but the creation of a new power, namely, the collective power of masses (357-358).

168

Chapter Thirteen

The social nature of man enhances his productive capacity when he is part of a team. Whilst man is part of society, he is also nature personified. It is in relation to other men and women that man produces and reproduces himself–economically, socially, culturally, intellectually, etc. Man, it seems, is more useful, worthy and productive as a social animal than as an individual, isolated animal: Apart from the new power that arises from the fusion of many forces into one single force, mere social contact begets in most industries an emulation and a stimulation of the animal spirits that heighten the efficiency of each individual workman. Hence it is that a dozen persons working together will, in their collective working day of 144 hours, produce far more than twelve isolated men each working 12 hours, or than one man who works twelve days in succession. The reason of this is that man is, if not as Aristotle contends, a political, at all events a social animal (358).

We are given more insights into the ways that co-operation amongst workers increases productivity levels. Whatever the method applied to increase the productivity of work, the underlying cause is that of the “social productive power” of work, or the “productive power of social” work. Marx highlights the social nature of man, and pronounces that man’s individuality is a restraint on his capabilities: The combined working day produces, relatively to an equal sum of isolated working days, a greater quantity of use-values, and, consequently, diminishes the labour-time necessary for the production of a given useful effect. Whether the combined working day, in a given case, acquires this increased productive power, because it heightens the mechanical force of labour, or extends its sphere of action over a greater space, or contracts the field of production relatively to the scale of production, or at the critical moment sets large masses of labour to work, or excites emulation between individuals and raises their animal spirits, or impresses on the similar operations carried on by a number of men the stamp of continuity and many-sidedness, or performs simultaneously different operations, or economises the means of production by use in common, or lends to individual labour the character of average social labour whichever of these be the cause of the increase, the special productive power of the combined working day is, under all circumstances, the social productive power of labour, or the productive power of social labour. This power is due to cooperation itself. When the labourer co-operates systematically with others, he strips off the fetters of his individuality, and develops the capabilities of his species (361).

We are given snippets into the historical beginnings of capitalism. Money in the hands of the capitalist presupposes the employment of

Co-operation and Collectivisation

169

workers. It is a necessary condition for purchasing human-energy and the means of production. Being “free” to work is another condition for the employment of workers in manufacture: As a general rule, labourers cannot co-operate without being brought together: their assemblage in one place is a necessary condition of their cooperation. Hence wage-labourers cannot co-operate, unless they are employed simultaneously by the same capital, the same capitalist, and unless therefore their labour-powers are bought simultaneously by him. The total value of these labour-powers, or the quantity of the wages of these labourers for a day, or a week, as the case may be, must be ready in the pocket of the capitalist, before the workmen are assembled for the process of production (361).

Capitalism is a planned economy; it is never laissez faire–at least not in the sphere of production. It assumes a laissez faire ethos in the market, after the groundwork is prepared for capitalism’s construction, take-off and consolidation. We see the iron fist of capitalism in the command and control workshop of production. There is no democracy in the workplace, as there is no democracy in the military. In both institutions, leaders are not chosen through popular vote. Soldiers in the military do not decide with which countries to go to war–their political bosses do! So too is the nature of decision-making in the workplace. For example, the workers do not decide on the types and quantities of products that should be produced; their bosses do. With the concentration of workers into workshops and factories, the seeds for the class struggle are also sown. The workers now stand in opposition to the capitalist bosses. The class struggle by wage workers, having commenced in 19th century England, is a feature of the 21st century global world as well. The exploitation of the human-energy of the worker is the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society, which the working class continuously strives to overcome. In a similar manner, capitalism attempts to overcome the resistance emanating from the workers by a range of means, constant innovation in the means of production being one of them. Overcoming limitations to its accumulation logic is capitalism’s genius thus far: The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, is to extract the greatest possible quantity of surplus-value, and consequently to exploit labour-power to the greatest possible extent. As the number of the cooperating labourers increases, so too does their resistance to the domination of capital, and with it, the necessity for capital to overcome this resistance by counter-pressure. The control exercised by the capitalist is not only a special function, due to the nature of the social labour-process,

170

Chapter Thirteen and peculiar to that process, but it is, at the same time, a function of the exploitation of a social labour-process, and is consequently rooted in the unavoidable antagonism between the exploiter and the living and labouring raw material he exploits (363).

It was in ancient Egypt that human-energy came to be in surplus abundance. It confounds the mind when one gazes at the giant Egyptian pyramids; but such a wonder was only possible through the co-operation of the human-energy of hundreds of thousands of workers, in the form of slaves. Marx quotes the following passage to provide an insight into the co-operation of workers and the massive expenditure of their humanenergy in the private and public work projects of past societies. It is a similar form of co-operation amongst workers which forms the humanenergy foundation of capitalist society. However, whereas in previous societies, the surplus went into building material culture, and followed the pharaohs into their tombs and graves, under capitalism the surplus is appropriated by the capitalist, in the form of money: The colossal effects of simple co-operation are to be seen in the gigantic structures of the ancient Asiatics, Egyptians, Etruscans, etc. It has happened in times past that these Oriental States, after supplying the expenses of their civil and military establishments, have found themselves in possession of a surplus which they could apply to works of magnificence or utility and in the construction of these their command over the hands and arms of almost the entire non-agricultural population has produced stupendous monuments which still indicate their power. The teeming valley of the Nile ... produced food for a swarming nonagricultural population, and this food, belonging to the monarch and the priesthood, afforded the means of erecting the mighty monuments which filled the land.... In moving the colossal statues and vast masses of which the transport creates wonder, human labour almost alone, was prodigally used....The number of the labourers and the concentration of their efforts sufficed. We see mighty coral reefs rising from the depths of the ocean into islands and firm land, yet each individual depositor is puny, weak, and contemptible. The non-agricultural labourers of an Asiatic monarchy have little but their individual bodily exertions to bring to the task, but their number is their strength, and the power of directing these masses gave rise to the palaces and temples, the pyramids, and the armies of gigantic statues of which the remains astonish and perplex us. It is that confinement of the revenues which feed them, to one or a few hands, which makes such undertakings possible (366).

Again, we are given a “lesson” in history: co-operation is not unique to the capitalist mode of production. Co-operation, according to Marx, has

Co-operation and Collectivisation

171

been a feature of previous societies, whether they be hunter-gatherer or agricultural societies. However, the difference of co-operation in capitalist society is that the workers who are coerced into co-operation have been torn from their traditional co-operative lives. In previous societies, land and the means of production were also held as common property or selfearned property. With co-operation under the capitalist mode of production, the only private property owned by the workers is that of their human-energy. So whilst the co-operative nature of humans has at times been subjected to domination, as in ancient Egypt, the capitalist form of co-operation depends on the availability of the “free” worker and his “peculiar” commodity: Co-operation, such as we find it at the dawn of human development, among races who live by the chase, or, say, in the agriculture of Indian communities, is based, on the one hand, on ownership in common of the means of production, and on the other hand, on the fact, that in those cases, each individual has no more torn himself off from the navel-string of his tribe or community, than each bee has freed itself from connexion with the hive. Such co-operation is distinguished from capitalistic co-operation by both of the above characteristics. The sporadic application of co-operation on a large scale in ancient times, in the middle ages, and in modern colonies, reposes on relations of dominion and servitude, principally on slavery. The capitalistic form, on the contrary, pre-supposes from first to last, the free wage-labourer, who sells his labour-power to capital. Historically, however, this form is developed in opposition to peasant agriculture and to the carrying on of independent handicrafts whether in guilds or not. From the standpoint of these, capitalistic co-operation does not manifest itself as a particular historical form of co-operation, but cooperation itself appears to be a historical form peculiar to, and specifically distinguishing, the capitalist process of production (366-367).

At the beginning of the manufacturing phase of capitalism, cooperation in the workshop is dominated by human-energy. Wood, coal, etc. may supplement the work process as energy-forms, for the burning of fires, for example. Whether it is in the coal mines of Chile or the clothing factories in Bangladesh; whether it is in the car factories of Japan or the IT factories of China, collectivisation and co-operation amongst workers are planned and encouraged. Previous societies used the institution of cooperation very effectively. Capitalism knew early on in its lifetime that the major benefit of co-operation amongst workers is its capacity for increasing the rate and scale of production: The fifth-century Greek historian Herodotus said it took 100,000 workers twenty years to build the great pyramid of Gizeh. In addition to building

172

Chapter Thirteen monuments, the peasants were called on to work the quarries and mines in the desert, to strengthen the dikes, and to clear and deepen the canals (Meltzer, 1993: 29).

If co-operation and collectivisation in the workplace increase the productivity of work, thereby resulting in relative surplus-value, then the minimisation of workers’ movement in the workplace is another method by which work productivity is increased, and relative surplus-value secured. Hence, we will also “see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced” by seizing on the mechanical movements of the worker to produce relative surplus-value.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN THE DIVISION OF MOVEMENT AND THE EFFICIENT EXPENDITURE OF HUMAN-ENERGY IN CAPITALISTIC WORK

Concentrate all your thoughts upon the work in hand. The Sun’s rays do not burn until brought to a focus. —Alexander Graham Bell Human-energy, in application and efficiency, can be improved by ergonomical design of workplace and tools. —A.E. Russwurm

The title of this chapter in Capital is “The Division of Labour and Manufacture”. Have you noticed how “things” in our lifetime have changed: material things, nature, our bodies, our communities, our countries, our world? Life changes. Nature changes. Nature is continuously changed from raw materials into products for man’s survival and his accumulation. These changes are a result of energy in general, and human-energy in particular, acting on the natural environment. However, capitalism creates the illusion that time changes. If “moments are the elements of profit”, then this chapter will highlight that it is the division and control of the worker’s movement which secures such profit for the capitalist. If we walk, run, talk, sing, dance, have sex as adults, carry babies, go to the gym, stretch, yawn, blink, breathe, clap our hands, shake hands, pray, laugh, cry, cycle, shop, etc., movement is what allows us to perform all of these human-energy enabling and human-energy consuming activities. Motion has made man conscious of the presence and the power of energy (Eberhart, 2007: 13). “The development during the presence of modern humans is one of continuous improvement in energy efficiency by use of better techniques” (Sørensen, 2012: 100). Movement is what helps to keep man alive, and energy is what moves him. However, movement under capitalism is so configured that it is mainly work, more work and overwork. Motion studies have been a distinct feature of early 20th century

174

Chapter Fourteen

capitalism. Frederick Taylor was the father of scientific management. He realised that efficiency and productivity depended on the “physical movements involved in performing various tasks”. “Sneezing, coughing, scratching of one’s head, etc. were considered as ‘waste’ motions” (Hoffman, 2009: 132-133). In workshops such as Henry Ford’s: Management came to mean, above all, time management; and while the segmentation and routinisation of tasks enabled ever larger scales of mass production, it involved the control no longer of the workers’ lived time, but their bodily rhythms as well (Hoffman, 2009: 132-133).

During the Industrial Revolution, science focused on eliminating those factors which resulted in “wasteful human labour”. It was a question of the “economy of prime movers” (Smith, 1998: 38-39). Whilst division of work entails work being divided into separate processes, at the execution level, it entails the division of the movement of the worker. In this way, increased productivity is ensured. This means more commodities can be produced in a given clock-time. The division of the worker’s movement and work pattern results in the efficient expenditure and use of humanenergy. The capitalist mode of production ensures that human-energy is directed in a laser-like fashion into commodity production, and that none or very little of this human-energy is directed into anything else but commodity production. Increased productivity entails subjugating the worker to push out as much human-energy in the least quantity of clocktime as possible. Hence the rate of work, or the rate at which humanenergy can be expended, is crucial to the maintenance and growth of capitalism. Productivity is therefore also the increased rate of humanenergy expenditure in a given clock-time. Through the division of the worker’s movement, capitalism has perfected the mechanical science of bleeding the worker of his human-energy. The worker’s human-energy is secured, lock, stock and barrel, for the servitude of capitalism. Holistic man becomes fragmented man. His work and his movements become atomised. If capitalism can extract as much human-energy from the worker in the tiniest quantity of clock-time possible, then it can produce more commodities in a smaller quantity of clock-time. Capitalism also organises the productive space so as to ensure that the human-energy of the worker is not directed to talking, walking, visiting the bathroom, resting, thinking, etc. Human-energy is money in a “transmuted form”, and the division of movement ensures that human-energy oozes out of the worker in a similar way that electricity oozes out of a live wire. In capitalism speak, “do not ‘waste’ time!” really means “do not ‘waste’ human-energy!” With the division of work, man the worker becomes

Division of Movement and the Efficient Expenditure of Human-Energy 175

reduced to a human-energy dispenser. The division of work that occurs in manufacture raises the productivity of the worker but serves the interest of the capitalist. Division of movement and work in the capitalist-form of manufacture is almost 500 years old. Workshops ensure the concentration of human-energy, and the concentration of human-energy secures more surplus-value and more profit. The worker is rendered immobile, whilst the commodity-in-the-making undergoes movement. In this way freedom of movement is appropriated from the worker, and any miniscule movement that he does effect has to be in sync with the movement of commodities which move to his workstation. Where the commodity acquires the freedom of movement, the worker is usurped of such freedom of movement. The division of movement inside a workshop also means that the hands of the worker are continuously ensuring his human-energy is converted into mechanical energy. This then realises itself as a “component” of the total commodity. Marx commences this chapter by stating that the division of work in manufacture has two origins. The first origin of manufacture is when the capitalist gathers many handicraft workers in a factory, and whereby a commodity, such as a carriage, passes through their hands towards completion. From being an “independent” craftsman, capitalist manufacture converts the craftsman into a dependent worker: By the assemblage, in one workshop under the control of a single capitalist, of labourers belonging to various independent handicrafts, but through whose hands a given article must pass on its way to completion. A carriage, for example, was formerly the product of the labour of a great number of independent artificers, such as wheelwrights, harness-makers, tailors, locksmiths, upholsterers, turners, fringe-makers, glaziers, painters, polishers, gilders, &c. In the manufacture of carriages, however, all these different artificers are assembled in one building where they work into one another’s hands. It is true that a carriage cannot be gilt before it has been made. But if a number of carriages are being made simultaneously, some may be in the hands of the gilders while others are going through an earlier process (369).

Manufacture and the division of work cause the deskilling and “reskilling” of the artisan, from a worker who works as a complex artisan to a simple artisan. Independent handicraft workers become swallowed up by manufacture in its capitalist form. The mechanical movements of the worker’s hands and fingers undergo a transition from a complex pattern and movement to a simple and straightforward pattern and movement. This metamorphosis of movement from complexity to simplicity ensures a higher efficiency of mechanical human-energy expenditure by the worker.

176

Chapter Fourteen

This higher efficiency of mechanical human-energy expenditure in turn ensures a higher volume of work output. We have what may be termed the grooving of movement, and it is this grooving which gives the worker the muscle memory to ensure a uniform motion, and hence a higher efficiency of human-energy expenditure. The narrowing of movement also ensures the streamlining of human-energy expenditure; the result being that the colateral movements of the worker’s limbs are minimised drastically, thereby ensuring the “non-wastage” of movement, and hence the “non-wastage” of human-energy. It is no longer the complex human-energy expenditure patterns of single workers which produce the final commodity, but the simple human-energy expenditure patterns of multiple workers. Like the way in which, in 21st century production, many raw materials are broken down into their smallest units and then reconstructed to build the desired commodity, the division of work ensures that the movements of workers are broken down into their smallest units, and then utilised to construct the constituent parts of a desired product, and finally reassembled into the usevalue product. Man’s human-energy becomes a mere building block in the great scheme of capitalist production. He becomes a “Lego” worker, a worker who merely produces a building block, so to speak, for the whole commodity: So far, we are still in the domain of simple co-operation, which finds its materials ready to hand in the shape of men and things. But very soon an important change takes place. The tailor, the locksmith, and the other artificers, being now exclusively occupied in carriage-making, each gradually loses, through want of practice, the ability to carry on, to its full extent, his old handicraft. But, on the other hand, his activity now confined in one groove, assumes the form best adapted to the narrowed sphere of action. At first, carriage manufacture is a combination of various independent handicrafts. By degrees, it becomes the splitting up of carriage-making into its various detail processes, each of which crystallises into the exclusive function of a particular workman, the manufacture, as a whole, being carried on by the men in conjunction. In the same way, cloth manufacture, as also a whole series of other manufactures, arose by combining different handicrafts together under the control of a single capitalist (369).

Workers of the same artisanal skill working in a single workshop is the second form that division of work can assume in manufacturing. Initially, each worker produces a single commodity in succession. Gradually, instead of each worker producing a single commodity on their own, the workers’ human-energies are used in co-operation to produce that single commodity. Adam Smith, in his The Wealth of Nations, illustrated this

Division of Movement and the Efficient Expenditure of Human-Energy 177

form of the division of work with the example of pin-making. This form of division of work, it seems, evolves spontaneously as time pressure increases. It then gradually transforms itself into a systematic, conscious and planned operation. The more the workers’ human-energy can cooperate, the more commodities can be produced, and the more relative surplus-value and profit can be realised for the capitalist. The social human-energies of many workers result in the production of a social commodity, which, through capitalist logic then becomes the private property of the capitalist. The “concentration of the workmen on one spot” secures the restriction of the movement of the worker, as required by the imperative of the division of work. However, there is another “freedom” of movement that capitalism encourages, and that is the “freedom” of the worker’s hands and fingers to generate as much mechanical energy as possible, to work on an allocated part of the unfinished commodity. A singular mechanical movement (enabled by the division of work) will guarantee a singular flow of human-energy. By being stationed on one spot, the human-energy “saved” is channelled into production (as opposed to the “wasteful” movements of the worker), from one spot to the next. If a laser beam is scattered all over a surface, it is bound to do little work with its energy. However, if it is to focus its energy on one part of the surface, then it is bound to perform effective work, piercing a hole in the surface much more efficiently. Likewise with the division of work and movement in capitalist manufacture; human-energy is ensured to flow in a “laserlike” manner into commodity production: Manufacture also arises in a way exactly the reverse of this namely, by one capitalist employing simultaneously in one workshop a number of artificers, who all do the same, or the same kind of work, such as making paper, type, or needles. This is co-operation in its most elementary form. Each of these artificers (with the help, perhaps, of one or two apprentices), makes the entire commodity, and he consequently performs in succession all the operations necessary for its production. He still works in his old handicraft-like way. But very soon external circumstances cause a different use to be made of the concentration of the workmen on one spot, and of the simultaneousness of their work. An increased quantity of the article has perhaps to be delivered within a given time. The work is therefore redistributed. Instead of each man being allowed to perform all the various operations in succession, these operations are changed into disconnected, isolated ones, carried on side by side; each is assigned to a different artificer, and the whole of them together are performed simultaneously by the co-operating workmen. This accidental repartition gets repeated, develops advantages of its own, and gradually ossifies into a systematic division of labour. The commodity, from being the individual product of

178

Chapter Fourteen an independent artificer, becomes the social product of a union of artificers, each of whom performs one, and only one, of the constituent partial operations (370).

Manufacture converges the workers, and thereby converges the humanenergy of the workers. The division of work ensures that human-energy is harvested in the most effective manner for the production of relative surplus-value. Capitalist manufacturing takes control of man’s bodily movements and hammers it into specialised forms, such that natural man becomes mechanical man. One man’s specialised movement in the workplace is but a necessary and integral movement in a world of many men’s specialised movements, harnessed in the servitude of capital accumulation. The end result of manufacture is that workers become integral components of its productive character. We observe Marx’s use of technical concepts to describe the nature of the worker and work in manufacture: “automatic”, “specialised”, “operation”, “detail” and “fractional”. The worker and his human-energy have been tamed. Man’s body becomes merely a dispenser of human-energy. By organising production in such a manner, capitalism directs the worker’s humanenergy to compete with clock-time. Such a configuration also ensures the production of more commodities within a specified clock-time. The productiveness of human-energy hence reaches its epitome under the division of work and movement. With the division of work and movement, we also have the historical evolution of what Marx refers to as the “collective labourer” (collective worker): If we now go more into detail, it is, in the first place, clear that a labourer who all his life performs one and the same simple operation, converts his whole body into the automatic, specialised implement of that operation. Consequently, he takes less time in doing it, than the artificer who performs a whole series of operations in succession. But the collective labourer, who constitutes the living mechanism of manufacture, is made up solely of such specialised detail labourers. Hence, in comparison with the independent handicraft, more is produced in a given time, or the productive power of labour is increased. Moreover, when once this fractional work is established as the exclusive function of one person, the methods it employs become perfected. The workman’s continued repetition of the same simple act, and the concentration of his attention on it, teach him by experience how to attain the desired effect with the minimum of exertion. But since there are always several generations of labourers living at one time, and working together at the manufacture of a given article, the technical skill, the tricks of the trade thus acquired, become established, and are accumulated and handed down (372).

Division of Movement and the Efficient Expenditure of Human-Energy 179

Many a country’s constitution speaks to issues relating to the freedom of man. But in many a country, man is imprisoned by the logic of work under capitalism. In order for “Count Dracula” to go on living, it needs to suck the blood off of its victims, and on a continuous basis. Capitalism’s diet is energy in general, and human-energy in particular. Man’s bodily parts are ordained to move, but to move for the benefit of capitalism and not for the benefit of man–of the human. If man moves his body in space and time, then capitalism considers this to be “wasted” human-energy. If man does not move his bodily parts in the service of capitalism, then this is also considered to be unproductive human-energy. Energy contracts time or temporal space. The more time can be contracted, the more abundant the availability of energy for the production of commodities. By obliterating time, human-energy causes a commodity to fill the void once occupied by time. If a worker can fill a minute with as many joules of human-energy as he possibly can, then he is a real-life specimen demonstrating that “time is indeed money!” And as long as a minute is filled with joules of human-energy, then the many second-long gaps in a minute will each be filled. If “moments are the (temporal) elements of profit”, then joules of human-energy form the real “elements of profit”. However, with regards to man’s movements, it seems variety is indeed the “spice of life”, but capitalist work restricts the variety of “spices” that the worker can add to his work, and hence to his life: An artificer, who performs one after another the various fractional operations in the production of a finished article, must at one time change his place, at another his tools. The transition from one operation to another interrupts the flow of his labour, and creates, so to say, gaps in his working day. These gaps close up so soon as he is tied to one and the same operation all day long; they vanish in proportion as the changes in his work diminish. The resulting increased productive power is owing either to an increased expenditure of labour-power in a given time i.e., to increased intensity of labour or to a decrease in the quantity of labour-power unproductively consumed. The extra expenditure of power, demanded by every transition from rest to motion, is made up for by prolonging the duration of the normal velocity when once acquired. On the other hand, constant labour of one uniform kind disturbs the intensity and flow of a man’s animal spirits, which find recreation and delight in mere change of activity (374).

Marx refers to a worker involved in manufacturing entailing the division of work as a “detail labourer”, emphasising that he is only a worker for a part or singular aspect of a commodity’s production. Man’s work is fractional under the division of work, but it is precisely because it

180

Chapter Fourteen

is fractional that the capitalist can usurp a much larger quantity of humanenergy from him in a given clock-time. When man uses a tool, he increases the effectiveness of his limbs; the tool becomes an extension of his body, thereby ensuring a greater output and efficiency of humanenergy in the form of mechanical energy. Once the division of work and movement solidifies amongst the workers, there also develops the specialisation of the instruments or tools of work. The specialised movement of the workers’ hands forces a transformation towards a material specialisation in the tools used. In other words, the efficiency of the movement of work forces efficiency in the design and use of tools. The evolution of workshops purely for the manufacture of efficient tools also sets the stage for the capitalistic evolution of the machine factory: The productiveness of labour depends not only on the proficiency of the workman, but on the perfection of his tools. Tools of the same kind, such as knives, drills, gimlets, hammers, &c., may be employed in different processes; and the same tool may serve various purposes in a single process. But so soon as the different operations of a labour-process are disconnected the one from the other, and each fractional operation acquires in the hands of the detail labourer a suitable and peculiar form, alterations become necessary in the implements that previously served more than one purpose. The direction taken by this change is determined by the difficulties experienced in consequence of the unchanged form of the implement. Manufacture is characterised by the differentiation of the instruments of labour a differentiation whereby implements of a given sort acquire fixed shapes, adapted to each particular application, and by the specialisation of those instruments, giving to each special implement its full play only in the hands of a specific detail labourer. In Birmingham alone 500 varieties of hammers are produced, and not only is each adapted to one particular process, but several varieties often serve exclusively for the different operations in one and the same process. The manufacturing period simplifies, improves, and multiplies the implements of labour, by adapting them to the exclusively special functions of each detail labourer. It thus creates at the same time one of the material conditions for the existence of machinery, which consists of a combination of simple instruments (374-375).

The detail worker is certain to be kept busy. The detail worker is also the limited movement worker. The commodity, on the other hand, undergoes “unlimited” movement in relation to the limited movement worker. The commodity in the making is not allowed “rest time” or immobility time; it is continuously and incessantly bombarded with human-energy on its way to its socially necessary final form. With the division of work or the atomisation of work and movement, the continuous

Division of Movement and the Efficient Expenditure of Human-Energy 181

outflow of human-energy in producing commodities constantly transforms elongated or successive energy time into instantaneous or concurrent energy time. Marx uses very powerful imagery related to “riveting” to highlight the laser-like manner in which human-energy is directed to production. This is only possible if the human-energy of the worker is not “spilled all over the place”, but is directed to just that atomic part of commodity production. Holistic and whole man is reduced to robotic-man, with limited mobility. His bodily movements have become imprisoned by the capitalist mode of production. The human-energy “saved” from surplus body movements, “which find recreation and delight in mere change of activity”, is instead channelled into relative surplus-value. The worker is a mere conduit for human-energy flows and human-energy dispensation. In the production process, a worker at rest or a commodity at rest are foes to the capitalist mode of production: If we confine our attention to some particular lot of raw materials, of rags, for instance, in paper manufacture, or of wire in needle manufacture, we perceive that it passes in succession through a series of stages in the hands of the various detail workmen until completion. On the other hand, if we look at the workshop as a whole, we see the raw material in all the stages of its production at the same time. The collective labourer, with one set of his many hands armed with one kind of tools, draws the wire, with another set, armed with different tools, he, at the same time, straightens it, with another, he cuts it, with another, points it, and so on. The different detail processes, which were successive in time, have become simultaneous, go on side by side in space. Hence, production of a greater quantum of finished commodities in a given time. This simultaneity, it is true, is due to the general co-operative form of the process as a whole; but Manufacture not only finds the conditions for co-operation ready to hand, it also, to some extent, creates them by the sub-division of handicraft labour. On the other hand, it accomplishes this social organisation of the labour-process only by riveting each labourer to a single fractional detail (378-379).

The division of work and movement in manufacturing under capitalism is an intelligent system which ensures order, discipline, regularity and accountability. So whilst clock-time is the worker’s major master, workers also serve as each other’s minor masters, ensuring that the raw materials are adequately prepared by the respective detail workers. The policing of each other’s work, etc. takes on a structural nature under the capitalist mode of production. Co-operation and collectivisation amongst workers solidify themselves, not for the public good, but for the private interest. Hence the workers “have their eye on each other”–because each one’s quality and quantity of work is dependent on the others. Each worker’s

182

Chapter Fourteen

human-energy expenditure is regulated by the knowledge that he will have to receive another commodity in the making in a given space-time. He also has to pass on the raw material which he has worked on to the next worker in the human-energy dispensing chain. Through this set-up, each worker is, in effect, helping to regulate the expenditure of the human-energy of every other worker. In all of this, the capitalist is the biggest beneficiary. If the single worker with multiple movements is replaced with a collective worker with simple or singular movements, this division or atomisation of work and movement mitigates the dispensing of human-energy in what is considered “wasteful movements”, and directs it to productive movements in the production of surplus-value. In manufacture, the technical organisation of workers ensures that commodities are churned out within the socially necessary clock-time: Since the fractional product of each detail labourer is, at the same time, only a particular stage in the development of one and the same finished article, each labourer, or each group of labourers, prepares the raw material for another labourer or group. The result of the labour of the one is the starting-point for the labour of the other. The one workman therefore gives occupation directly to the other. The labour-time necessary in each partial process, for attaining the desired effect, is learnt by experience; and the mechanism of Manufacture, as a whole, is based on the assumption that a given result will be obtained in a given time. It is only on this assumption that the various supplementary labour-processes can proceed uninterruptedly, simultaneously, and side by side. It is clear that this direct dependence of the operations, and therefore of the labourers, on each other, compels each one of them to spend on his work no more than the necessary time, and thus a continuity, uniformity, regularity, order, and even intensity of labour, of quite a different kind, is begotten than is to be found in an independent handicraft or even in simple co-operation. The rule, that the labour-time expended on a commodity should not exceed that which is socially necessary for its production, appears, in the production of commodities generally, to be established by the mere effect of competition; since, to express ourselves superficially, each single producer is obliged to sell his commodity at its market-price. In Manufacture, on the contrary, the turning out of a given quantum of product in a given time is a technical law of the process of production itself (379).

Machines which continue to decrease the work-time, or more accurately speaking, decrease the quantity of living human-energy required to produce commodities make their sporadic appearance. From an energy perspective, the machine is an accumulation of stored humanenergy. Machinery is part of what Marx referred to as constant capital. During the toddler days of manufacture, attempts were made to lessen

Division of Movement and the Efficient Expenditure of Human-Energy 183

workloads through the invention and use of machines. Whilst the Roman Empire passed down the water-wheel, machinery did not really take off during Roman rule, the reason being that human-energy was “freely” available from slave workers (Meltzer, 1993: 147). But the water-wheel, handed down by the Romans, would change the geographical, economic, social and political landscapes of England. It would be the invention that would direct a new source of energy into the manufacturing factories and workshops of England. In the years ahead, the energy landscape of England would also undergo a massive transformation, as more energy would yield even more energy. The new forms of energy would go on to have a steroidal effect on capitalist development and accumulation–and one that is acutely evident in the 21st century in which capitalism is omnipresent: Early in the manufacturing period, the principle of lessening the necessary labour-time in the production of commodities, was accepted and formulated: and the use of machines, especially for certain simple first processes that have to be conducted on a very large scale, and with the application of great force, sprang up here and there. Thus, at an early period in paper manufacture, the tearing up of the rags was done by papermills; and in metal works, the pounding of the ores was effected by stamping mills. The Roman Empire had handed down the elementary form of all machinery in the water-wheel (382).

In the quote below, we observe interesting imagery of the configuration of human-energy during early manufacturing as constituting the “machinery” of the production process. The collective worker is the human machinery of manufacturing. As long as the worker’s humanenergy is locked into the overall production mechanism, then the worker is part and parcel of a bigger energy-whole. The entire manufacturing process subsumes the worker and his human-energy into its macrostructure. Detail workers are sorted according to the skill with which they dispense their human-energy. We should keep in mind that, out of the entire energy mix, only human-energy creates value in commodity production and surplus-value. This entire human organisation has evolved to be the quintessential human-energy extractor for commodity production and surplus-value creation. Even for the less-skilled worker, once he becomes part of the collective, he rises to the occasion and performs above mediocrity in dispensing his human-energy. It is as if the worker has been fragmented into many of himself, and each “self” performs a distinctly separate movement with his hands; on their own, they are detail workers, but together they form the collective worker. The detail worker finds his or her perfection in the collective worker; it is where and when all human-

184

Chapter Fourteen

energy comes together to form the whole product. With the socialisation of workers, we have the socialisation of human-energy, but the privatisation of the commodity and surplus-value. A shirt, for example, is the product of the collective worker, i.e., many workers having performed detailed work on detail parts of the shirt. Working in unison, they all constitute the collective worker: The collective labourer, formed by the combination of a number of detail labourers, is the mechanism specially characteristic of the manufacturing period. The various operations that are performed in turns by the producer of a commodity, and coalesce one with another during the progress of production, lay claim to him in various ways. In one operation he must exert more strength, in another more skill, in another more attention; and the same individual does not possess all these qualities in an equal degree. After Manufacture has once separated, made independent, and isolated the various operations, the labourers are divided, classified, and grouped according to their predominating qualities. If their natural endowments are, on the one hand, the foundation on which the division of labour is built up, on the other hand, Manufacture, once introduced, develops in them new powers that are by nature fitted only for limited and special functions. The collective labourer now possesses, in an equal degree of excellence, all the qualities requisite for production, and expends them in the most economical manner, by exclusively employing all his organs, consisting of particular labourers, or groups of labourers, in performing their special functions. The one-sidedness and the deficiencies of the detail labourer become perfections when he is a part of the collective labourer. The habit of doing only one thing converts him into a never failing instrument, while his connexion with the whole mechanism compels him to work with the regularity of the parts of a machine (383-384).

Marx then proceeds to discuss the division of work in manufacture in comparison to the division of work in society. The most prominent forms of division of work in society are agricultural work and industrial work. He sketches the history of the division of work in society, with physiology playing a role in the division of work within the family. Marx is of the view that exchange was made possible because of the different types of products made by different tribes and communities. The market is the consequence of a society based on the division of work, and not its cause. Its “invisible hand” belongs to the body of society, embedded in nature. The natural environment comprises different types of subjects and raw materials, which obviously lend themselves to different types of finished products. Hence differentiation is what informs, influences, shapes and develops the exchange process. Division of work assumes a rational, conscious, scientific and surplus-making form under the capitalist mode of

Division of Movement and the Efficient Expenditure of Human-Energy 185

production. We are also made aware of the social history of trading, which took place between “not private individuals but families, tribes, &c., that meet on an independent footing”. But capitalism sanctifies the private individual in society, whilst insisting on a collective worker system of surplus-value production: Division of labour in a society, and the corresponding tying down of individuals to a particular calling, develops itself, just as does the division of labour in manufacture, from opposite starting-points. Within a family, and after further development within a tribe, there springs up naturally a division of labour, caused by differences of sex and age, a division that is consequently based on a purely physiological foundation, which division enlarges its materials by the expansion of the community, by the increase of population, and more especially, by the conflicts between different tribes, and the subjugation of one tribe by another. On the other hand, as I have before remarked, the exchange of products springs up at the points where different families, tribes, communities, come in contact; for, in the beginning of civilisation, it is not private individuals but families, tribes, &c., that meet on an independent footing. Different communities find different means of production, and different means of subsistence in their natural environment. Hence, their modes of production, and of living, and their products are different. It is this spontaneously developed difference which, when different communities come in contact, calls forth the mutual exchange of products, and the consequent gradual conversion of those products into commodities. Exchange does not create the differences between the spheres of production, but brings what are already different into relation, and thus converts them into more or less inter-dependent branches of the collective production of an enlarged society. In the latter case, the social division of labour arises from the exchange between spheres of production, that are originally distinct and independent of one another. In the former, where the physiological division of labour is the starting-point, the particular organs of a compact whole grow loose, and break off, principally owing to the exchange of commodities with foreign communities, and then isolate themselves so far, that the sole bond, still connecting the various kinds of work, is the exchange of the products as commodities. In the one case, it is the making dependent what was before independent; in the other case, the making independent what was before dependent (386-387).

Capitalism is a highly sophisticated and planned economy. The production of commodities is planned to the minutest detail. There is no “invisible hand” when it comes to the incessant extraction of humanenergy. It is an active, conscious, deliberate, well thought out interventionist model. However, when governments attempt to extrapolate this model and apply it to broader society, in the interest of all people instead of a select

186

Chapter Fourteen

few, then the private sector and its spokespersons use all materials at their disposal, all their social, political and ideological resources, to crush such efforts. Governments are expected to intervene in ensuring the lifespan of capitalism, and not to intervene when workers, broader society and the natural environment are at the mercy of capitalistic logic and functioning. Capitalist “society” is indeed one huge factory, usurping the humanenergy of hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis in the interest of creating surplus-value and profit. Capitalism embraces the planned economy within the factory–but abhors the planned economy in broader society. Capitalism adores the privately planned economy inside the workshop, but abhors the socially planned economy outside of the factory. Capitalism encourages the dictatorially planned economy inside of the factory but despises the democratically planned economy outside of the factory. Such is the schizophrenic nature of capitalism. The bourgeois economist, according to Marx, argues against state planning by insinuating that the entire society would be turned into one big factory: contrary to conventional “wisdom”, the planned section of the capitalist economy serves the interest of the capitalist class, at the expense of the working class, the unemployed, broader society and the natural environment: Division of labour within the workshop implies the undisputed authority of the capitalist over men, that are but parts of a mechanism that belongs to him. The division of labour within the society brings into contact independent commodity-producers, who acknowledge no other authority but that of competition, of the coercion exerted by the pressure of their mutual interests; just as in the animal kingdom, the bellum omnium contra omnes [war of all against all] more or less preserves the conditions of existence of every species. The same bourgeois mind which praises division of labour in the workshop, life-long annexation of the labourer to a partial operation, and his complete subjection to capital, as being an organisation of labour that increases its productiveness–that same bourgeois mind denounces with equal vigour every conscious attempt to socially control and regulate the process of production, as an inroad upon such sacred things as the rights of property, freedom and unrestricted play for the bent of the individual capitalist. It is very characteristic that the enthusiastic apologists of the factory system have nothing more damning to urge against a general organisation of the labour of society, than that it would turn all society into one immense factory (391).

With capitalism, it is co-operation inside the factory and competition outside the factory. Capitalism thrives on the non-planning of the macro economy and rigid planning in the workplace. Capitalism’s unwritten law is that of an iron fist within the factory, and an “invisible hand” in broader

Division of Movement and the Efficient Expenditure of Human-Energy 187

society. However, as Marx points out, it was the contrary in earlier forms of society, with planning occurring at the societal level and no division of work taking place within the workshop. The tables have indeed turned since the historical entrance of capitalism: If, in a society with capitalist production, anarchy in the social division of labour and despotism in that of the workshop are mutual conditions the one of the other, we find, on the contrary, in those earlier forms of society in which the separation of trades has been spontaneously developed, then crystallized, and finally made permanent by law, on the one hand, a specimen of the organisation of the labour of society, in accordance with an approved and authoritative plan, and on the other, the entire exclusion of division of labour in the workshop, or at all events a mere dwarflike or sporadic and accidental development of the same (391-392).

Division of work is not unique to capitalism, but it is under capitalism that it is perfected for directing human-energy into commodity production. For example, during the Roman Empire “the bronze and copper industry employed thousands of slaves in a workshop system that used specialised methods” (Meltzer, 1993: 147). In the same way that a machine depends on electrical energy for its functioning, human-energy is an integral component of the productive mechanism that works on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the capitalist. Marx targets capitalism for sacrificing the worker’s species being just because it needs his human-energy in huge quantities and at an always increasing rate. Because his human-energy evolves into a highly technical commodity under capitalism, man the human is reduced to a mere appendage of the capitalist machine, built up over centuries. Man is capable of producing widely, but his life is narrowed down to merely dispensing human-energy in a highly technical and efficient manner. Global capitalism has mechanical movement for human-energy usurpation down to an art. Marx uses the powerful analogy of butchering: just for securing the human-energy of the worker, his entire humanity is decimated. He tells us that “the individual himself is made the automatic motor of a fractional operation”. We are also made aware of the reality that the worker depends on the capitalist for his and his family’s livelihood. At this point of capitalist development, the worker is a “mere appendage of the capitalist’s workshop”. Originally “sculptured” by nature as a wholesome worker, capitalism transforms man into a source of mechanical energy. A species of commodities no longer has a single worker as its maker, but a team of workers as its makers. Its human-energy content is no longer the content of a single worker, but of a team of workers. Its value is no longer the value of a single worker but the value of a team of workers. Like a king or queen who has a team of servants

188

Chapter Fourteen

attending to their needs and wants, the commodity has a team of workers working day and night to help it realise itself. The commodity comes into the world because of the transformative power of the human-energy of a team of workers, in a similar manner to that in which a bee-hive comes into the world through the transformative power of the energy of many bees. But whereas the bee-hive and its honey belong to all the bees, the worker belongs to capitalism and the commodity belongs to the capitalist: In manufacture, as well as in simple co-operation, the collective working organism is a form of existence of capital. The mechanism that is made up of numerous individual detail labourers belongs to the capitalist. Hence, the productive power resulting from a combination of labours appears to be the productive power of capital. Manufacture proper not only subjects the previously independent workman to the discipline and command of capital, but, in addition, creates a hierarchic gradation of the workmen themselves. While simple co-operation leaves the mode of working by the individual for the most part unchanged, manufacture thoroughly revolutionises it, and seizes labour-power by its very roots. It converts the labourer into a crippled monstrosity, by forcing his detail dexterity at the expense of a world of productive capabilities and instincts; just as in the States of La Plata they butcher a whole beast for the sake of his hide or his tallow. Not only is the detail work distributed to the different individuals, but the individual himself is made the automatic motor of a fractional operation, and the absurd fable of Menenius Agrippa, which makes man a mere fragment of his own body, becomes realised. If, at first, the workman sells his labour-power to capital, because the material means of producing a commodity fail him, now his very labour-power refuses its services unless it has been sold to capital. Its functions can be exercised only in an environment that exists in the workshop of the capitalist after the sale. By nature unfitted to make anything independently, the manufacturing labourer develops productive activity as a mere appendage of the capitalist’s workshop. As the chosen people bore in their features the sign manual of Jehovah, so division of labour brands the manufacturing workman as the property of capital (395-396).

We observe the emerging contradiction in the division of work in manufacturing under capitalism: the capitalist gets rich and the worker gets poor. The art and science of human-energy exploitation reaches its perfection. Whilst it develops society economically, at the same time, it exploits a huge layer of that very same society. One is always bombarded with information about the progressive nature of society under capitalism. Those countries which have a long history of capitalist development consider themselves to be developed, and all other countries are expected to strive towards developed status by following the capitalist model. Ever

Division of Movement and the Efficient Expenditure of Human-Energy 189

since man picked up a stone, his world of work has been undergoing both evolutions and revolutions. The bedrock of both the evolution and the revolution of work has been the harnessing of different types of energy, as well as the efficiency with which this energy had been put to work. The world of capitalism opened up as the world of energy opened up, each feeding into the other to produce and reproduce the type of world we currently inhabit. The constant revolutionising of the efficiency of humanenergy expenditure forms the architecture of such production and reproduction. The capitalist system appropriates man’s movements, and adapts them to its end goal of surplus-value creation. Man’s movement is but one of the many of his livelihood mechanisms that are appropriated by capitalism while it moves onwards towards surplus-value creation. The “die is cast”, as the crystallisation of the servitude of the worker to the capitalist mode of production takes the form of a “natural” relationship: By decomposition of handicrafts, by specialisation of the instruments of labour, by the formation of detail labourers, and by grouping and combining the latter into a single mechanism, division of labour in manufacture creates a qualitative gradation, and a quantitative proportion in the social process of production; it consequently creates a definite organisation of the labour of society, and thereby develops at the same time new productive forces in the society. In its specific capitalist form– and under the given conditions, it could take no other form than a capitalistic one–manufacture is but a particular method of begetting relative surplus-value, or of augmenting at the expense of the labourer the self-expansion of capital–usually called social wealth, ‘Wealth of Nations,’ &c. It increases the social productive power of labour, not only for the benefit of the capitalist instead of for that of the labourer, but it does this by crippling the individual labourers. It creates new conditions for the lordship of capital over labour. If, therefore, on the one hand, it presents itself historically as a progress and as a necessary phase in the economic development of society, on the other hand, it is a refined and civilised method of exploitation (400).

The human-energy of the many skilled and unskilled workers forms the entire energy infrastructure of manufacture. In order to satisfy its need for continuous surplus-value, the technical foundation of manufacture comes under pressure to revolutionise itself. Workshops for tools have been developed to support the development of manufacture. However, these very same tools begin to evolve technologically into machines. Capitalism ushers in the age of the machine as the manufacturing stage of capitalism becomes a restraint on the development of capitalism:

190

Chapter Fourteen At the same time manufacture was unable, either to seize upon the production of society to its full extent, or to revolutionise that production to its very core. It towered up as an economic work of art, on the broad foundation of the town handicrafts, and of the rural domestic industries. At a given stage in its development, the narrow technical basis on which manufacture rested, came into conflict with requirements of production that were created by manufacture itself. One of its most finished creations was the workshop for the production of the instruments of labour themselves, including especially the complicated mechanical apparatus then already employed…This workshop, the product of the division of labour in manufacture, produced in its turn–machines. It is they that sweep away the handicraftsman’s work as the regulating principle of social production. Thus, on the one hand, the technical reason for the life-long annexation of the workman to a detail function is removed. On the other hand, the fetters that this same principle laid on the dominion of capital, fall away (404).

The division of movement and work has reached nearly all parts of the globalised world. The law of conservation of energy dictates that all energy transformations in the body are important in the conversion process, and this includes the conversion of electrical energy to its final form, which is mechanical energy. For example, the body’s neural system is just as important as the metabolic system, where biochemical energy is converted into mechanical energy (Winter, 2009: 151). If man has been converted into a mechanical instrument on the workshop floor, then the globalisation of the division of movement and work has also led to the globalisation of the mechanisation of society at large. Increased productivity involves continuously breaking down the movement of the worker and the work process into smaller and smaller pieces, and piecing these all together again to form the commodity. The worker’s movements are an integral part of the breaking down process for relative surplus-value production. The appropriation of man’s movement is a fundamental pillar of capitalism’s arsenal for capital accumulation. By controlling man’s movement, capitalism also takes command and control over humanenergy. All corners of the globe are dotted with workshops and factories, which have different forms of energy concentrated daily in them. Where such energy is abundant and efficiently utilised, societies occupy the uppermost levels of the hierarchy of development. But Marx is of the view that the division of work under capitalism is “a refined and civilised method of exploitation”. Like electricity, coal, gas, or other forms of energy which appear in the workshop or factory, human-energy is also part of the energy mix in these places. With all of the limits encountered by capitalism, it has not disappeared in a historical extinction. As capitalism

Division of Movement and the Efficient Expenditure of Human-Energy 191

comes up against further limits, we will “see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced” by overcoming limitations through harnessing inanimate forms of energy from nature. Such energy fed the fast-developing capitalistic machine of 18th century England, and feeds the capitalist monster in the 21st century globalised world.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN MACHINES AND THE ENERGY REVOLUTION IN THE PRODUCTION OF RELATIVE SURPLUS-VALUE

The history of man is the history of attainment of external energy. —H.G. Wells It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. —Albert Einstein

This chapter is titled “Machinery and Modern Industry” and is chapter 15 of Capital. It is the longest chapter in Capital, and runs into 151 pages! Machines have stored value as a result of embodied human-energy. In Capital, Marx refers to “dead labour” and “living labour”, concepts that I interpret as meaning the human-energy of workers from past-work and the human-energy of the present-day working class respectively. What we need to decipher is the manner in which dead labour, or the energy of previous workers, is stored and put to use in production. Coal may have been the key energy feedstock of the Industrial Revolution, but it was the human-energy of men, women and children that was embodied in the coal that really fed the fires of the Industrial Revolution. Our lives are powered by machines. Machines–powered by inanimate energy–have infiltrated nearly all aspects of society. Some have named this era “the technological age”, and this indeed coincides with the age of modern capitalism. No doubt, when man first picked up a stick or a stone in order to serve as an assist, it was an act that would ensure the survival of his species–it was the birth of the technological animal. It was the time when man harnessed the energy of the stone or the stick, energy over and above that of his own body, to ensure his survival. From then onwards, he would go on to harness large quantities of energy, and at accelerated rates. It is in this chapter that we see Marx the mechanical scientist at his best. His knowledge of mechanical science is indeed impressive. He commences

Machines and the Energy Revolution

193

with the historical development of machinery. He then proceeds to look at the value, albeit stored, that machinery imparts to commodities, and thereafter describes and analyses the punishing impacts that machinery has on families in general and workers in particular. There are many tools that perform work by using electrical energy, as there are many tools that perform work using the mechanical-energy of man. Both energy systems abide by the law of conservation of energy. In a similar way to that in which energy assumes different forms, it also assumes different names, such as coal, solar power, wood, muscle, mass, food, wind, etc. Machines require energy from nature, in the same way that workers require energy from nature in order to function. However, workers are the primary source of kinetic energy, whereas machines contain primarily potential energy. When human-energy becomes expensive, capitalism depends on machine technology in order to access stored human-energy or value from machines. The capitalistic organism lives off energy. It is a parasitic organism, dependent on energy and nature for its maintenance and growth. With the development of machinery, the worker is forced to compete with superior yet cheaper forms of energy–with the latter almost always winning the fierce energy competition under capitalism. The value of energy itself must follow the human-energy theory of value, i.e. the value of a certain quantity of coal, for example, is the socially necessary worktime that it takes to produce that quantity of coal. This law of value must be applicable to all other forms of energy as well–be they nuclear, solar, hydro, biofuel, etc. So if nuclear energy is expensive, then it means that the quantity of human-energy enlisted to harness nuclear energy is expensive, in the same way that diamonds are expensive because they require large quantities of work-time to harvest them. With the development of machines and a revolution in energy sources, the world of work evolved into different work forms, in a similar manner to that in which nature evolves into different life forms. Capitalism transforms the workplace into an energy efficient sphere, not from the perspective of environmental sustainability, or human welfare and happiness, but from the perspective of surplus-value creation, profit maximisation and capital accumulation. If time helped secure absolute surplus-value through the extensive prolongation of the working day, then capitalism’s command and control of other forms of energy would go on to secure relative surplusvalue through increasing the intensity of work. In the opening lines of the chapter on “machinery and modern industry”, Marx lays down the capitalistic motivation for the invention of machines. He makes it categorically clear that the invention of machines was not meant to lighten the work of the worker, but to increase the quantity and rate of relative

194

Chapter Fifteen

surplus-value. A machine is also a weapon used in the class struggle against the workers. It does not matter whether surplus-value is extracted directly from the worker, or indirectly through machines; if surplus-value is more expensive if extracted directly from the worker, then machine design and development takes root and is encouraged. The production and reproduction of the life of the worker and his family is dependent on the ration of commodities which is necessary to sustain them, at least at a basic level. The cost of a worker’s human-energy becomes equated to the cost of such commodities, and his wages for the week or month are pushed ever downwards, as inanimate energy pushes the price of commodities downwards. Machinery seeks to get the worker to work less intensely for himself and his family and to work more intensely for the capitalist. Surplus-value and profit, and not the lessening or easing of work, are the intentions behind the development and application of machinery under capitalism: John Stuart Mill says in his ‘Principles of Political Economy’: ‘It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being.’ That is, however, by no means the aim of the capitalistic application of machinery. Like every other increase in the productiveness of labour, machinery is intended to cheapen commodities, and, by shortening that portion of the working day, in which the labourer works for himself, to lengthen the other portion that he gives, without an equivalent, to the capitalist. In short, it is a means for producing surplusvalue (405).

Marx draws a “demarcation line” between manufacture and modern industry. In the former, the human-energy of workers was revolutionised to become the manufacturing mode of production; in the latter, the instruments of work and energy were revolutionised to form the modern industrial mode of production. The latter’s revolution took place through the transition from tools to machines, and by tapping into inanimate forms of energy at the expense of human-energy. In manufacture, the humanenergy of the worker becomes specialised and simple in application. In modern industry, the tools of the worker become specialised to form a machine. In Marx’s terms, dead labour starts to take the place of living labour. In energy terms, human-energy is relegated to a secondary, tertiary and finally no status, as capitalism diverts its attention to human-energy embodied in machines. Marx also makes use of the geological epoch paradigm to explain the seamless transition or evolution from the world of tools to the world of machinery, egged on by the surplus-value and profit imperative of capitalism:

Machines and the Energy Revolution

195

In manufacture, the revolution in the mode of production begins with the labour-power, in modern industry it begins with the instruments of labour. Our first inquiry then is, how the instruments of labour are converted from tools into machines, or what is the difference between a machine and the implements of a handicraft? We are only concerned here with striking and general characteristics; for epochs in the history of society are no more separated from each other by hard and fast lines of demarcation, than are geological epochs (405).

Many of Marx’s thoughts on “machinery and modern industry”, like the one below, could easily belong to a university mechanical engineering textbook. That they belong to Capital, a text which is usually associated with political and social revolutions, is testament to the rich science that Marx was able to understand, describe and analyse in his time. We also witness the different forms of energy that Marx considers when describing the beginnings of the age of machinery and technology. In the 21st century, energy sources have greatly increased in variety and scale. In many places in the world energy exists mainly in the form of coal, nuclear energy, hydro energy and gas. A machine, according to Marx, comprises a motor mechanism, a transmitting mechanism and the tool or the “hand” of the machine. The motor mechanism is that part of the machine which harnesses the energy feedstock or source of energy, and gets the machine started and moving. It is the engine of the machine. The transmitting mechanism is that part of the machine that transfers the energy from its source to the tool or the “hand” of the machine. If the energy source is coal, then this chemical energy may be converted to electrical energy, which is then converted to mechanical energy to perform work. In many of England’s cotton mills in the 18th and 19th centuries, the source of energy was from falling water that turned a water wheel; the subsequent mechanical energy powered the mules in the cotton mills. The tool or the “hand” of the machine is that part which is capacitated by the transmitted energy to perform mechanical work on raw materials, in order to transform them into commodities. With all of its parts of different sizes and shapes, the energy generated from the motor still reaches the raw material, in one form or another, with the “intention” of converting them into commodities embodying surplus-value. The selected energy-form is able to perform this task due to the law of conservation of energy. With the invention of machinery, capitalism could capture, control and command the movement of both natural energy and the worker. Energy is seized to serve the needs of capitalism, and as long as capitalism controls movement, then it secures surplus-value and profit for the capitalist:

196

Chapter Fifteen All fully developed machinery consists of three essentially different parts, the motor mechanism, the transmitting mechanism, and finally the tool or working machine. The motor mechanism is that which puts the whole in motion. It either generates its own motive power, like the steam-engine, the caloric engine, the electromagnetic machine, &c., or it receives its impulse from some already existing natural force, like the water-wheel from a head of water, the wind-mill from wind, &c. The transmitting mechanism, composed of fly-wheels, shafting, toothed wheels, pullies, straps, ropes, bands, pinions, and gearing of the most varied kinds, regulates the motion, changes its form where necessary, as for instance, from linear to circular, and divides and distributes it among the working machines. These two first parts of the whole mechanism are there, solely for putting the working machines in motion, by means of which motion the subject of labour is seized upon and modified as desired. The tool or working machine is that part of the machinery with which the industrial revolution of the 18th century started. And to this day it constantly serves as such a starting-point, whenever a handicraft, or a manufacture, is turned into an industry carried on by machinery (407).

The transition from manufacturing to modern industrialism took place when the worker was appropriated of the use of his tools and those tools were assembled to construct machines. At this point, Marx does not focus primarily on the source of energy driving the machines, but on the fact that machines, with their aggregate of simple tools, now perform those functions that were previously done by workers. With the concentration of tools into a machine, there is also the concentration of energy for the production of commodities. It was, however, still the human-energy of handicraft workers which enabled the production of the tools for the machines during the social birth of machinery. Certain machines are designed and built in order to be powered by human-energy, and this energy source does not disqualify such a means of production from being labelled a “machine”: On a closer examination of the working machine proper, we find in it, as a general rule, though often, no doubt, under very altered forms, the apparatus and tools used by the handicraftsman or manufacturing workman; with this difference, that instead of being human implements, they are the implements of a mechanism, or mechanical implements. Either the entire machine is only a more or less altered mechanical edition of the old handicraft tool, as, for instance, the power-loom, or the working parts fitted in the frame of the machine are old acquaintances, as spindles are in a mule, needles in a stocking-loom, saws in a sawing machine, and knives in a chopping machine. The distinction between these tools and the body proper of the machine, exists from their very birth; for they continue for the most part to be produced by handicraft, or by manufacture, and are

Machines and the Energy Revolution

197

afterwards fitted into the body of the machine, which is the product of machinery. The machine proper is therefore a mechanism that, after being set in motion, performs with its tools the same operations that were formerly done by the workman with similar tools. Whether the motive power is derived from man, or from some other machine, makes no difference in this respect. From the moment that the tool proper is taken from man, and fitted into a mechanism, a machine takes the place of a mere implement. The difference strikes one at once, even in those cases where man himself continues to be the prime mover. The number of implements that he himself can use simultaneously, is limited by the number of his own natural instruments of production, by the number of his bodily organs (407-408).

Popular thinking has it that it was the steam engine that gave rise to the Industrial Revolution. Marx dispels this understanding and instead argues that it was “the invention of machines that made a revolution in the form of steam engines necessary”. As long as man handles and controls tools, then his human-energy is the motive force for transmitting mechanical energy onto raw material. In the case of a steam engine during the Industrial Revolution, the motive force was derived from coal as an energy source. Nowadays, in certain countries, engines are moved by electricity derived from nuclear energy. In colonial times, human-energy was sometimes the motive force that pulled the rickshaw which transported the master to his destination. In some cases, the master was carried and transported by human-energy. Horse-power or animal-energy was used as a motive force in pulling carriages before the Industrial Revolution. When cars were first invented, human-energy was the motive force for cranking up the motor to get it running. Subsequent technological inventions reduced the quantity of human-energy which was required to get a motor running. Nowadays, it requires an infinitesimally small quantity of humanenergy to turn an ignition key, or to depress a switch, so as to get the engine of a car going. In India and other parts of the developing world, cart-loads of goods are still moved by human-energy. But despite all of the various energies that have been harnessed by man, human-energy still forms an integral component of the energy mix informing development in general, and capitalist development in particular: The steam-engine itself, such as it was at its invention, during the manufacturing period at the close of the 17th century, and such as it continued to be down to 1780, did not give rise to any industrial revolution. It was, on the contrary, the invention of machines that made a revolution in the form of steam-engines necessary. As soon as man, instead of working with an implement on the subject of his labour, becomes merely the motive power of an implement-machine, it is a mere accident

198

Chapter Fifteen that motive power takes the disguise of human muscle; and it may equally well take the form of wind, water or steam. Of course, this does not prevent such a change of form from producing great technical alterations in the mechanism that was originally constructed to be driven by man alone. Now-a-days, all machines that have their way to make, such as sewingmachines, bread-making machines, &c., are, unless from their very nature their use on a small scale is excluded, constructed to be driven both by human and by purely mechanical motive power (409-410).

With the growth in the size and complexity of machines, Marx once again alludes to the changing nature of energy sources, from that of human-energy to that of “free” energy from nature. Bigger machines require more powerful forms of energy to power them. For a long period of man’s time on earth, animal-energy from horses and oxen served as supplementary energy for man’s material, cultural and social development. However, with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the energy harnessed from horses proved to be inefficient as well as costly: “Eighty four million tons of coal would do the work of 108 million horses working day and night for a year” (Smith, 1998: 180). In many developing countries, oxen and cattle are still used as important sources of animalenergy for ploughing the land, and sometimes for transport. Horse-power, like labour-power, is a concept that continues to be used to this day; both, however speak to the nature of energy, whether its measurement or its source: Increase in the size of the machine, and in the number of its working tools, calls for a more massive mechanism to drive it; and this mechanism requires, in order to overcome its resistance, a mightier moving power than that of man, apart from the fact that man is a very imperfect instrument for producing uniform continued motion. But assuming that he is acting simply as a motor, that a machine has taken the place of his tool, it is evident that he can be replaced by natural forces. Of all the great motors handed down from the manufacturing period, horse-power is the worst, partly because a horse has a head of his own, partly because he is costly, and the extent to which he is applicable in factories is very restricted. Nevertheless the horse was extensively used during the infancy of Modern Industry. This is proved, as well by the complaints of contemporary agriculturists, as by the term ‘horse-power,’ which has survived to this day as an expression for mechanical force (410-411).

In societies past, big projects such as the building of the pyramids were undertaken primarily through human-energy, but with the Industrial Revolution, the scale of energy supplies grew in size and rate. Even just before the full-scale Industrial Revolution, wind and water power were

Machines and the Energy Revolution

199

beginning to replace human-energy and animal-energy (Roll, 1973: 94). In the quote below, Marx analyses the revolution in energy sources during the Industrial Revolution. He highlights the preferred choice of energy source, which would guarantee a continuous and uninterrupted flow of energy, unlike wind or water energy. Wind energy was intermittent, and hydro-energy was regulated by phenomena such as droughts, freezing in winter, uneven flow, etc. Due to the uncontrollable nature of wind energy, it did not factor in as a preferred source of energy. Besides, so-called renewable energy is not compatible with the logic of capitalism, which requires energy on demand, continuously, incessantly and without interruption. The energy source stumbled upon was fossils, or fossil fuel in the form of coal. Coal was to be the “great driving force of the industrial age, and its potential energy was easily transformable into actual energy through thermo-dynamic engines” (Smith, 1998: 154). Coal was the quintessential energy source, and it was in abundance in England. Because of coal’s location close to the sea, it could be easily transported at much lower costs than it would have been had it had to be transported over land. With the discovery of coal as a cheaper energy source, and the subsequent production of steam, the production of commodities was able to escape the constraints of localisation, where rivers served as an energy source. Over and above the quest for a continuous and uninterrupted flow of energy, “engineers and natural philosophers worked in tandem, towards the economic goal of a perfect thermo-dynamic engine that would minimise the ‘wasting’ of energy” (Smith, 1998: 154). Energy efficiency in the workplace was a constant goal. But if man was able to assume power over energy from nature, energy would soon assume power over man in capitalism’s workshop: Wind was too inconstant and uncontrollable, and besides, in England, the birthplace of Modern Industry, the use of water power preponderated even during the manufacturing period. In the 17th century attempts had already been made to turn two pairs of millstones with a single water-wheel. But the increased size of the gearing was too much for the water power, which had now become insufficient, and this was one of the circumstances that led to a more accurate investigation of the laws of friction. In the same way the irregularity caused by the motive power in mills that were put in motion by pushing and pulling a lever, led to the theory, and the application, of the fly-wheel, which afterwards plays so important a part in Modern Industry. In this way, during the manufacturing period, were developed the first scientific and technical elements of Modern Mechanical Industry. Arkwright’s throstle spinning mill was from the very first turned by water. But for all that, the use of water, as the predominant motive power, was beset with difficulties. It could not be increased at will, it failed

200

Chapter Fifteen at certain seasons of the year, and, above all, it was essentially local. Not till the invention of Watt’s second and so-called double-acting steamengine, was a prime mover found, that begot its own force by the consumption of coal and water, whose power was entirely under man’s control, that was mobile and a means of locomotion, that was urban and not, like the waterwheel, rural, that permitted production to be concentrated in towns instead of, like the water-wheels, being scattered up and down the country, that was of universal technical application, and, relatively speaking, little affected in its choice of residence by local circumstances (411-412).

With the harnessing of energy from nature, man the active energy converter assumes the profile of a passive appendage, as capitalism displaces him as the “motive mechanism” in the commodity production chain. Whereas in manufacture, there was co-operation between a number of specialised workmen in the production of commodities, with the Industrial Revolution, it was the co-operation of machines in production. One also gains insights into energy flows and energy transformations between and amongst machinery in Marx’s quote below. The development and advancement of capitalism took place on the backs of huge quantities of energy, and on the economical use of such energy, at least in the sphere of commodity production. However, in the main, capitalism is a wasteful system of energy. A finite earth must have finite quantities of energy, but capitalism’s logic is limitless or infinite–two opposing, antagonistic, contradictory and conflicting factors. Sooner or later, one must give way to the other. By harnessing the energy of nature, capitalism ensures a steady supply of energy to ensure the simultaneous working of many machines. By controlling energy, capitalism controls economic, political and social life. If the factories and workshops of the world are treadmills of production, then energy is their lifeblood. The demand for energy grows “with the number of machines”. As nature’s energy is bent towards the workshops and factories, human-energy and human movement are completely taken over by the power of capitalism, forced to serve the life and growth of surplus-value and profit. Human-energy, either employed or unemployed, is still under the spell of capitalistic economic production: As soon as tools had been converted from being manual implements of man into implements of a mechanical apparatus, of a machine, the motive mechanism also acquired an independent form, entirely emancipated from the restraints of human strength. Thereupon the individual machine, that we have hitherto been considering, sinks into a mere factor in production by machinery. One motive mechanism was now able to drive many machines at once. The motive mechanism grows with the number of the

Machines and the Energy Revolution

201

machines that are turned simultaneously, and the transmitting mechanism becomes a wide-spreading apparatus (412).

In manufacture, you had the division of work amongst the workers; with industry, you have the division of work among different machines. However, all of these machines are fed with a single source of energy, independent of human-energy as the motor or impulse of movement. Large-scale industry separates the production process into subjective and objective factors, working in tandem to produce commodities. Whereas before, the worker would be “in control” of manufacturing commodities, now the system of machinery and new energy sources takes on an objective force and becomes master of the worker’s human-energy. The limbs, more especially the hands, which have enabled man to survive as an evolved animal, become “obsolete” with the introduction of machinery. Instead, man is transformed into an appendage in the servitude of King Profit: A real machinery system, however, does not take the place of these independent machines, until the subject of labour goes through a connected series of detail processes, that are carried out by a chain of machines of various kinds, the one supplementing the other. Here we have again the cooperation by division of labour that characterises Manufacture; only now, it is a combination of detail machines. The special tools of the various detail workmen, such as those of the beaters, cambers, spinners, &c., in the woollen manufacture, are now transformed into the tools of specialised machines, each machine constituting a special organ, with a special function, in the system. In those branches of industry in which the machinery system is first introduced, Manufacture itself furnishes, in a general way, the natural basis for the division, and consequent organisation, of the process of production. Nevertheless an essential difference at once manifests itself. In Manufacture it is the workmen who, with their manual implements, must, either singly or in groups, carry on each particular detail process. If, on the one hand, the workman becomes adapted to the process, on the other, the process was previously made suitable to the workman. This subjective principle of the division of labour no longer exists in production by machinery. Here, the process as a whole is examined objectively, in itself, that is to say, without regard to the question of its execution by human hands, it is analysed into its constituent phases; and the problem, how to execute each detail process, and bind them all into a whole, is solved by the aid of machines, chemistry, &c. But, of course, in this case also, theory must be perfected by accumulated experience on a large scale (414-415).

202

Chapter Fifteen

Through machinery and “free” energy from nature, capitalistic production perfects the science of ensuring a continuous and uninterrupted flow of energy, thereby ensuring an uninterrupted and continuous production of commodities, thereby ensuring an uninterrupted and continuous production of surplus-value. With machines thoughtfully designed and ordered in the workshop, the mode of production is guaranteed a stream of available and ever-flowing energy. With capitalism taking control and command of energy, the measured time that it takes to produce commodities decreases considerably. Just like the worker, through no intention of his own, keeps the worker next to him busy in manufacture, so too is it in industry. The machine is kept employed by the machine next to it, as they are all cogs in the great capitalistic mode of production, ensuring that the system works like clockwork. Throughout, capitalism seeks to perfect the art and science of movement: the movement of the worker, the movement of the raw material along the production chain, the movement of the commodities to the market, the movement of money across national boundaries, the movement of energy to points of production, etc. The command and control of movement are the hallmarks of capitalism. And for all these different forms of movement, astronomical quantities of energy are required. From having the “collective worker” as its base, capitalism gradually evolves until the “collective machine” is its base: Each detail machine supplies raw material to the machine next in order; and since they are all working at the same time, the product is always going through the various stages of its fabrication, and is also constantly in a state of transition, from one phase to another. Just as in Manufacture, the direct co-operation of the detail labourers establishes a numerical proportion between the special groups, so in an organised system of machinery, where one detail machine is constantly kept employed by another, a fixed relation is established between their numbers, their size, and their speed. The collective machine, now an organised system of various kinds of single machines, and of groups of single machines, becomes more and more perfect, the more the process as a whole becomes a continuous one, i.e., the less the raw material is interrupted in its passage from its first phase to its last; in other words, the more its passage from one phase to another is effected, not by the hand of man, but by the machinery itself. In Manufacture the isolation of each detail process is a condition imposed by the nature of division of labour, but in the fully developed factory the continuity of those processes is, on the contrary, imperative (415).

Machines and the Energy Revolution

203

In the quote below, Marx introduces us to the concept of speed or velocity in the production process. If there is one concept that most characterises the modern world, it must be that of speed. The roots of the increasing pace of life are to be found in the production sphere in general, and the energy sources of society in particular. The increasing speed of life is to be found in the energy source and the rate to which that energy source is put to use. If time flies, then it is because human time is on a high-energy diet in capitalistic society. More energy means more movement and more speed. If life is moving at break-neck speed, then it is because contemporary living is literally powered by a high-energy infrastructure. In the words of Eric Hoffer: “the mad rush of the last hundred years has left us out of breath” (Cook, 1976: 296). The metaphor that Marx uses to describe the entity in operation is “a mechanical monster”, growing in size and speed to assume power over the production process, and over life itself: An organised system of machines, to which motion is communicated by the transmitting mechanism from a central automaton, is the most developed form of production by machinery. Here we have, in the place of the isolated machine, a mechanical monster whose body fills whole factories, and whose demon power, at first veiled under the slow and measured motions of his giant limbs, at length breaks out into the fast and furious whirl of his countless working organs (416-417).

Marx alludes to changes in modes of production, and to subsequent changes in the infrastructure built on the earth’s landscape. Modern industry eats away the manufacturing base from which it was birthed. The speed and scale of production in the workplace lead to environmental transformations of the earth’s landscape, as demand for commodities to be transported to various markets of the world increases. We see the domino effect of infrastructure development spurred on by the production of ever more commodities, especially that of infrastructure development in the communications and transport sector. In England, canals were carved out of the earth, and railroads riveted across its length and breadth. The Industrial Revolution of the workplace stretches its capitalistic tentacles over the entire land: In a society whose pivot, to use an expression of Fourier, was agriculture on a small scale, with its subsidiary domestic industries, and the urban handicrafts, the means of communication and transport were so utterly inadequate to the productive requirements of the manufacturing period, with its extended division of social labour, its concentration of the instruments of labour, and of the workmen, and its colonial Markets, that

204

Chapter Fifteen they became in fact revolutionised. In the same way the means of communication and transport handed down from the manufacturing period soon became unbearable trammels on Modern Industry, with its feverish haste of production, its enormous extent, its constant flinging of capital and labour from one sphere of production into another, and its newly-created connexions with the Markets of the whole world. Hence, apart from the radical changes introduced in the construction of sailing vessels, the means of communication and transport became gradually adapted to the modes of production of mechanical industry, by the creation of a system of river steamers, railways, ocean steamers, and telegraphs. But the huge masses of iron that had now to be forged, to be welded, to be cut, to be bored, and to be shaped, demanded, on their part, cyclopean machines, for the construction of which the methods of the manufacturing period were utterly inadequate (419-420).

Marx states that by inventing the slide rule and attaching it to a machine, capitalism was able to find the best substitute for the hands of man. Workers’ hands, as appendages for transferring human-energy into mechanical energy in the production process, are replaced by the slide rest. More concentrated energy sources are exploited in order to get machines to produce even more machines. As mechanical science helps to further develop the production sphere under capitalism, machine development is deepened, strengthened, consolidated and expanded on: The most essential condition to the production of machines by machines was a prime mover capable of exerting any quantity of force, and yet under perfect control. Such a condition was already supplied by the steamengine. But at the same time it was necessary to produce the geometrically accurate straight lines, planes, circles, cylinders, cones, and spheres, required in the detail parts of the machines. This problem Henry Maudsley solved in the first decade of this century by the invention of the slide rest, a tool that was soon made automatic, and in a modified form was applied to other constructive machines besides the lathe, for which it was originally intended. This mechanical appliance replaces, not some particular tool, but the hand itself, which produces a given form by holding and guiding the cutting tool along the iron or other material operated upon. Thus it became possible to produce the forms of the individual parts of machinery ‘with a degree of ease, accuracy, and speed, that no accumulated experience of the hand of the most skilled workman could give’ (420).

Science then becomes the hand-maiden of capitalism: “…science was the greater promoter of invention, and invention was the greater promoter of national wealth” (Smith, 1998: 199). Marx views modern industry as an organism–one that is kept alive by energy. Man, the energy-converter in the production process, is transformed into a passive energy feedstock.

Machines and the Energy Revolution

205

Man, who once tamed the energies of nature to secure his place on earth, now has his human-energy tamed by the growing might of capitalistic forces. Where man’s human-energy was the prime mover in the production process, with the growing dominance of machinery, his human-energy now serves to “fill in the blanks” of those energy spaces in the production cycle where machinery and inanimate forms of energy are unable to do so: The implements of labour, in the form of machinery, necessitate the substitution of natural forces for human force, and the conscious application of science, instead of rule of thumb. In Manufacture, the organisation of the social labour-process is purely subjective; it is a combination of detail labourers; in its machinery system, modern industry has a productive organism that is purely objective, in which the labourer becomes a mere appendage to an already existing material condition of production. In simple co-operation, and even in that founded on division of labour, the suppression of the isolated, by the collective, workman still appears to be more or less accidental. Machinery, with a few exceptions to be mentioned later, operates only by means of associated labour, or labour in common. Hence the co-operative character of the labour-process is, in the latter case, a technical necessity dictated by the instrument of labour itself (421-422).

Whilst nature provides “free” energy in the form of water, wind, sunlight, etc., Marx argues that huge and expensive builds are required for harnessing such energy, and that human-energy is instrumental in enabling the building of the infrastructure for harnessing energy from nature. In other words, it takes energy to get energy, and it takes human-energy to harness all other forms of energy from nature. Marx speaks of the limitations of “free” energy–a single set of lungs can collect only a set quantity of air. Likewise, an energy-capturing technology can only capture a set quantity of renewable energy, whether it be solar or wind energy. These limitations may not be in the use-value of the renewable energy per se, but in the scale of technology that is required to capture and collect a specific quantity of energy. For example, if 1kg of coal contains 1,000 joules of energy, and if a 1m x 1m sized solar panel collects 1,000 J of energy, then in order to substitute solar power for coal, the trade-off for forgoing coal as an energy feedstock would have to be the using up of more of the earth’s surface. With regards to harnessing and harvesting renewable energy, where one forgoes depth, one has to compensate with surface area on the earth, as long as capitalism is the system that informs the production and reproduction of the economic life of man. In Marx’s thought below, we are also introduced to the beginnings of the discovery of electrical energy:

206

Chapter Fifteen We saw that the productive forces resulting from co-operation and division of labour cost capital nothing. They are natural forces of social labour. So also physical forces, like steam, water, &c., when appropriated to productive processes, cost nothing. But just as a man requires lungs to breathe with, so he requires something that is work of man’s hand, in order to consume physical forces productively. A water-wheel is necessary to exploit the force of water, and a steam-engine to exploit the elasticity of steam. Once discovered, the law of the deviation of the magnetic needle in the field of an electric current, or the law of the magnetisation of iron, around which an electric current circulates, cost never a penny. But the exploitation of these laws for the purposes of telegraphy, &c., necessitates a costly and extensive apparatus (422).

A tool can function as a means of production on its own, but tools were eventually appropriated from the worker to form parts of machines. The machine did not replace the tool; rather, tools have “grown” into machines. Marx is emphatic that machinery–no matter its size or complexity–creates no new value. Machinery is representative of what Marx called constant capital, and it was his view that constant capital plays no part in the creation of value. It is only variable capital representing human-energy which is responsible for the creation of value and hence of surplus-value. However, machinery does comprise value, as a result of the past human-energy that is embodied in it. Machines comprise much more value than the tools of handicraft and manufacture. Although machines do not create value, they do “give up” their value to the commodities which they produce. They pass on the value that they contain to the newly created commodities–but they do this in pockets or packets, in accordance with the law of conservation of energy. Whereas under manufacture the worker would set his tools to work, under modern industry, the machine system sets the worker to work. The agglomeration of tools–as comprised in the machine–now sets the mechanical movements and pace for the worker. Man’s nature-given freedom of movement becomes the total freedom of capitalism to assume command and control over man’s movement: The tool, as we have seen, is not exterminated by the machine. From being a dwarf implement of the human organism, it expands and multiplies into the implement of a mechanism created by man. Capital now sets the labourer to work, not with a manual tool, but with a machine which itself handles the tools. Although, therefore, it is clear at the first glance that, by incorporating both stupendous physical forces, and the natural sciences, with the process of production, modern industry raises the productiveness of labour to an extraordinary degree, it is by no means equally clear, that this increased productive force is not, on the other hand, purchased by an

Machines and the Energy Revolution

207

increased expenditure of labour. Machinery, like every other component of constant capital, creates no new value, but yields up its own value to the product that it serves to beget. In so far as the machine has value, and, in consequence, parts with value to the product, it forms an element in the value of that product. Instead of being cheapened, the product is made dearer in proportion to the value of the machine. And it is clear as noonday, that machines and systems of machinery, the characteristic instruments of labour of Modern Industry, are incomparably more loaded with value than the implements used in handicrafts and manufactures (422423).

If we take value to be the representation of human-energy when embodied in a commodity, then we see that the transfer of value from the machine to the product is made possible because “energy is neither created nor destroyed; it is only converted from one form to another” (Fowler, 1975: 33). The greater the velocity at which the machine is made to work, the greater the velocity at which value is transferred into commodities. Like the energy of the sun that becomes stored in plants and in coal, the human-energy of man becomes stored up in his tools and in his machines. Marx states that, with the Industrial Revolution, the human-energy of the past, in machine commodities, is then put to work “gratuitously”. For Marx, the “free” human-energy of past work is akin to the “free” energy from nature: In the first place, it must be observed that the machinery, while always entering as a whole into the labour-process, enters into the value-begetting process only by bits. It never adds more value than it loses, on an average, by wear and tear. Hence there is a great difference between the value of a machine, and the value transferred in a given time by that machine to the product. The longer the life of the machine in the labour-process, the greater is that difference. It is true, no doubt, as we have already seen, that every instrument of labour enters as a whole into the labour-process, and only piece-meal, proportionally to its average daily loss by wear and tear, into the value-begetting process. But this difference between the instrument as a whole and its daily wear and tear, is much greater in a machine than in a tool, because the machine, being made from more durable material, has a longer life; because its employment, being regulated by strictly scientific laws, allows of greater economy in the wear and tear of its parts, and in the materials it consumes; and lastly, because its field of production is incomparably larger than that of a tool. After making allowance, both in the case of the machine and of the tool, for their average daily cost, that is for the value they transmit to the product by their average daily wear and tear, and for their consumption of auxiliary substance, such as oil, coal, and so on, they each do their work gratuitously, just like the forces furnished by nature without the help of

208

Chapter Fifteen man. The greater the productive power of the machinery compared with that of the tool, the greater is the extent of its gratuitous service compared with that of the tool. In Modern Industry man succeeded for the first time in making the product of his past labour work on a large scale gratuitously, like the forces of nature (423-424).

Where human-energy is free or cheap for use in “big” industry, as in Rome during the period of slavery, there is no incentive to build machines (Meltzer, 1993: 147). Machine development is not unique to a particular country, or to a particular cultural group, or to a particular chronological time in history. Machinery develops in places where the price of humanenergy is relatively high. Capitalism has a “love-hate” relationship with human-energy. It needs human-energy, whilst at the same time attempting to “get rid” of it from the production sphere. Capitalism only innovates and engineers if the value of the human-energy embodied in the machine is not greater than the value of the human-energy (the “live workers”) that the capitalist may have had to employ. This is, however, only made possible if the human-energy embodied in machines costs less than the human-energy displaced by the machines, and it is therefore of surplusvalue to the capitalist. If the work of a machine is said to add less value to a commodity than the work of a man, then the machine is considered to be productive. For example, if the energy used by a machine can produce cloth at $1 apiece, while human-energy costs $1.10, then the machine is considered to be more productive: It is evident that whenever it costs as much labour to produce a machine as is saved by the employment of that machine, there is nothing but a transposition of labour; consequently the total labour required to produce a commodity is not lessened or the productiveness of labour is not increased. It is clear, however, that the difference between the labour a machine costs, and the labour it saves, in other words, that the degree of its productiveness does not depend on the difference between its own value and the value of the implement it replaces. As long as the labour spent on a machine, and consequently the portion of its value added to the product, remains smaller than the value added by the workman to the product with his tool, there is always a difference of labour saved in favour of the machine. The productiveness of a machine is therefore measured by the human labourpower it replaces (426-427).

While the Greeks gave the world philosophy and other significant types of knowledge, they did not give the world machinery, for the practical reason that human-energy was dirt cheap in Greek society: “The slave was an animated tool; a gang of slaves was a machine with men for parts” (Meltzer, 1993: 75-76). But during the Industrial Revolution, of

Machines and the Energy Revolution

209

which the aim was to cheapen products, “an electromagnetic engine” was apt in so far as production “was less than the daily cost of a man’s labour” (Smith, 1998: 54). With regards to agricultural production, the productivity of human-energy was measured against that of horse-power or horse-energy. For example, Quesnay “considered that much of the greater productivity of English agriculture was due to the universal dependence on horses as an energy source” (Wrigley, 2010: 75). If humanenergy is cheaper than other forms of energy, then capitalism sticks with human-energy. Capitalism lacks a “moral” mind in so far as energy sources are concerned. Its logic is informed by surplus-value and not by general mores, morals or ethics, unless such mores, morals or ethics are themselves informed by the logic of surplus-value. Hence the economic development of countries is dependent on cheap energy–whatever or wherever its source. Countries that have developed economically faster than others have always had access to cheap energy, especially humanenergy. China and India are cases in point in the 21st century, where access to human-energy is both cheap and abundant. If ever human-energy was dirt cheap, it was when humans were owned as private property. The human-energy of slaves has kick-started many a country onto its capitalistic development trajectory. In the 21st century, migrant workers ensure a constant source of cheap human-energy for economic development. Marx reminds us that even though England invented machinery, a technical institution that could “lighten the load of work of society”, it unashamedly continued to use and exploit human-energy due to the latter’s cheapness: In England women are still occasionally used instead of horses for hauling canal boats, because the labour required to produce horses and machines is an accurately known quantity, while that required to maintain the women of the surplus-population is below all calculation. Hence nowhere do we find a more shameful squandering of human labour-power for the most despicable purposes than in England, the land of machinery (430).

Once capitalism had developed the mechanism for ensuring a constant energy flow through the production chain, the once important humanenergy component was considered not a primary energy source, but rather a subsidiary one. Marx considers the transformation of tools into collective tools working in harmony in a machine as a revolution. However, the development of an alternate energy mechanism in the production process was not without huge adverse consequences for the workers. Capitalism has achieved the goal of attaining an energy system almost independent of human-energy, at least in its direct form. However,

210

Chapter Fifteen

workers are energy-converters and no energy system, no matter how advanced, can be initiated and indefinitely sustained without humanenergy. With the development of the machine energy system, capitalistic production simultaneously sourced the human-energy of the more workpassive members of the family viz. wives and children. In the main, the human-energy of the men was done away with. With the human-energy of the children and the family now being appropriated by capital, there was very little human-energy left for play or for attending to chores in and around the house. The women were robbed of their human-energy to “work” at home, and the children were robbed of their play time or their human-energy to play, as their human-energy became enlisted in the service of capitalistic accumulation. What was supposed to be play time and education time became work-time for children. What was supposed to be family time for women became work-time for them as well. Humanenergy, which is required for all the various times and activities which make up the human world, was usurped by the work-time monster, capitalism: In so far as machinery dispenses with muscular power, it becomes a means of employing labourers of slight muscular strength, and those whose bodily development is incomplete, but whose limbs are all the more supple. The labour of women and children was, therefore, the first thing sought for by capitalists who used machinery. That mighty substitute for labour and labourers was forthwith changed into a means for increasing the number of wage-labourers by enrolling, under the direct sway of capital, every member of the workman’s family, without distinction of age or sex. Compulsory work for the capitalist usurped the place, not only of the children’s play, but also of free labour at home within moderate limits for the support of the family (431).

Where governments attempt to regulate the price of human-energy, the capitalist class and their “sycophants” shout out for the deregulation of the human-energy market. By spreading its tentacles into the human-energy of all members of the family, capitalism cheapens the cumulative humanenergy of the family. Even though capitalism pays more for human-energy by employing more family members, it gets more surplus-value from the human-energy of a family of four than it would by hiring just that of the husband or father. Machinery, contrary to the capitalistic ideology that it lightens the work of the worker, enforces a greater degree of exploitation of human-energy: The value of labour-power was determined, not only by the labour-time necessary to maintain the individual adult labourer, but also by that

Machines and the Energy Revolution

211

necessary to maintain his family. Machinery, by throwing every member of that family on to the labour Market, spreads the value of the man’s labourpower over his whole family. It thus depreciates his labour-power. To purchase the labour-power of a family of four workers may, perhaps, cost more than it formerly did to purchase the labour-power of the head of the family, but, in return, four days’ labour takes the place of one, and their price falls in proportion to the excess of the surplus-labour of four over the surplus-labour of one. In order that the family may live, four people must now, not only labour, but expend surplus-labour for the capitalist. Thus we see, that machinery, while augmenting the human material that forms the principal object of capital’s exploiting power, at the same time raises the degree of exploitation (431-432).

The worker is “free” to sell his human-energy to the capitalist, and the capitalist is free to buy human-energy in the capitalistic free market. The law of commodity exchange guarantees the freedom to trade in the commodities regarded as one’s private property. Capitalism sets no moral boundaries for itself when it comes to exploiting energy in general and human-energy in particular. If the worker is “free” to sell his humanenergy, then he is also “free” to sell the human-energy of his wife and child. Darwin’s natural law of “survival of the fittest” takes on an economic meaning under capitalism, with the machine always deemed the fitter between the worker and itself. Where the machine survives, the worker and his family dies; if not literally, then in terms of their humanity, their hope, their dreams and their ideas of a good family life. Capitalism, through the invention of the machine energy system, takes a working man and converts him into a “dealer of slaves” within his own family. Even after capitalism has conquered nature for its “free” energy, it continues to require and seek out human-energy as long as it is cheap and needed to “fill the gaps” in the production process. As long as capitalism has alternate energy choices, these stand head and shoulders above workers and their human-energy. By seeking out the human-energy of women and children, capitalism breaks the human-energy monopoly traditionally held by male workers. By employing the human-energy of women and children, capitalism maintains its tyrannical power over society in general, and workers in particular: Machinery also revolutionises out and out the contract between the labourer and the capitalist, which formally fixes their mutual relations. Taking the exchange of commodities as our basis, our first assumption was that capitalist and labourer met as free persons, as independent owners of commodities; the one possessing money and means of production, the other labour-power. But now the capitalist buys children and young persons under age. Previously, the workman sold his own labour-power,

212

Chapter Fifteen which he disposed of nominally as a free agent. Now he sells wife and child. He has become a slave-dealer. The demand for children’s labour often resembles in form the inquiries for negro slaves, such as were formerly to be read among the advertisements in American journals (432433).

By conquering energy from nature, capitalism has also conquered time or temporal space. If the mode of production was to move with the speed of light, then time would become non-existent, and capitalism would have conquered the speed of energy in commodity production. Through machinery and “free” energy from nature, capitalism supersedes the thresholds of human-energy and its capacity for commodity production attains the realms of boundlessness. Where clock-time was a powerful weapon in the hands of the capitalist class, forcing the worker to work extensively, an even more potent weapon is the use of inanimate energy to force the worker to work intensively. In many of the factories and workshops of the world, the movement of commodities amongst almost motionless workers is testimony to the stealthy power of energy in the production process. If night-time “decreased” the human-energy of the worker, and shut off the sun’s energy, making it difficult or impossible to work longer hours, then by getting its tentacles on other forms of energy, capitalism beats nature by ensuring the flow of energy into factories and workshops during the night-time as well: If machinery be the most powerful means for increasing the productiveness of labour–i.e., for shortening the working time required in the production of a commodity, it becomes in the hands of capital the most powerful means, in those industries first invaded by it, for lengthening the working day beyond all bounds set by human nature. It creates, on the one hand, new conditions by which capital is enabled to give free scope to this its constant tendency, and on the other hand, new motives with which to whet capital’s appetite for the labour of others (440).

Through the invention of machinery, and the steady and consistent appropriation of energy from nature on top of human-energy, capitalism has ensured perpetual motion in the accumulation process. However, man cannot dispense of his human-energy ad infinitum without rest, although capitalistic production has and continues to push human-energy beyond its natural limits. Movement and motion, as dictated by the logic of capitalism, work in the interests of capital accumulation. Hence the frenzied movement of people, things, money, etc. in the 21st century, which commenced with the Industrial Revolution of 18th century England:

Machines and the Energy Revolution

213

In the first place, in the form of machinery, the implements of labour become automatic, things moving and working independent of the workman. They are thenceforth an industrial perpetuum mobile, that would go on producing forever, did it not meet with certain natural obstructions in the weak bodies and the strong wills of its human attendants. The automaton, as capital, and because it is capital, is endowed, in the person of the capitalist, with intelligence and will; it is therefore animated by the longing to reduce to a minimum the resistance offered by that repellent yet elastic natural barrier, man. This resistance is moreover lessened by the apparent lightness of machine work, and by the more pliant and docile character of the women and children employed on it (440).

A machine depreciates or gradually “loses” its value as it transfers its embodied value onto the commodities it produces. Capitalists also experience competitive pressure to manufacture cheaper machines. Hence, besides depreciating through normal wear and tear, machines also become outmoded through “loss” of value–what Marx refers to as “moral depreciation”. Just as basic commodities are cheapened in order to cheapen the human-energy of the worker, the machine commodity is also continuously made cheaper. Just as workers are cheapened in the production process through a constant forcing down of their wages, the cost of machine reproduction is also forced downward. We also gain insights into the pace at which capitalism encourages innovation in machinery and technology. A machine is quickly put to work in order to get the most out of it, at least in terms of surplus-value and profit, and not for the purposes of decreasing the workload of the hard-working folk in capitalistic society: But in addition to the material wear and tear, a machine also undergoes, what we may call a moral depreciation. It loses exchange-value, either by machines of the same sort being produced cheaper than it, or by better machines entering into competition with it. In both cases, be the machine ever so young and full of life, its value is no longer determined by the labour actually materialised in it, but by the labour-time requisite to reproduce either it or the better machine. It has, therefore, lost value more or less. The shorter the period taken to reproduce its total value, the less is the danger of moral depreciation; and the longer the working day, the shorter is that period. When machinery is first introduced into an industry, new methods of reproducing it more cheaply follow blow upon blow, and so do improvements, that not only affect individual parts and details of the machine, but its entire build. It is, therefore, in the early days of the life of machinery that this special incentive to the prolongation of the working day makes itself felt most acutely (442).

214

Chapter Fifteen

In previous economic epochs, the seasons and the ability of the human body to dispense human-energy would determine the threshold of the working day. Under slavery, it was the whip that determined the threshold of human-energy expenditure. Under capitalism, the length of the working day is set by an objective power, in the form of machinery, hydro-energy and/or coal energy. Instead of lightening the work of man, machinery and technology turn man into a perpetual worker. The worker and his family are transformed into working fodder for the valorisation process of capitalism. By conquering energy, capitalism has entered into a contest and conflict with nature for the regulation of activities on earth. The sun is no more the “direct” conductor of life’s activities; that role has been usurped by the capitalistic mode of production. In tapping into “ancient sunlight” viz. coal, capitalism has altered the effect of the movement of the planets on earth and its inhabitants. Rest time becomes work-time, and work-time becomes loathed work-time. With its strange form of nondiscriminatory doctrine, capitalism sweeps up the human-energy from all and sundry: men, women, adults, children and entire families. Whereas previously, capitalism would identify the head of the household as a continuous source of human-energy, it now extends its reach to the other creatures in the home. Like collieries that provide an abundant supply of coal energy, homes become collieries of human-energy to feed the accumulation-fire of the capitalistic mode of production: Hence that remarkable phenomenon in the history of Modern Industry, that machinery sweeps away every moral and natural restriction on the length of the working day. Hence, too, the economic paradox, that the most powerful instrument for shortening labour-time, becomes the most unfailing means for placing every moment of the labourer’s time and that of his family, at the disposal of the capitalist for the purpose of expanding the value of his capital (445).

Where the state decided on the length of the working day, capitalists decided the pace and rate at which the worker must expend humanenergy. Where the state assumes command and control over the working day, the capitalistic mode of production assumes command and control over movement and the rate of speed at which the worker works. Where the state becomes the regulator of the working day, the capitalistic mode of production becomes the regulator of the movement and speed of the worker, and of production in the workplace. With the law seeking to shorten the working day, workers are made to work more intensively, i.e. at a faster pace. So whilst more hours for work meant more profit for capitalists, the innovative “mind” of capitalism ensured that lesser hours

Machines and the Energy Revolution

215

could also result in surplus-value and profit. If “time is money”, then capitalism discovered that it is human-energy expended in the smallest possible quantity of clock-time which secures that money. It therefore seeks to get the worker to spend as little human-energy on himself and his family as possible, and as much as possible on the valorisation process. By controlling energy forms other than human-energy, capitalism made clock-time the junior master of workers. “Free” energy from nature assumes kingship over the production process and the worker: So soon as the gradually surging revolt of the working-class compelled Parliament to shorten compulsorily the hours of labour, and to begin by imposing a normal working day on factories proper, so soon consequently as an increased production of surplus-value by the prolongation of the working day was once for all put a stop to, from that moment capital threw itself with all its might into the production of relative surplus-value, by hastening on the further improvement of machinery (447).

By compressing the working day, capitalism ensures the build-up of work pressure on the worker, which in turn increases the volume of human-energy extracted. Human-energy fills every infinitesimal time gap in the working day. Like a pressure cooker that pumps out steam, time compression pumps out human-energy from the worker. As the worker’s movements are regulated to ensure the continuous expenditure of his human-energy, more commodities and more wealth are produced. The differentiation between the working day and work-time is given more clarity by Marx, as most if not all of the working day is turned into worktime. Whereas the former is a legal definition of the duration of temporality of work, the latter is the actual continuous and homogenous work that takes place in time. 10 hours of temporality may contain more work in one day than 12 hours of temporal duration on the following day. So whilst time is assumed to be a universal variable, we note the distinction between measured time and work-time: Generally speaking, the mode of producing relative surplus-value consists in raising the productive power of the workman, so as to enable him to produce more in a given time with the same expenditure of labour. Labourtime continues to transmit as before the same value to the total product, but this unchanged amount of exchange-value is spread over more use-values; hence the value of each single commodity sinks. Otherwise, however, so soon as the compulsory shortening of the hours of labour takes place. The immense impetus it gives the development of productive power, and to economy in the means of production, imposes on the workman increased expenditure of labour in a given time, heightened tension of labour-power, and closer filling up of the pores of the working day, or condensation of

216

Chapter Fifteen labour to a degree that is attainable only within the limits of the shortened working day. This condensation of a greater mass of labour into a given period thenceforward counts for what it really is, a greater quantity of labour. In addition to a measure of its extension, i.e., duration, labour now acquires a measure of its intensity or of the degree of its condensation or density. The denser hour of the ten hours’ working day contains more labour, i.e., expended labour-power than the more porous hour of the twelve hours’ working day (447-448).

Marx uses the concept of energy to denote the capacity for work. We also observe terms associated with mechanical science, such as “tension”, describing the strained physiological conditions under which the worker expends human-energy. Even in those industries where machinery is limited or non-existent, the compression of the working day has led to the worker using and expending his human-energy in a more efficient manner. Capitalism has sculptured the workplace to such energy perfection that the worker’s skill of movement is refined to maximise the streaming of human-energy into commodity production: The first effect of shortening the working day results from the self-evident law, that the efficiency of labour-power is in an inverse ratio to the duration of its expenditure. Hence, within certain limits what is lost by shortening the duration is gained by the increasing tension of labourpower. That the workman moreover really does expend more labourpower, is ensured by the mode in which the capitalist pays him. In those industries, such as potteries, where machinery plays little or no part, the introduction of the Factory Acts has strikingly shown that the mere shortening of the working-day increases to a wonderful degree the regularity, uniformity, order, continuity, and energy of the labour (448449).

With increasing access to nature’s “free” energy, there is a corresponding acceleration in production. Clock-time as a measure of movement is broken down into ever smaller units. If energy catches up with time, then time has to catch up with the movement of energy in order to measure the speed of this movement. Hence, we have time being broken down into milliseconds and sometimes nanoseconds in the modern era. With the increasing speed of energy expenditure, we have the conditions for the physiological exertion of the worker. The pace at which coal energy moves machines determines the pace at which the worker has to dispense his human-energy. His human-energy and hence his working life is controlled by an objective force. Like the worker whose movements are programmed for maximum human-energy expenditure, the machine parts

Machines and the Energy Revolution

217

are improved upon, so as to ensure smoother and faster movement in order to secure an uninterrupted flow of energy through its body: The shortening of the hours of labour creates, to begin with, the subjective conditions for the condensation of labour, by enabling the workman to exert more strength in a given time. So soon as that shortening becomes compulsory, machinery becomes in the hands of capital the objective means, systematically employed for squeezing out more labour in a given time. This is effected in two ways: by increasing the speed of the machinery, and by giving the workman more machinery to tent. Improved construction of the machinery is necessary, partly because without it greater pressure cannot be put on the workman, and partly because the shortened hours of labour force the capitalist to exercise the strictest watch over the cost of production. The improvements in the steam-engine have increased the piston speed, and at the same time have made it possible, by means of a greater economy of power, to drive with the same or even a smaller consumption of coal more machinery with the same engine. The improvements in the transmitting mechanism have lessened friction, and, what so strikingly distinguishes modern from the older machinery, have reduced the diameter and weight of the shafting to a constantly decreasing minimum. Finally, the improvements in the operative machines have, while reducing their size, increased their speed and efficiency, as in the modern power-loom; or, while increasing the size of their framework, have also increased the extent and number of their working parts, as in spinningmules, or have added to the speed of these working parts by imperceptible alterations of detail, such as those which ten years ago increased the speed of the spindles in self-acting mules by one-fifth (450-451).

External or inanimate energy and the clock collude in the exploitation of human-energy. If the beast’s energy is tamed to plough the land, man’s human-energy is tamed in the factories and workshops to plough for unlimited surplus-value. With modern industrialisation we have the deskilling of the worker and the skilling and advanced skilling of tools or the instruments of work, whereby they act together to form parts of the machine system powered by inanimate energy. From the control of human-energy, as in handicraft and manufacturing, tools, as part of the machine, become controlled by inanimate energy. The bodily movement of the workers, especially of their hands, is standardised in order to ensure that their human-energy expenditure works in a harmonious and synergistic relationship with the movements of the tools in the machines. The execution of movement strives towards the perfection of mechanical movement in order to stop the “dripping” of energy away from the raw materials of nature. Man, who was once the master of his tools, now

218

Chapter Fifteen

becomes the “tool” of the machine. If man is a “tool making animal”, under capitalism, he is transformed into an “energy dispensing animal”: Along with the tool, the skill of the workman in handling it passes over to the machine. The capabilities of the tool are emancipated from the restraints that are inseparable from human labour-power. Thereby the technical foundation on which is based the division of labour in Manufacture, is swept away. Hence, in the place of the hierarchy of specialised workmen that characterises manufacture, there steps, in the automatic factory, a tendency to equalise and reduce to one and the same level every kind of work that has to be done by the minders of the machines; in the place of the artificially produced differentiations of the detail workmen, step the natural differences of age and sex (459).

Like a sapling that grows towards the sun’s energy, the worker is disciplined to execute his movements in concert with the movements of the machines in the factory. He becomes a cog in the whole that is the modern industry of commodity production. His mechanical movements– which were intricate and complex in handicraft–become standard and simple in modern industry. He is no more the artist of his craft; he becomes an appendage of science and scientific application. Universal man is reduced to a particular mechanical implement in the service of King Profit! In Japan, they have perfected the mechanical science of controlling movement both inside and outside of the production sphere. In the splendid cities of Tokyo, Yokohama, etc. the movement of its citizens is executed with such efficiency and economy that most of their humanenergy must, in the final analysis, lead to surplus-value and profit maximisation. Japanese society is based on the non-wasteful expenditure of human-energy, at least from the perspective of capitalistic logic for surplus-value. Even in the centre of pavements, there are coloured, serrated strips that seek to cause some kind of discomfort to pedestrians when they veer off from walking in an ordered, obedient, disciplined, economical and energy efficient manner. Capitalism is the great master, controlling, ordering and regulating the movement of the human race. It commences with the control of movement in the factories and workshops of the world, and then spreads its tentacles of movement regulation, command and control into wider society. The global world now comprises a global mass of people whose movements are controlled and regulated with the goal of expanding capitalism. For thousands of years, man controlled the movement of the horse, the dog, the ox and other animals. At some point he began controlling the movement of other men. Capitalism would become master of the control of movement in general, and man’s movement in particular. We all must dance to the tune of

Machines and the Energy Revolution

219

capitalism–and we are all expected to dance the same capitalist dance according to the same capitalist tune: To work at a machine, the workman should be taught from childhood, in order that he may learn to adapt his own movements to the uniform and unceasing motion of an automaton. When the machinery, as a whole, forms a system of manifold machines, working simultaneously and in concert, the co-operation based upon it, requires the distribution of various groups of workmen among the different kinds of machines. But the employment of machinery does away with the necessity of crystallising this distribution after the manner of Manufacture, by the constant annexation of a particular man to a particular function. Since the motion of the whole system does not proceed from the workman, but from the machinery, a change of persons can take place at any time without an interruption of the work. The most striking proof of this is afforded by the relays system, put into operation by the manufacturers during their revolt from 1848-1850. Lastly, the quickness with which machine work is learnt by young people, does away with the necessity of bringing up for exclusive employment by machinery, a special class of operatives. With regard to the work of the mere attendants, it can, to some extent, be replaced in the mill by machines, and owing to its extreme simplicity, it allows of a rapid and constant change of the individuals burdened with this drudgery (460-461).

Under modern industry, the reduction of man to a mere energy feedstock is rendered complete. Whole man becomes a mere energy producer and dispenser. Man, who was born free to roam the earth, has this freedom of movement annexed from him by the capitalist mode of production. Man the human is reduced to man the energy dispenser through mechanical means. By minimising his “species being”, capitalism ensures the maximisation of surplus-value and profit. Under capitalism, the human race becomes a gigantic reservoir for siphoning off humanenergy. Under the division of work during manufacturing, man imparts his human-energy into a single tool, but with man as “master” of humanenergy dispensation. Under modern capitalism, a single machine sucks the human-energy out of man, but with the machine as master. Like coal that is burned in order to release its energy to produce steam, man is “burned out” in order to release his human-energy for the production of surplusvalue. Both inanimate and animate forms of energy are subsumed under the total command and control of the capitalistic mode of production: Although then, technically speaking, the old system of division of labour is thrown overboard by machinery, it hangs on in the factory, as a traditional habit handed down from Manufacture, and is afterwards systematically remoulded and established in a more hideous form by capital, as a means of

220

Chapter Fifteen exploiting labour-power. The life-long speciality of handling one and the same tool, now becomes the life-long speciality of serving one and the same machine. Machinery is put to a wrong use, with the object of transforming the workman, from his very childhood, into a part of a detailmachine. In this way, not only are the expenses of his reproduction considerably lessened, but at the same time his helpless dependence upon the factory as a whole, and therefore upon the capitalist, is rendered complete. Here as everywhere else, we must distinguish between the increased productiveness due to the development of the social process of production, and that due to the capitalist exploitation of that process. In handicrafts and manufacture, the workman makes use of a tool, in the factory, the machine makes use of him. There the movements of the instrument of labour proceed from him, here it is the movements of the machine that he must follow. In manufacture the workmen are parts of a living mechanism. In the factory we have a lifeless mechanism independent of the workman, who becomes its mere living appendage (461-462).

The human-energy of previous workers embodied in the machines serves to drain out the human-energy of living workers. The worker’s muscular movements, which naturally function in a range of ways, are reduced to a minimum range of executions. His engagement with work is no longer satisfying, but mechanical. His human-energy becomes a mere drop in the ocean of energies in the servitude of capitalism. Total and complete man becomes a fragmented and singular appendage to the god of profit and capital accumulation! Even if the physical workload is lightened, the boredom of performing the same work day in and day out takes a mental toll on the worker. The separation of mind and body, each operating in a different realm, becomes more pronounced as capitalism develops. The nature of work has transformed itself under the capitalist mode of production; where man once worked to produce just for usevalue, he is now compelled to produce for the purposes of surplus-value: At the same time that factory work exhausts the nervous system to the uttermost, it does away with the many-sided play of the muscles, and confiscates every atom of freedom, both in bodily and intellectual activity. The lightening of the labour, even, becomes a sort of torture, since the machine does not free the labourer from work, but deprives the work of all interest. Every kind of capitalist production, in so far as it is not only a labour-process, but also a process of creating surplus-value, has this in common, that it is not the workman that employs the instruments of labour, but the instruments of labour that employ the workman. But it is only in the factory system that this inversion for the first time acquires technical and palpable reality. By means of its conversion into an automaton, the instrument of labour confronts the labourer, during the labour-process, in

Machines and the Energy Revolution

221

the shape of capital, of dead labour, that dominates, and pumps dry, living labour-power. The separation of the intellectual powers of production from the manual labour, and the conversion of those powers into the might of capital over labour, is, as we have already shown finally completed by modern industry erected on the foundation of machinery. The special skill of each individual insignificant factory operative vanishes as an infinitesimal quantity before the science, the gigantic physical forces, and the mass of labour that are embodied in the factory mechanism and, together with that mechanism, constitute the power of the ‘master’ (462).

The capitalist and the worker stand diametrically opposed to each other, even though each is dependent on the other; the one for survival, the other for surplus-value and profit. Theirs is a conflictual relationship–most of the time potential, and sometimes real. It is during the era of modern industry that dormant conflict surfaces into violent forms. The worker’s mind begins to register that his body is being exploited. He feels it in his tiredness and witnesses it in his wages. However, at first his commonsense understanding makes him view machines as the source of his troubles, and not the capitalist system per se. Like the division of work, which is fragmented and partial, his understanding of his troubles is fragmented and partial, instead of holistic and integrated. His response is therefore fragmented and partial, instead of holistic and integrated. Capitalism is mainly resisted at the material level and not at the ideological or scientific level. An example of this type of analysis is that of the Luddites’ “war” against the introduction of machines in factories and workshops of England. Their response to their exploitation was to smash the machines: The contest between the capitalist and the wage-labourer dates back to the very origin of capital. It raged on throughout the whole manufacturing period. But only since the introduction of machinery has the workman fought against the instrument of labour itself, the material embodiment of capital. He revolts against this particular form of the means of production, as being the material basis of the capitalist mode of production (466-467).

Marx is clear that the workers were not targeting their anger at capitalism per se, but at its material component viz. its machinery. In England and other parts of Europe–where machines were invented– workers resisted and revolted against their superior competitors–machines. Little did the workers understand that capitalism is a set of relations, propped up by force, violence, culture, political economy, law, religion and science. The Luddites would soon be crushed by the might and power of capital–aided by the law of the land. As their “being determined their

222

Chapter Fifteen

consciousness”, the workers gradually began to understand the complex and changing nature of the capitalist beast that they were dealing with: It took both time and experience before the workpeople learnt to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and to direct their attacks, not against the material instruments of production, but against the mode in which they are used (468).

In a capitalistic economy dominated by machinery, the human-energy of the worker becomes redundant. His human-energy falls into the ocean of not-in-demand energy. Capitalism, having exploited his human-energy, now proclaims the worker irrelevant in the production sphere of modern industry. That the worker is compelled to sell and convert his humanenergy into surplus-value commodities is the DNA of capitalism. His human-energy is thrown into the sea of human-energy which competes for work in the capitalistic system. With the ever-greater expansion of this sea of human-energy, the competition and urge for work and survival become stronger and more desperate, and the value of human-energy falls to the bottom of the ocean. Like some species go extinct in nature, handicraft and manufacture are added to the endangered list when modern industry takes root. Even the gods could not save the suffering masses from misery, starvation and death; they must have served as more of a distraction from, than a deterrent to, the evils of capitalism: The instrument of labour, when it takes the form of a machine, immediately becomes a competitor of the workman himself. The selfexpansion of capital by means of machinery is thenceforward directly proportional to the number of the workpeople, whose means of livelihood have been destroyed by that machinery. The whole system of capitalist production is based on the fact that the workman sells his labour-power as a commodity. Division of labour specialises this labour-power, by reducing it to skill in handling a particular tool. So soon as the handling of this tool becomes the work of a machine, then, with the use-value, the exchangevalue too, of the workman’s labour-power vanishes; the workman becomes unsaleable, like paper money thrown out of currency by legal enactment. That portion of the working-class, thus by machinery rendered superfluous, i.e., no longer immediately necessary for the self-expansion of capital, either goes to the wall in the unequal contest of the old handicrafts and manufactures with machinery, or else floods all the more easily accessible branches of industry, swamps the labour-market, and sinks the price of labour-power below its value. It is impressed upon the workpeople, as a great consolation, first, that their sufferings are only temporary (‘a temporary inconvenience’), secondly, that machinery acquires the mastery over the whole of a given field of production, only by degrees, so that the

Machines and the Energy Revolution

223

extent and intensity of its destructive effect is diminished. The first consolation neutralises the second. When machinery seizes on an industry by degrees, it produces chronic misery among the operatives who compete with it. Where the transition is rapid, the effect is acute and felt by great masses. History discloses no tragedy more horrible than the gradual extinction of the English hand-loom weavers, an extinction that was spread over several decades, and finally sealed in 1838. Many of them died of starvation, many with families vegetated for a long time on 2½ d. a day. On the other hand, the English cotton machinery produced an acute effect in India. The Governor General reported 1834-35: ‘The misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce. The bones of the cottonweavers are bleaching the plains of India’ (470-471).

Alternate forms of energy and machinery become the chief weapons for subduing worker militancy. That bloodied land of the great icon Nelson Mandela was bedevilled by workers’ strikes against its 350 year old foe: capitalism! On the 16th of August 2012, the relatively new democratically-elected state “oversaw”, on behalf of the capitalist class, the massacre of 34 striking miners. With the strikes threatening to go on indefinitely, mining bosses threatened that gold and platinum mining would thenceforth be mechanised. Human-energy was intent on increasing its value, and the mining bosses were intent on keeping the value of human-energy down, threatening to displace it in favour of cheaper, uninterrupted and non-striking energy flows. Under capitalism, the greatest threat to workers’ employment, survival and sustainability is the harnessing of non-human-energy for the production of commodities. Where other forms of energy are harvested and harnessed, human-energy is gradually displaced: But machinery not only acts as a competitor who gets the better of the workman, and is constantly on the point of making him superfluous. It is also a power inimical to him, and as such capital proclaims it from the roof tops and as such makes use of it. It is the most powerful weapon for repressing strikes, those periodical revolts of the working-class against the autocracy of capital. According to Gaskell, the steam-engine was from the very first an antagonist of human power, an antagonist that enabled the capitalist to tread under foot the growing claims of the workmen, who threatened the newly born factory system with a crisis. It would be possible to write quite a history of the inventions, made since 1830, for the sole purpose of supplying capital with weapons against the revolts of the working-class. At the head of these in importance, stands the self-acting mule, because it opened up a new epoch in the automatic system (475476).

224

Chapter Fifteen

Unemployed workers guarantee a greater pool or reserve of humanenergy, from which capitalists can draw at a price dictated by capitalism. The human-energy that is thrown out by machinery serves as a reserve for capital to exploit in other capitalistic ventures. Unemployed human-energy also serves to cheapen employed human-energy. With experience, workers develop their skills by developing the mechanical executions of their movements over their lifetimes. However, once they are forced into unemployment, there are other spheres of production that may require their human-energy, but at a price that is far less than that of their previous employment. Such workers have to once again undergo an adaptation to new forms of mechanical movements, which usually require the expenditure of “raw”, “brute” human-energy, instead of the “refined” sort. This could be, and usually is, in the work areas of coal mining and digging to lay down railway tracks, roads, canals, etc.: The labourers that are thrown out of work in any branch of industry, can no doubt seek for employment in some other branch. If they find it, and thus renew the bond between them and the means of subsistence, this takes place only by the intermediary of a new and additional capital that is seeking investment; not at all by the intermediary of the capital that formerly employed them and was afterwards converted into machinery. And even should they find employment, what a poor look-out is theirs! Crippled as they are by division of labour, these poor devils are worth so little outside their old trade, that they cannot find admission into any industries, except a few of inferior kind, that are over-supplied with underpaid workmen. Further, every branch of industry attracts each year a new stream of men, who furnish a contingent from which to fill up vacancies, and to draw a supply for expansion. So soon as machinery sets free a part of the workmen employed in a given branch of industry, the reserve men are also diverted into new channels of employment, and become absorbed in other branches; meanwhile the original victims, during the period of transition, for the most part starve and perish (481-482).

The construction of machines also led to the reskilling of a certain stratification of workers, e.g. engineers, technicians, etc. The mainstream argument for the development of technology and energy plants is that jobs will be created, and to a certain extent this is true. However, Marx argues that the net impact is one of job losses, as automaton production employs fewer workers than it lets go of. Compensation Theory argues that for every job that is lost, another one is gained. Compensation Theory was understood as meaning that one job is created for every job lost, on aggregate. Protagonists of capitalism argue, through their Theory of Compensation, that the introduction of machinery creates jobs in related

Machines and the Energy Revolution

225

spheres, such as in the building of machinery. Using the specific example of the cheapening of products through the use of machinery rather than hands, Marx argued that it would eventually be the case that machines will also be made by machines. His argument is that as long as the commodities produced by machines are not equivalent in price to commodities produced by hand, then it means there is a diminishment of work performed throughout the production chain. The work displaced by machinery is certainly not re-employed in the same quantity. There is a gradual and incremental diminishment in the quantity of human-energy employed in the production sphere. Like a plague that spreads over the land, working against the dependents of the land, modern industry spreads to other productive and related spheres, working against the livelihoods of the workers. We hence have human-energy gravitating toward work in that sphere of production for securing raw materials for modern industry. Where human-energy was once used to extract natural resources from nature, machines were subsequently employed to utilise loads of energy to perform this extraction: Although machinery necessarily throws men out of work in those industries into which it is introduced, yet it may, notwithstanding this, bring about an increase of employment in other industries. This effect, however, has nothing in common with the so-called theory of compensation. Since every article produced by a machine is cheaper than a similar article produced by hand, we deduce the following infallible law: If the total quantity of the article produced by machinery, be equal to the total quantity of the article previously produced by a handicraft or by manufacture, and now made by machinery, then the total labour expended is diminished. The new labour spent on the instruments of labour, on the machinery, on the coal, and so on, must necessarily be less than the labour displaced by the use of the machinery; otherwise the product of the machine would be as dear, or dearer, than the product of the manual labour. But, as a matter of fact, the total quantity of the article produced by machinery with a diminished number of workmen, instead of remaining equal to, by far exceeds the total quantity of the hand-made article that has been displaced. Suppose that 400,000 yards of cloth have been produced on power-looms by fewer weavers than could weave 100,000 yards by hand. In the quadrupled product there lies four times as much raw material. Hence the production of raw material must be quadrupled. But as regards the instruments of labour, such as buildings, coal, machinery, and so on, it is different; the limit up to which the additional labour required for their production can increase, varies with the difference between the quantity of the machine-made article, and the quantity of the same article that the same number of workmen could make by hand (483-484).

226

Chapter Fifteen

With the invention and building of machines, huge volumes of raw material, in the form of coal and iron, was needed for England’s Industrial Revolution. Vast quantities of human-energy were employed in these primary industries, where exploitation of human-energy was intense. It seems human-energy first does the spade work, and then “opens the way” for other forms of energy to enter in any given production sphere. Marx also makes the inextricable connection between slavery and the development of capitalism. In the cotton fields of the United States, the human-energy of slaves was used to produce cotton, which was then converted in the machine factories of England into cloth. The coal and metal mining sectors would themselves subsequently make the transition to machinery and non-human forms of energy. If machinery took a while to enter the cotton fields of the English colonies, that was because the human-energy of slaves was dirt cheap. The slave trade and the breeding of slaves guaranteed a steady supply of human-energy for England’s capitalist development and accumulation. In Ireland, in Western Europe, the inhabitants on the lower end of the social spectrum would experience the devastating impacts of capitalist development: Hence, as the use of machinery extends in a given industry, the immediate effect is to increase production in the other industries that furnish the first with means of production. How far employment is thereby found for an increased number of men, depends, given the length of the working day and the intensity of labour, on the composition of the capital employed, i.e., on the ratio of its constant to its variable component. This ratio, in its turn, varies considerably with the extent to which machinery has already seized on, or is then seizing on, those trades. The number of the men condemned to work in coal and metal mines increased enormously owing to the progress of the English factory system; but during the last few decades this increase of number has been less rapid, owing to the use of new machinery in mining. A new type of workman springs into life along with the machine, namely, its maker. We have already learnt that machinery has possessed itself even of this branch of production on a scale that grows greater every day. As to raw material, there is not the least doubt that the rapid strides of cotton spinning, not only pushed on with tropical luxuriance the growth of cotton in the United States, and with it the African slave trade, but also made the breeding of slaves the chief business of the border slave-states. When, in 1790, the first census of slaves was taken in the United States, their number was 697,000; in 1861 it had nearly reached four millions. On the other hand, it is no less certain that the rise of the English woollen factories, together with the gradual conversion of arable land into sheep pasture, brought, about the superfluity of agricultural labourers that led to their being driven in masses into the towns. Ireland, having during the last twenty years reduced its population

Machines and the Energy Revolution

227

by nearly one half, is at this moment undergoing the process of still further reducing the number of its inhabitants, so as exactly to suit the requirements of its landlords and of the English woollen manufacturers (484-485).

With the Industrial Revolution, England became the workshop of the world. Commodities were churned out in huge volumes and in different varieties. As commodities flowed out of Britain, luxury goods flowed in. Nature also experienced a revolution in the manner and rate at which her raw materials were extracted, and countries as far afield as Africa and the East served as repositories of raw material for Britain’s industrial factories and infrastructural development. Coal, and in vast quantities, would be King Energy, driving the Industrial Revolution. Coal as an energy source would also turn England “black”, as the demonic mills spewed out black smoke into the heavens. Black would be the new colour of dress for many of England’s outdoor activities, and the well-off men and women would head for the countryside to escape the impacts of coal burning. The world of work would forever change, as the capitalist “spirit” forced innovation and entrepreneurialism in surplus-value creation. With the development of machines, the wealth of individuals would reach new heights: The immediate result of machinery is to augment surplus-value and the mass of products in which surplus-value is embodied. And, as the substances consumed by the capitalists and their dependents become more plentiful, so too do these orders of society. Their growing wealth, and the relatively diminished number of workmen required to produce the necessaries of life beget, simultaneously with the rise of new and luxurious wants, the means of satisfying those wants. A larger portion of the produce of society is changed into surplus-produce, and a larger part of the surplusproduce is supplied for consumption in a multiplicity of refined shapes. In other words, the production of luxuries increases. The refined and varied forms of the products are also due to new relations with the markets of the world, relations that are created by Modern Industry. Not only are greater quantities of foreign articles of luxury exchanged for home products, but a greater mass of foreign raw materials, ingredients, and intermediate products, are used as means of production in the home industries. Owing to these relations with the markets of the world, the demand for labour increases in the carrying trades, which split up into numerous varieties (486).

Displaced human-energy from the machine factory sometimes found its way to “those industries, for the crudest form of manual labour”. The production of vast quantities of commodities opened up the way for revolutionary improvements in the transport sector as well. Armies of

228

Chapter Fifteen

workers were employed as sources of cheap human-energy for the construction of canals, docks, tunnels and bridges. These workers were referred to as the Navvies, as they were opening up the navigation routes for Britain’s gigantic output of commodities. They were mostly men and their human-energy was of a “raw and tough form”, just the type required for digging with picks and shovels. Their human-energy was used to carve up the countryside of England, and lay down networks of transport links for the movement of commodities to other regions of the world. With commodities being produced at greater speeds in the factories, workshops and cottages of England, it became necessary for such commodities to also be transported at high speed to their market destinations. Transportation hence underwent a major revolutionary change during the Industrial Revolution. Speed was the new ethos of the Industrial Revolution, and hence of modern England. If society, then, was on a high-speed track, the pace of life seems even more intense in the 21st century world: “a socioanthropological survey of the world’s major cities, revealed that people walk fastest in London” (Hoffman, 2009: 8). With the invention of machines to meet the demands of increasing production and the pressures of a fast-changing society, the world of work underwent major transformations as new branches of work emerged. With the demand for bigger and better infrastructure, capitalism swept up the superfluous human-energy displaced by machinery. With nothing else to ensure their survival, the displaced workers gave up their human-energy for a pittance: The increase of the means of production and subsistence, accompanied by a relative diminution in the number of labourers, causes an increased demand for labour in making canals, docks, tunnels, bridges, and so on, works that can only bear fruit in the far future. Entirely new branches of production, creating new fields of labour, are also formed, as the direct result either of machinery or of the general industrial changes brought about by it. But the place occupied by these branches in the general production is, even in the most developed countries, far from important. The number of labourers that find employment in them is directly proportional to the demand, created by those industries, for the crudest form of manual labour. The chief industries of this kind are, at present, gas-works, telegraphs, photography, steam navigation, and railways (486487).

Because of the “repulsion” and “attraction of workpeople by the factory system, crises in the cotton trade” etc., countries would be turned into markets for Britain’s ship-loads of commodities. The same countries would also become Britain’s strategic and important “partners” for the supply of raw materials. Great Britain would become the “monstrous

Machines and the Energy Revolution

229

machine” that required vast quantities of raw material, human-energy and other energy forms. Countries of the world would be forcefully and violently relegated to being suppliers of raw material, human-energy and non-human-energy. The nature of the work to which human-energy would be put to use in different countries would take on its form in accordance to the level of production trajectory in the different countries and the different production spheres of those countries. Different regions of the world witnessed some parts transforming into highly developed economic and commercial zones, with other parts serving as large pools of raw material and agricultural zones. The world itself became specialised, with the predatory countries chiefly taking on the profile of industrial countries. In the 21st century, and with “independence” from their former colonisers, many countries possess the characteristics of being both industrial and agricultural, developed and underdeveloped, core and periphery, urban and rural, rich and poor. The world, in the main, has become geographies of specialisations: geographies of raw materials, geographies of humanenergy, geographies of production, geographies of distribution, geographies of consumption and geographies of waste disposal. With the advent of globalisation–once capitalism perceives specialisations on earth to be limits to its accumulation–these specialised boundaries of the global production process became somewhat blurred and diluted. The entire earth itself has become one big workshop or factory for surplus commodity production, with nature and human-energy forming the foundation for this global factory of production: On the one hand, the immediate effect of machinery is to increase the supply of raw material in the same way, for example, as the cotton gin augmented the production of cotton. On the other hand, the cheapness of the articles produced by machinery, and the improved means of transport and communication furnish the weapons for conquering foreign markets. By ruining handicraft production in other countries, machinery forcibly converts them into fields for the supply of its raw material. In this way East India was compelled to produce cotton, wool, hemp, jute, and indigo for Great Britain. By constantly making a part of the hands ‘supernumerary,’ modern industry, in all countries where it has taken root, gives a spur to emigration and to the colonisation of foreign lands, which are thereby converted into settlements for growing the raw material of the mother country; just as Australia, for example, was converted into a colony for growing wool. A new and international division of labour, a division suited to the requirements of the chief centres of modern industry springs up, and converts one part of the globe into a chiefly agricultural field of production, for supplying the other part which remains a chiefly industrial

230

Chapter Fifteen field. This revolution hangs together with radical changes in agriculture which we need not here further inquire into (492-493).

Marx discusses the transformation of work to entail different energy forms with different impacts on productivity. Cottage factories were experimented with, but over a period of time, they were forced out of business by factories proper. Marx titled this section “The Revolution Effected in Manufacture, Handicrafts, and Domestic Industry by Modern Industry”: We have seen how machinery does away with co-operation based on handicrafts, and with manufacture based on the division of handicraft labour. An example of the first sort is the mowing-machine; it replaces cooperation between mowers. A striking example of the second kind, is the needle-making machine. According to Adam Smith, 10 men, in his day, made in co-operation, over 48,000 needles a-day. On the other hand, a single needle-machine makes 145,000 in a working day of 11 hours. One woman or one girl superintends four such machines, and so produces near upon 600,000 needles in a day, and upwards of 3,000,000 in a week. A single machine, when it takes the place of co-operation or of manufacture, may itself serve as the basis of an industry of a handicraft character. Still, such a return to handicrafts is but a transition to the factory system, which, as a rule, makes its appearance so soon as the human muscles are replaced, for the purpose of driving the machines, by a mechanical motive power, such as steam or water. Here and there, but in any case only for a time, an industry may be carried on, on a small scale, by means of mechanical power. This is effected by hiring steam-power, as is done in some of the Birmingham trades, or by the use of small caloric-engines, as in some branches of weaving. In the Coventry silk weaving industry the experiment of ‘cottage factories’ was tried. In the centre of a square surrounded by rows of cottages, an engine-house was built and the engine connected by shafts with the looms in the cottages. In all cases the power was hired at so much per loom. The rent was payable weekly, whether the looms worked or not. Each cottage held from 2 to 6 looms; some belonged to the weaver, some were bought on credit, some were hired. The struggle between these cottage factories and the factory proper, lasted over 12 years. It ended with the complete ruin of the 300 cottage factories (502-503).

Whilst cottage factories lasted, human-energy was exploited even more intensely, especially since the numbers of workers available to resist capitalist exploitation were negligible when compared to the power of resistance of many workers in factories proper. There were also more middle-men in cottage or domestic factories, resulting in workers being paid even less in wages. In places where matches were made, workers were exposed to naked phosphorous, which took a huge toll on their

Machines and the Energy Revolution

231

health. In many developing countries, workers are still exposed to poisonous substances, which pose a constant threat to their health and lives. Marx proceeds to discuss the “passage of modern manufacture, and domestic industry into modern mechanical industry–the hastening of this revolution by the application of the Factory Acts to those Industries”. As soon as capitalism reached the threshold of human-energy exploitation, and experienced frustration with regards to the natural limits of such exploitation, machines were once again introduced, and the transition was made from domestic industries and manufacture to factories proper. Men were finally thrown out of work. The human-energy of women and young girls was chosen over that of men. The human-energy of these girls and women was also used as motive energy for sewing machines. It was not unheard of for people to die of starvation as a result of unemployment caused by the introduction of machines: Its immediate effect on the workpeople is like that of all machinery, which, since the rise of modern industry, has seized upon new branches of trade. Children of too tender an age are sent adrift. The wage of the machine hands rises compared with that of the house-workers, many of whom belong to the poorest of the poor. That of the better situated handicraftsman, with whom the machine competes, sinks. The new machine hands are exclusively girls and young women. With the help of mechanical force, they destroy the monopoly that male labour had of the heavier work, and they drive off from the lighter work numbers of old women and very young children. The overpowering competition crushes the weakest of the manual labourers. The fearful increase in death from starvation during the last 10 years in London runs parallel with the extension of machine sewing. The new workwomen turn the machines by hand and foot, or by hand alone, sometimes sitting, sometimes standing, according to the weight, size, and special make of the machine, and expend a great deal of labour-power. Their occupation is unwholesome, owing to the long hours, although in most cases they are not so long as under the old system. Wherever the sewing-machine locates itself in narrow and already over-crowded workrooms, it adds to the unwholesome influences (516517).

Marx proceeds to discuss “modern industry and agriculture”. If the worker is exploited because he is a peasant, then his transformation into a wage-worker merely means that the method by which he is now exploited has been transformed. Science and the scientific application of capitalistic development penetrated agriculture as well. Agriculture and manufacture, which were once “connected”, gradually disconnected themselves from each other, whilst at the same time having a dependency on each other. Capitalism laid the foundation for man’s alienation from nature, and for

232

Chapter Fifteen

his violent assault on nature. Like human-energy, nature is also sacrificed at the altar of the gods of profit and accumulation. Capitalism grows because it saps the “original sources of all wealth–the soil and the labourer”, and grows more monstrous as it destroys the metabolic relationship between man and nature. The historical emergence of the wage-worker is also made evident in this thought: In the sphere of agriculture, modern industry has a more revolutionary effect than elsewhere, for this reason, that it annihilates the peasant, that bulwark of the old society, and replaces him by the wage-labourer. Thus the desire for social changes, and the class antagonisms are brought to the same level in the country as in the towns. The irrational, old-fashioned methods of agriculture are replaced by scientific ones. Capitalist production completely tears asunder the old bond of union which held together agriculture and manufacture in their infancy. But at the same time it creates the material conditions for a higher synthesis in the future, viz., the union of agriculture and industry on the basis of the more perfected forms they have each acquired during their temporary separation. Capitalist production, by collecting the population in great centres, and causing an ever-increasing preponderance of town population, on the one hand concentrates the historical motive power of society; on the other hand, it disturbs the circulation of matter between man and the soil, i.e., prevents the return to the soil of its elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; it therefore violates the conditions necessary to lasting fertility of the soil. By this action it destroys at the same time the health of the town labourer and the intellectual life of the rural labourer. But while upsetting the naturally grown conditions for the maintenance of that circulation of matter, it imperiously calls for its restoration as a system, as a regulating law of social production, and under a form appropriate to the full development of the human race. In agriculture as in manufacture, the transformation of production under the sway of capital, means, at the same time, the martyrdom of the producer; the instrument of labour becomes the means of enslaving, exploiting, and impoverishing the labourer; the social combination and organisation of labour-processes is turned into an organised mode of crushing out the workman’s individual vitality, freedom, and independence. The dispersion of the rural labourers over larger areas breaks their power of resistance while concentration increases that of the town operatives. In modern agriculture, as in the urban industries, the increased productiveness and quantity of the labour set in motion are bought at the cost of laying waste and consuming by disease labour-power itself. Moreover, all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the labourer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards ruining the lasting sources of that fertility. The more a country starts its development on the foundation of modern industry, like

Machines and the Energy Revolution

233

the United States, for example, the more rapid is this process of destruction. Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth-the soil and the labourer (554556).

Machines are repositories of human-energy, like all other commodities are. However, the consumption of the machine takes place through the production of other commodities. Where direct human-energy was once consumed in the production process, now indirect human-energy is consumed. The former appears in the animate worker and the latter in the inanimate worker. The cost of the human-energy stored in the machine must be less than the living human-energy that would need to be employed to produce the same quantity of commodities. It is this difference in cost that motivates the capitalist to replace the worker and his human-energy with machines and non-human energy forms. The world of machines in Marx’s time was different from the world of machines in contemporary times. The technological world of the 21st century is worlds apart from the technological world when man first picked up a stone, his first piece of technological equipment, and gained access to external forms of energy. Machines are a regular feature of 21st century living. From communication to toys; from transporting people through the sky to teaching in the classroom; from killing masses of people to conducting surgery; machines have evolved in leaps and bounds. Drones are machines with no pilots on board which kill terrorists and innocent people, with the controller sitting thousands of miles from the place where the impacts of the machine are experienced. Driverless cars are being experimented with in the developed world. The transport sector is a huge employer of human-energy, so driverless cars would make human-energy superfluous as well. In a world of seven billion people that is getting “crowded”, some countries are building robots to keep people company. It is indeed a world gone mad with energy use and technological development. Human-energy has been expended in different forms and intensities, for different durations, across the ages. In the age of the hunter-gatherer, human-energy was governed by the seasons, and the rising and the setting of the sun. Barring the laws of nature, human-energy was free to express itself, especially where movement was concerned. Most of the hunter-gatherers were decimated by colonial powers. It was the genocide of man’s ancestors who were closest to nature. Slave society meant that human-energy was solely the property of man, in the same way that horses and cattle were and are the property of man. Slave society ensured that the human-energy of the slave was in total service to the master. 21st century capitalism has perfected the

234

Chapter Fifteen

art and science of the mechanisation of human-energy. This mechanisation, which was once only characteristic of the production sphere, has also spilled over into broader society. Capitalism has grown tremendously since Marx wrote Capital. Capitalism has travelled to the ends of the earth and across the oceans in search of “free” energy, from the oil fields of the Middle East to the polar regions of the world. In the same way that capitalism has exploited human-energy for centuries, it continues to exploit “free” energy from nature. Thus far we have seen “not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced”. Marx has forced open “the secret of profit making” under capitalism. He has taken us on a journey into the private world of the production of surplus-value and profit. Henceforth, we will journey through historical time, to unravel how the seeds of surplus-value and profit-making were sown. If surplus-value and profit are created on the factory floor or in the workshop, then their creative seeds were sown back in historical time. Capitalism, according to Marx, is a child of history.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN NATURE, THE PRODUCTIVE WORKER AND THE HISTORY OF SURPLUS-VALUE

Manage your energy, not your time. —Tony Schwartz You don’t get paid for the hour. You get paid for the value you bring to the hour. —Jim Rohn

Marx discusses “the production of absolute and of relative surplus value” in chapter 16 of Capital. Relative profit and absolute profit are one and the same, when seen against the backdrop of the quantity of humanenergy that the worker expends for himself and his family, and the surplus human-energy that the worker is compelled to expend for the capitalist. In chapter 7, Marx spoke about the collective worker producing use-value. Under capitalism, being productive only refers to a worker producing surplus-value for the capitalist. Hence, whilst capitalism produces an unimaginable myriad of commodities, its internal logic is to produce surplus-value and profit, and not use-value commodities per se. I believe Marx looked at capitalism as a system which had its roots in previous systems of human-energy exploitation. The capture and control of human movement is not unique to the capitalistic system. Ancient civilisation also witnessed the capture and control of human movement. Together with the energy of plants and animals, the human-energy of man was also tamed, harvested and harnessed into subjection for material and culture building. It is through a historical process that man’s human-energy came to be supervised by special interest groups. Marx also alludes to the unity and synthesis of the mind and the body, or the brain and the hand, as a natural endowment and a unity that used to function as one in the survival, production and reproduction of man. However, through a historical process, the mind and the body seem to have taken on a life independent of each other and, according to Marx, “even become deadly foes”. Along history’s road, work becomes a system of work. All of humankind is

236

Chapter Sixteen

drawn into a system of work–regardless of the type of work one does, and regardless of whether the work is with the hands or with the mind. The working class also gets divided into two camps: manual workers and mental workers. Workers who work mostly with their minds are also workers for and on behalf of capitalism. It is with the co-operative development of work that the “notion of productive” work emerges and develops. With the development of society, more specifically with the division of work and movement, production becomes a socialised activity. All workers are part of a collective under capitalism. Even if one is a pilot, one is a collective worker. A teacher is a collective worker and so is a president. A brick layer is a collective worker and so is a musician. A car, for example, is the embodiment of human-energy from many workers in many countries in the world. All such human-energy has to be harvested, harnessed and directed towards the production of different components of the car. In this sense, one can speak of a socialised worker, a collective worker or a global worker: So far as the labour-process is purely individual, one and the same labourer unites in himself all the functions, that later on become separated. When an individual appropriates natural objects for his livelihood, no one controls him but himself. Afterwards he is controlled by others. A single man cannot operate upon nature without calling his own muscles into play under the control of his own brain. As in the natural body head and hand wait upon each other, so the labour-process unites the labour of the hand with that of the head. Later on they part company and even become deadly foes. The product ceases to be the direct product of the individual, and becomes a social product, produced in common by a collective labourer, i.e., by a combination of workmen, each of whom takes only a part, greater or less, in the manipulation of the subject of their labour. As the cooperative character of the labour-process becomes more and more marked, so, as a necessary consequence, does our notion of productive labour, and of its agent the productive labourer, become extended. In order to labour productively, it is no longer necessary for you to do manual work yourself; enough, if you are an organ of the collective labourer, and perform one of its subordinate functions. The first definition given above of productive labour, a definition deduced from the very nature of the production of material objects, still remains correct for the collective labourer, considered as a whole. But it no longer holds good for each member taken individually (557-558).

Under capitalism, a worker, whether he works on material objects or with human subjects, has to generate surplus-value and profit for the capitalist; only then is he considered a productive worker. Marx also speaks of work not merely as the relationship between the worker and the

Nature, the Productive Worker and the History of Surplus-value

237

object, but also as a social relationship under capitalism. Work for the creation of surplus-value is the work of history. For Marx, if workers produce use-values, then they are productive. However, under capitalism, workers are not productive, but unfortunate, because their lives are turned into work-time for producing surplus-value and not use-value. In In Praise of Idleness, Bertrand Russell states: I want to say, in all seriousness, that a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organised diminution of work (Hoffman, 2009: 159).

In the 21st century, many private educational institutions tailor their educational policies with profit as their bottom lines. Even public educational institutions are pressured into designing their institutions with fiscal policy at the heart of educational planning. Mainstream economic science only speaks of productive work if profit is created, if businesses are doing well, if the economy is doing well; never if the people who are doing the work are doing well. Those who have jobs under capitalism are more fortunate than the unemployed. However, those who do have jobs are unfortunate as long as they have to produce surplus-value and not usevalue. Hence for Marx, capitalism is about social relations whereby surplus-value is the main and end aim of capitalism: On the other hand, however, our notion of productive labour becomes narrowed. Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities–it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune (558).

238

Chapter Sixteen

The capitalistic system does not exist a priori to the exploitation of the wage-worker. Capitalism is a system of human-energy exploitation that has not been willed by so-called “divine intervention” to be superimposed upon man and nature. It has matured from “humble beginnings” into a system of human-energy exploitation with a superstructure that legitimises such exploitation. It has evolved historically into a fully developed production and social system. The Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries) served as a springboard for capitalist development: “The fall of feudal society was slow and commercial capitalism was prepared in the womb of the medieval world” (Roll, 1973: 40). Even though the “lending of money at interest was regarded as the very worst form of the pursuit of gain” by the Church (ibid), it did not stop usurers and merchants from appropriating value from the small businessmen of the time. We observe the changing nature of the economy tearing apart the moral and ethical ideas of that time. The extraction of surplus-value by the powerful in society is not unique to capitalism; only the form that such extraction takes differs. In the following quote, Marx looks at the exploitation of independent producers through the process of usury and by middle men. This historical epoch witnessed the seeds of the capitalistic mode of production being planted. The compulsion to work gradually and incrementally moves from an indirect to a direct compulsion by capitalism. Money, the form in which capital first appears to the capitalist, appeared as usury to the merchants of the Middle Ages. If Marx wondered where the capitalist got his stash of money for buying human-energy and the means of production, then the history of money-making before capitalism provides a piece of the answer: It will suffice merely to refer to certain intermediate forms, in which surplus labour is not extorted by direct compulsion from the producer, nor the producer himself yet formally subjected to capital. In such forms capital has not yet acquired the direct control of the labour-process. By the side of independent producers who carry on their handicrafts and agriculture in the traditional old-fashioned way, there stands the usurer or the merchant, with his usurer’s capital or merchant’s capital, feeding on them like a parasite. The predominance, in a society, of this form of exploitation excludes the capitalist mode of production; to which mode, however, this form may serve as a transition, as it did towards the close of the Middle Ages. Finally, as is shown by modern ‘domestic industry,’ some intermediate forms are here and there reproduced in the background of Modern Industry, though their physiognomy is totally changed (559560).

Marx proceeds to sketch an outline of the history of how surplus human-energy may have become available for appropriation, and how this

Nature, the Productive Worker and the History of Surplus-value

239

in turn may have resulted in the formation of the class system, whether in slave society, feudal society or capitalistic society. A worker in a factory can be more productive if there is an abundance instead of a scarcity of raw materials on which to work. Likewise, in nature, if there is an abundance of natural resources, then workers can be more productive. We observe the huge influence that the natural environment has on the “productiveness of labour”. White (1976: 338) provides a view on productivity, cultural development and energy: culture develops when the quantity of energy harnessed by man per capita per year is increased; or as the efficiency of the technological means of putting this energy to work is increased; or, as both factors are simultaneously increased.

Less human-energy is required for work where nature provides plenty. But the human-energy that is “available” becomes a target for being put to work. In the case of Egypt, one of the projects that the “excess” or “surplus” human-energy was directed towards was the building of the Great Pyramids. Marx highlights the importance of nature and its abundance in freeing man from hard work–but only where such work is free from exploitation by the more powerful in society. The Mesopotamians first tamed nature by the taming of energy through the agricultural revolution. “Cereal plantation started in Mesopotamia” (Sørensen, 2012: 117). Nature’s energy became more easily accessible. According to Ponting (2007: 56-59): The major developments in early farming took place in the foothills of the mountains surrounding the plain of the twin-rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates...Mesopotamia along the river Nile was the second civilisation to develop. Both lands along the rivers were fertile for agriculture but the flooding of the River Nile limited agriculture along the Nile–in comparison to Mesopotamia. There was, however, one characteristic that was common to both Mesopotamia and Egypt–they were based on extensive social and political coercion of the mass of the population by a small religious and political elite.

People had more energy available to invest in culture building. Human-energy was also “available” to perform work for others. The building of material culture was possible as a result of the disposability of large pools of human-energy that were manacled into action. I believe Marx is making an argument for the systemic commencement and development of the exploitation of man by man from the historical perspective of man not having to expend too much human-energy on

240

Chapter Sixteen

working for himself and his family as a result of the rich natural environment that he found himself in. When taken as a whole, a society such as that which existed in ancient Egypt found itself with an abundance of human-energy that lay “idle” and ready for the taking: Nevertheless the grand structures of ancient Egypt are less due to the extent of its population than to the large proportion of it that was freely disposable. Just as the individual labourer can do more surplus labour in proportion as his necessary labour-time is less, so with regard to the working population. The smaller the part of it which is required for the production of the necessary means of subsistence, so much the greater is the part that can be set to do other work (563).

It seems that “necessity” is indeed “the mother of all inventions”–but it is a necessity pertaining to a particular historical epoch. For example, under capitalism, it seems a “social necessity” to accumulate and accumulate and accumulate. So there have been many “necessity phenomena” in man’s life–like the necessity to pick up a stone and use it as a tool, or the necessity to carry a burning log and take it back to the cave. But with each engagement with nature, the necessities of life seemed to also change. With the changing climate and changing landscapes, man the animal, that once moved about on all fours, now saw fit to walk on two. It was a case of “four legs good, two legs better.” Marx also reminds us of the integral role that “man’s hands” play in the taming of nature for the benefit of mankind, but under the capitalistic mode of production, for the benefit of a certain strata of society and at the expense of nature. In the following of Marx’s thoughts, nature is the force that moves man according to its whims and fancies. Man “opposes” nature by growing in intelligence regarding how best to live off it, but only to the point where his own existence is not threatened by “biting the hand that feeds him”. The division of the soil, the division of biodiversity, the division of the seasons; all of these various divisions of nature form the foundation for the “social division” of work. According to Marx, the “social division of labour” has its roots in nature, and not in the capitalist factory: Capitalist production once assumed, then, all other circumstances remaining the same, and given the length of the working day, the quantity of surplus-labour will vary with the physical conditions of labour, especially with the fertility of the soil. But it by no means follows from this that the most fruitful soil is the most fitted for the growth of the capitalist mode of production. This mode is based on the dominion of man over nature. Where nature is too lavish, she ‘keeps him in hand, like a child in leading-strings.’ She does not impose upon him any necessity to develop

Nature, the Productive Worker and the History of Surplus-value

241

himself. It is not the tropics with their luxuriant vegetation, but the temperate zone, that is the mother-country of capital. It is not the mere fertility of the soil, but the differentiation of the soil, the variety of its natural products, the changes of the seasons, which form the physical basis for the social division of labour, and which, by changes in the natural surroundings, spur man on to the multiplication of his wants, his capabilities, his means and modes of labour. It is the necessity of bringing a natural force under the control of society, of economising, of appropriating or subduing it on a large scale by the work of man’s hand, that first plays the decisive part in the history of industry. Examples are, the irrigation works in Egypt, Lombardy, Holland, or in India and Persia where irrigation by means of artificial canals, not only supplies the soil with the water indispensable to it, but also carries down to it, in the shape of sediment from the hills, mineral fertilisers. The secret of the flourishing state of industry in Spain and Sicily under the dominion of the Arabs lay in their irrigation works (563-564).

Marx is arguing that there is no natural basis for workers to engage in surplus work in order to produce surplus products. The notion that the worker is compelled to produce surplus-value is an imposed ideology, and was never a universal phenomenon in the first place, let alone being perceived as a law of nature. The colonial project of earlier times was what imported the idea of work for surplus-value to the rest of the world: Favourable natural conditions alone, give us only the possibility, never the reality, of surplus labour, nor, consequently, of surplus-value and a surplus-product. The result of difference in the natural conditions of labour is this, that the same quantity of labour satisfies, in different countries, a different mass of requirements, consequently, that under circumstances in other respects analogous, the necessary labour-time is different. These conditions affect surplus labour only as natural limits, i.e., by fixing the points at which labour for others can begin. In proportion as industry advances, these natural limits recede. In the midst of our West European society, where the labourer purchases the right to work for his own livelihood only by paying for it in surplus labour, the idea easily takes root that it is an inherent quality of human labour to furnish a surplus-product (564-565).

Capitalistic development is not a natural evolution but a historical development. With the development of capitalism, we observe how capitalism transforms leisure time to work-time; how temporal spaces for leisure are displaced by temporal spaces for work. Measured time and an ahistorical view of capitalism are its keepers, ensuring the appropriation of human-energy. We are also given an insight into the historical necessity of force for the sowing of capitalism:

242

Chapter Sixteen Suppose now such an eastern bread-cutter requires 12 working hours a week for the satisfaction of all his wants. Nature’s direct gift to him is plenty of leisure time. Before he can apply this leisure time productively for himself, a whole series of historical events is required; before he spends it in surplus labour for strangers, compulsion is necessary. If capitalist production were introduced, the honest fellow would perhaps have to work six days a week, in order to appropriate to himself the product of one working day. The bounty of Nature does not explain why he would then have to work 6 days a week, or why he must furnish 5 days of surplus labour. It explains only why his necessary labour-time would be limited to one day a week. But in no case would his surplus-product arise from some occult quality inherent in human labour (565).

Surplus-value is not born and bred in the capitalist system. It matures and formalises under capitalism, after having been born and groomed in previous historical formations. Marx is arguing that the capitalist system is one of the conduits for the creation of surplus-value, and that it is merely another epoch in the historical development of man and society. Capitalism, it seems, is not the beginning, and it will not be the end of history. Whilst building on the thoughts of past economists, Marx also seizes on the opportunity to “lay it on thick” when critiquing their economic thoughts. Political economy erroneously believed that the productiveness of work for surplus-value is the natural constitution of man and of capitalism. Marx believes that, whilst political economy improved on the erroneous thoughts of the mercantilists, who believed that surplusvalue originated in the exchange process, they refused to get to the real cause of surplus-value: Ricardo never concerns himself about the origin of surplus-value. He treats it as a thing inherent in the capitalist mode of production, which mode, in his eyes, is the natural form of social production. Whenever he discusses the productiveness of labour, he seeks in it, not the cause of surplus-value, but the cause that determines the magnitude of that value. On the other hand, his school has openly proclaimed the productiveness of labour to be the originating cause of profit (read: Surplus-value). This at all events is a progress as against the mercantilists who, on their side, derived the excess of the price over the cost of production of the product, from the act of exchange, from the product being sold above its value. Nevertheless, Ricardo’s school simply shirked the problem, they did not solve it. In fact these bourgeois economists instinctively saw, and rightly so, that it is very dangerous to stir too deeply the burning question of the origin of surplusvalue. But what are we to think of John Stuart Mill, who, half a century after Ricardo, solemnly claims superiority over the mercantilists, by clumsily repeating the wretched evasions of Ricardo’s earliest vulgarisers (566)?

Nature, the Productive Worker and the History of Surplus-value

243

Marx proceeds to talk about the “changes in the magnitude of the price” of human-energy and “surplus-value” in chapter 17 of Capital. On the assumption that “commodities are sold at their value”, and that the price of human-energy “rises occasionally, but never sinks below its value”, Marx states that the relative magnitudes of surplus-value and of the price of human-energy are determined by three circumstances: firstly, the “length of the working day”, which is dependent on the number of hours that a society decides should be the norm for work; secondly, the “intensity of labour”, which is the speed at which the worker can expend his or her human-energy, and thirdly, the “productiveness of labour”, which will realise a quantity of products as a result of the level of “development in the conditions of production”. The following quote gives us an insight into the law of conservation of energy, entailing man’s body and motion: The value of a day’s labour-power is, as will be remembered, estimated from its normal average duration, or from the normal duration of life among the labourers, and from corresponding normal transformations of organised bodily matter into motion, in conformity with the nature of man (577-578).

Below is the footnote from which Marx constructed the above thought so as to possibly calculate the expenditure of work during a working day. It would mean progress if the expenditure of human-energy of contemporary workers were to be scientifically calculated: The quantity of labour which a man had undergone in the course of 24 hours might be approximately arrived at by an examination of the chemical changes which had taken place in his body, changed forms in matter indicating the anterior exercise of dynamic force (Grove: ‘On the Correlation of Physical Forces.’) [578].

Marx argues that, with the increasing productiveness and intensity of work, a shorter working day emerges that has the potential to allow for all of society to share in the work and to have ample human-energy at their disposal for intellectual, social and cultural development. However, with capitalism there arises an uneven distribution of leisure time between the working class and the capitalist class. The surplus leisure time of the nonworking class seems to be a result of the total work-time of the working class. Marx describes capitalism as the overwork of one layer of society, and the lack of or limited work of another layer of society: “In capitalist society spare time is acquired for one class by converting the whole lifetime of the masses into labour time” (581). The medium through which

244

Chapter Sixteen

capitalism attains surplus-value is the commodity, but via the process of the exploitation and/or the defrauding of the worker. When such a process continues in an incessant manner, we have the spiralled expansion of capital accumulation: Capital, therefore, is not only, as Adam Smith says, the command over labour. It is essentially the command over unpaid labour. All surplus-value, whatever particular form (profit, interest, or rent), it may subsequently crystallise into, is in substance the materialisation of unpaid labour. The secret of the self-expansion of capital resolves itself into having the disposal of a definite quantity of other people’s unpaid labour (585).

Productive work, in so far as the creation of surplus-value is concerned, is not unique to the capitalist system. But because of its money-form, it assumes infinite dimensions. Marx has argued that the development of capitalism is historical and not natural. Classical political economists (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, etc.), on the other hand, made capitalism out to be ahistorical and natural. Capital, according to Marx, is produced and reproduced by producing and reproducing the unpaid worker.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN WAGES: EXCHANGE FOR HUMAN-ENERGY UNDER THE GUISE OF THE TIME OF THE FREE WORKER

Our Age of Anxiety is, in great part, the result of trying to do today’s job with yesterday’s tools and yesterday’s concepts. —Marshall McLuhan Time is an illusion. —Albert Einstein

Part VI of Capital deals with “wages”. The world has changed radically since the time when man was able to use his human-energy to take from the abundance of nature. But in order to survive under capitalism, the majority of the world’s peoples have to enter the free market and sell their human-energy. In return, they will receive a wage at the end of the hour, day, week or month. “Wages” is the money-name for the human-energy that is sold to the capitalist for a specified quantity of measured time. Wage-work is unique to the capitalist mode of production. The reason that human-energy workers are in demand amongst capitalists is because of “the fact that this particular commodity, labour-power, possesses the peculiar use-value of supplying labour, and therefore of creating value”. In chapter 10 on “the working day”, Marx stated: The capitalist has bought the labour-power at its day-rate. To him its usevalue belongs during one working day. He has thus acquired the right to make the labourer work for him during one day. But, what is a working day? (179).

If the working day is a contested concept, then time is even more so. What is time? In his book A Brief History of Time, Hawking’s sentiment regarding time is: “whatever that may be” (1988: 2). Time is important in

246

Chapter Seventeen

Marx’s analysis–but not as important as capitalism makes it out to be. There is no arrow of time. Nothing stands as still as time. Nothing is as unchanging as time. Time does not fly. Neither does it pass by quickly. The stillness of time is evident when a wrist-watch or a clock comes to a standstill, i.e. when it runs out of stored human-energy or “dead labour”. Time is the temporal space through which energy travels and transforms life and non-life. If energy travels fast, the illusion created is that “time flies”. If energy travels slowly, the illusion created is that time goes by slowly. Where energy stands still, then the stillness of time is made evident. A clock or watch does not measure time, but breaks up time into hours, minutes and seconds. This organisation of time greatly helps to regulate movement in the world. If a clock or watch shows time, then it also shows movement–the movement from one numeral to the next. And the entity that causes movement is energy. Time cannot be measured; movement can and is. So stating the “time” or asking the “time” is not a statement of time as such, but one of expected or desired activity, underpinned by movement and human-energy. In terms of motion, time is to energy what the sun is to the earth. That it seems as if the sun moves in relation to the earth does not mean that it really does. Likewise, just because energy moves in relation to time, this does not mean that time moves. Just as the earth moves around the sun, energy moves around in time or in temporal space. Marx spoke about work-time, which is that period of temporality during which the worker expends his human-energy. Value is hence linked to the rate of work i.e., time and human-energy expenditure, and not to measured time only. Capitalism uses clock-time to pay the worker, and uses the rate of human-energy expenditure to realise value in the commodity. Hence capitalism’s obsession with time! However, the worker does not get paid for the quantity of joules that he expends in a second, or for the quantity of joules of human-energy that he expends in a day. The quantity of joules of human-energy that he expends is left out of the payment equation. He merely gets paid for the day, in terms of measured time. Hence Benjamin Franklin’s oft quoted phrase, which awards capitalism’s accumulation logic an ideological impetus: “time is money.” If “time is money”, then it is money for the capitalist, hardly for the worker! Human-energy is bought in the capitalistic market, not in kilograms or miles or litres or joules, but in days. The capitalist may own all the wall clocks in the world, but as long as he does not own an ounce of human-energy as part of his capital, then all of his “ownership” of time will not translate into money. Therefore, so as to understand the contradiction in the exchange of human-energy and wages between the capitalist and the worker, we must understand the standard by which

Wages: Exchange for Human-energy

247

capitalism measures the value of the human-energy commodity as distinct from that of all other commodities. After all, value is socially necessary work-time and not time per se. Surplus-value is surplus work-time and not time per se. Marx uses the interesting concept of “on the surface” in explaining wages and the price of work. It appears that the wage of the worker is for the work put in by the worker. It is in this chapter that we see the defining line between labour (work) and labour-power (human-energy) and hence, the defining line between the value of work and the value of human-energy. One cannot buy work, but one can buy human-energy, which is the capacity for work. We are also introduced to the two prices for human-energy: the natural price and the market price: On the surface of bourgeois society the wage of the labourer appears as the price of labour, a certain quantity of money that is paid for a certain quantity of labour. Thus people speak of the value of labour and call its expression in money its necessary or natural price. On the other hand they speak of the market-prices of labour, i.e., prices oscillating above or below its natural price (586).

Marx reminds us that the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of work that is applied in the production process. In energy terms, it is the quantity of human-energy expended in a given quantity of time as mechanical energy. The question then is: how is the value of work determined? According to the law of exchange, commodity has to be exchanged for commodity. Labour or work is not a commodity, since one will not find work in the marketplace, but in the workplace! Time is also not a commodity. It is as obvious as the sky appears blue: But what is the value of a commodity? The objective form of the social labour expended in its production. And how do we measure the quantity of this value? By the quantity of the labour contained in it. How then is the value, e.g., of a 12 hour working day to be determined? By the 12 workinghours contained in a working day of 12 hours, which is an absurd tautology. In order to be sold as a commodity in the market, labour must at all events exist before it is sold. But, could the labourer give it an independent objective existence, he would sell a commodity and not labour (586-587).

Since money is realised work, if the capitalist was buying work, then he would be exchanging labour for labour in the market–which is absurd in so far as the law of exchange is concerned. In the illustration that Marx uses, six shillings would contain 12 hours of work. And if the worker were to produce commodities to the value of six shillings in 12 hours, then there

248

Chapter Seventeen

would definitely not be any surplus-value produced. The capitalist system of accumulation would cease to exist. Capitalism would be extinct. But we do know that surplus-value is produced on a daily basis under the capitalist system, for the capitalist. The question then is: how is the trick conjured up that ensures that the law of commodity exchange holds true for work and money in the market? In the example used by Marx, the capitalist gets the three shillings for the second portion of the working hours that the worker works, or the surplus work-time of the worker. The unit of price is therefore the price of human-energy, paid not according to the quantity of joules of human-energy used, but according to the number of hours worked i.e. according to clock-time and not according to work-time: Apart from these contradictions, a direct exchange of money, i.e., of realized labour, with living labour would either do away with the law of value which only begins to develop itself freely on the basis of capitalist production, or do away with capitalist production itself, which rests directly on wage-labour. The working day of 12 hours embodies itself, e.g., in a money-value of 6s. Either equivalents are exchanged, and then the labourer receives 6s., for 12 hours’ labour; the price of his labour would be equal to the price of his product. In this case he produces no surplus-value for the buyer of his labour, the 6s. are not transformed into capital, the basis of capitalist production vanishes. But it is on this very basis that he sells his labour and that his labour is wage-labour. Or else he receives for 12 hours’ labour less than 6s., i.e., less than 12 hours’ labour. Twelve hours’ labour are exchanged against 10, 6, &c., hours’ labour. This equalization of unequal quantities not merely does away with the determination of value. Such a self-destructive contradiction cannot be in any way even enunciated or formulated as a law (587).

It is in the following two quotations that Marx, I believe, makes the most powerful statement in Capital: that it is not work that the capitalist purchases but rather the worker’s human-energy. Once the worker commences work for the capitalist, his human-energy is then owned by the capitalist for the period of the working day. Marx himself did not seem to have a clue as to the unit of labour-power or human-energy in his lifetime. In any event, besides Karl Marx, none of the other famous economists (such as Adam Smith, John Locke, David Ricardo, etc.) considered labourpower (human-energy) to be the entity that created value. They all assigned value to labour (work). By identifying labour-power (humanenergy) and not labour (work) as the entity which determines value, Marx had made a huge conceptual breakthrough in economic thought–one of the most important since classical political economy:

Wages: Exchange for Human-energy

249

That which comes directly face to face with the possessor of money on the market, is in fact not labour, but the labourer. What the latter sells is his labour-power. As soon as his labour actually begins, it has already ceased to belong to him; it can therefore no longer be sold by him. Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value (588).

Marx continues to examine the illusion that was upheld by political economy regarding the existence of a so-called labour market and the illusory notion of the “value of labour”: In the expression ‘value of labour,’ the idea of value is not only completely obliterated, but actually reversed. It is an expression as imaginary as the value of the earth. These imaginary expressions, arise, however, from the relations of production themselves. They are categories for the phenomenal forms of essential relations. That in their appearance things often represent themselves in inverted form is pretty well known in every science except political economy (588).

We also recall Marx’s statement from page 252 of Capital regarding the economically incorrect concept of labour: “in speaking of payment of labour, instead of payment of labour-power, I only talk your own slang.” According to Marx: Classical Political Economy borrowed from every-day life the category ‘price of labour’ without further criticism, and then simply asked the question, how is this price determined? (589).

Labour or work is the use-value of the human-energy commodity. Neoliberal and mainstream economic science continues to confuse the fact that it is not labour but rather labour-power (human-energy) that is bought and sold in the free market. A worker is similar to a machine: both are capable of transferring energy into a product. However, in the same way that the energy emanating from a machine is different to that of the machine itself, the human-energy of the worker is different to that of the worker himself. In other words, labour-power (human-energy) is not the same as labour (work). In identifying human-energy instead of labour (work) as that which is bought and sold, Marx has removed the veil behind which capitalistic economic fraud is committed: What economists therefore call value of labour, is in fact the value of labour-power, as it exists in the personality of the labourer, which is as different from its function, labour, as a machine is from the work it performs (589).

250

Chapter Seventeen

Marx speaks of the “habitual working day” during which the worker expends human-energy in money value to the tune of three shillings for six hours. Nature awards each human with a human-energy budget, but this is only realisable if the worker has access to nature’s abundance. The “habitual working day” is 12 hours–and the cost at which the worker is able to reproduce himself is three shillings in money value terms, and six hours in terms of clock-time. However, political economy took the 12 hours to be the working day. Marx, I think, was unable to identify the unit of measurement for labour-power (human-energy) in his time; he used clock-time instead. Hence, his understanding of exploitation was also understood as a measured time standard, and not as a measured time and energy standard. For a long time, work output was measured in terms of horse-power; it is still used when referring to the work output of sports cars, for example. We recall that money is the material form of value, which represents human-energy. In the illustration below, in the working day of 12 hours, three shillings worth of human-energy produces a value that embodies six hours of work for the sustenance of the worker and his family. Marx referred to this work-time as necessary labour time. And because the price of human-energy is expressed as a day’s work, the three shillings of wages gets linked to the day’s work, instead of the day’s expenditure of human-energy, which would be the necessary expenditure of human-energy in a given time plus the surplus expenditure of humanenergy in a given time. If the worker receives 3s., then he has received the value of his human-energy, which produces commodities during the socially necessary work-time. But if it is expressed as the “value of labour” instead of the value of human-energy, then the 3s. is socially accepted to be the wage for 12 hours of work. Here we see that the working day trumps work-time as the standard of measure for the price of human-energy: We know that the daily value of labour-power is calculated upon a certain length of the labourer’s life, to which, again, corresponds a certain length of working day. Assume the habitual working day as 12 hours, the daily value of labour-power as 3s., the expression in money of a value that embodies 6 hours of labour. If the labourer receives 3s., then he receives the value of his labour-power functioning through 12 hours. If, now, this value of a day’s labour-power is expressed as the value of a day’s labour itself, we have the formula: Twelve hours’ labour has a value of 3s. The value of labour-power thus determines the value of labour, or, expressed in money, its necessary price. If, on the other hand, the price of labour-power differs from its value, in like manner the price of labour differs from its socalled value (590).

Wages: Exchange for Human-energy

251

The question that then remains is: how do we understand the concept of the exploitation of the worker? Does working hard means that the worker is being exploited? Does working over-time mean that the worker is being exploited? Or does the exploitation of the worker mean the worker is paid his wages against the benchmark of the working day instead of work-time? Marx highlights the difference between human-energy and work: it is the former that enables the latter to occur; the one is the independent variable and the other the dependent variable. The capitalist attempts to make the human-energy of the worker accomplish as much work as possible within the working day or clock-time of 12 hours. The value of 12 hours of work-time is not equal to the value of 12 hours of clock-time; the former is the value produced by the worker, the latter is the value paid by the capitalist to the worker. The difference between the two is that which accrues to the capitalist as surplus-value and profit. We recall that the value of a commodity is “homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power”, i.e. value is determined by work-time and not the working day or clock-time per se. Marx reveals why it is absurd to treat work as having value independent of the value of human-energy. The opening line of the quote below reveals how capitalism “defrauds” the worker. This implicit “fraud”, unquestioningly passed on from generation to generation, exists in mainstream economic analysis, in public economic discourse, in economic textbooks, and in economic sciences at schools and universities. In the example that Marx uses, the worker is defrauded of 3s., because he is paid 3s. by the capitalist, but his human-energy produces commodities worth 6s. If the human-energy market were acknowledged, then the capitalist would be compelled to pay the worker for the quantity of human-energy expended during the clock-time that he is put to work; at least this is what the law of exchange in a free market demands. The capitalist would have to pay the worker for the quantity of joules of human-energy expended in a day (J/t), instead of paying only for the clock-time (t) of work. In money terms, the value of work-time is 6s., and the value of the working day is 3s. In an age of “rights, freedom, equality and Bentham”, only a discrepancy in the measurement index of the value of human-energy can result in such a contradiction. Time is indeed money under capitalism–lots of money for the capitalist, but very little for the worker and nothing for the unemployed: As the value of labour is only an irrational expression for the value of labour-power, it follows, of course, that the value of labour must always be less than the value it produces, for the capitalist always makes labourpower work longer than is necessary for the reproduction of its own value.

252

Chapter Seventeen In the above example, the value of the labour-power that functions through 12 hours is 3s., a value for the reproduction of which 6 hours are required. The value which the labour-power produces is, on the other hand, 6s., because it, in fact, functions during 12 hours, and the value it produces depends, not on its own value, but on the length of time it is in action. Thus, we have a result absurd at first sight that labour which creates a value of 6s. possesses a value of 3s. (590-591).

The wage form in capitalist society masks the portion of the working day in which the worker works for himself, and that portion in which he works for the capitalist. Under the feudal system, the division of the working day was as clear as the days of the week. We recall Marx’s description of labour-power (human-energy) as being of a “peculiar nature”. The capitalist does not negotiate with the worker for a particular quantity of human-energy, like he does for a quantity of energy such as electricity. By paying for work instead of for human-energy, capitalism is able to use both absolute and relative means of extracting the maximum quantity of human-energy allowed within the labour law of the land, but not within the law of commodity exchange. Hence, the accumulation of private capital is as a result of the unpaid work and hence of the unpaid human-energy of the worker: We see, further: The value of 3s. by which a part only of the working day– i.e., 6 hours’ labour-is paid for, appears as the value or price of the whole working day of 12 hours, which thus includes 6 hours unpaid for. The wage form thus extinguishes every trace of the division of the working day into necessary labour and surplus labour, into paid and unpaid labour. All labour appears as paid labour. In the corvée, the labour of the worker for himself, and his compulsory labour for his lord, differ in space and time in the clearest possible way. In slave labour, even that part of the working day in which the slave is only replacing the value of his own means of existence, in which, therefore, in fact, he works for himself alone, appears as labour for his master. All the slave’s labour appears as unpaid labour. In wage labour, on the contrary, even surplus labour, or unpaid labour, appears as paid. There the property-relation conceals the labour of the slave for himself; here the money-relation conceals the unrequited labour of the wage labourer (591).

Political economy and mainstream economic science, advertently or inadvertently, conceal the nature of the human-energy commodity and its prominence in the work process. Marx argues that the appearance of the value of work masks its real form, and that the law, notions of liberty, etc. under capitalistic society, are based on its “phenomenal form” and not its real form:

Wages: Exchange for Human-energy

253

Hence, we may understand the decisive importance of the transformation of value and price of labour-power into the form of wages, or into the value and price of labour itself. This phenomenal form, which makes the actual relation invisible, and, indeed, shows the direct opposite of that relation, forms the basis of all the juridical notions of both labourer and capitalist, of all the mystifications of the capitalistic mode of production, of all its illusions as to liberty, of all the apologetic shifts of the vulgar economists. If history took a long time to get at the bottom of the mystery of wages, nothing, on the other hand, is more easy to understand than the necessity, the raison d’etre, of this phenomenon (591-592).

We recall from the chapter on “commodities” that the value of a commodity is based on its quantitative and not on its qualitative nature. Even more absurd is for exchange to take place on the one side i.e. on the basis of its quantitative nature, and on the other side on the basis of its qualitative nature. Since work (labour) is the use to which human-energy is put, i.e. work has use-value, then it stands to reason that use-value cannot be exchanged with money, which has exchange-value. In other words, the exchange of commodities is based on their exchange-value and not their use-value. Since energy is the capacity to work, then it stands to reason that human-energy has exchange-value, and therefore work itself cannot be part of the exchange process. Hence Marx’s earlier statement that “the value of labour is only an irrational expression for the value of labour-power”. Worse still for the worker, he is paid his wages for work after he expends his human-energy in the servitude of capitalism. The measurement index is different when the capitalist purchases other forms of energy, such as electricity or gas energy; he has to pay for the quantity of energy used–even if he has to pay his energy bill at the end of the month. Marx also reminds us of the special value-creating properties of human-energy: Further. Exchange-value and use-value, being intrinsically incommensurable magnitudes, the expressions ‘value of labour,’ ‘price of labour,’ do not seem more irrational than the expressions ‘value of cotton,’ ‘price of cotton.’ Moreover, the labourer is paid after he has given his labour. In its function of means of payment, money realises subsequently the value or price of the article supplied–i.e., in this particular case, the value or price of the labour supplied. Finally, the use-value supplied by the labourer to the capitalist is not, in fact, his labour-power, but its function, some definite useful labour, the work of tailoring, shoemaking, spinning, &c. That this same labour is, on the other hand, the universal value-creating element, and thus possesses a property by which it differs from all other commodities, is beyond the cognisance of the ordinary mind (592).

254

Chapter Seventeen

If the worker has to produce that ration of commodities that he and his family require to sustain themselves, then he will have done so by expending his own human-energy in the production of such commodities. If he were to be successful in selling such commodities, then he would receive a certain price–the money-name of value–for his commodities. However, if he was employed by a capitalist, then he would receive a wage for the value of his “human-energy”. Hence “wages” is the moneyname for human-energy, but the transmuted form of the human-energy of the worker. Wages can take on many forms, such as time wages and piece wages. With Marx, the value of human-energy takes the form of day wages. Whereas potatoes are measured by scale, the expenditure of human-energy is measured by the clock and the calendar; absurd ways by which modern society measures human-energy expenditure. Whereas we may speak of a kilogram of potatoes, we should speak of the joules of human-energy expended in the work process, a measurement unit of energy which was still in its infancy in Marx’s time, it seems: The sale of labour-power, as will be remembered, takes place for a definite period of time. The converted form under which the daily, weekly, &c., value of labour-power presents itself, is hence that of time wages, therefore day-wages, &c (594).

The worker receives the value of his work at different measured time intervals. However, the price or the money-value of the work is measured by the average daily value of the worker’s “human-energy” divided by the average number of hours in the working day. For Marx, the measured time unit of work is the hour. The question is: can we calculate the quantity of joules of human-energy that the worker expends in one hour of work? In science, the unit of measured time is the second (s), not even the minute– let alone the hour (hr). This, I believe, is significant to note, because the worker is paid by the hour or day, but he expends human-energy by the second. If “moments are the elements of profit”, then it is because the rate of human-energy expenditure is per second, whereas the rate of wages is per hour. Within the law of exchange, the quantity of time in a second is vastly different from the quantity of time in an hour: The sum of money which the labourer receives for his daily or weekly labour, forms the quantity of his nominal wages, or of his wages estimated in value. But it is clear that according to the length of the working day, that is, according to the quantity of actual labour daily supplied, the same daily or weekly wage may represent very different prices of labour, i.e., very different sums of money for the same quantity of labour. We must, therefore, in considering time-wages, again distinguish between the sum-

Wages: Exchange for Human-energy

255

total of the daily or weekly wages, &c., and the price of labour. How then, to find this price, i.e., the money-value of a given quantity of labour? The average price of labour is found, when the average daily value of the labour-power is divided by the average number of hours in the working day. If, e.g., the daily value of labour-power is 3 shillings, the value of the product of 6 working-hours, and if the working day is 12 hours, the price of 1 working hour is 3/12 shillings = 3d. The price of the working-hour thus found serves as the unit measure for the price of labour (595).

In the illustration below, there is an exploitation rate of 100%. Here the capitalist pays an hourly, and not a daily rate. In this case, the more hours the worker works, the less is his wage for the day. The worker requires six hours of work per day in order to secure the subsistence for himself and his family. If he is employed by the capitalist for 10 hours per day, then he works five hours for himself and five hours for the capitalist–hence he is shy by one hour of the value of subsistence. Under capitalism, there is a “no win” situation for the worker, he is either overworked, or lacks sufficient work for his and his family’s survival. Competition amongst workers for jobs also serves to decrease the price of human-energy: The unit-measure for time-wages, the price of the working-hour, is the quotient of the value of a day’s labour-power, divided by the number of hours of the average working day. Let the latter be 12 hours, and the daily value of labour-power 3 shillings, the value of the product of 6 hours of labour. Under these circumstances the price of a working hour is 3d., the value produced in it is 6d. If the labourer is now employed less than 12 hours (or less than 6 days in the week), e.g., only 6 or 8 hours, he receives, with this price of labour, only 2s. or 1s. 6d. a day. As on our hypothesis he must work on the average 6 hours daily, in order to produce a day’s wage corresponding merely to the value of his labour-power, as according to the same hypothesis he works only half of every hour for himself, and half for the capitalist, it is clear that he cannot obtain for himself the value of the product of 6 hours if he is employed less than 12 hours. In previous chapters we saw the destructive consequences of over-work; here we find the sources of the sufferings that result to the labourer from his insufficient employment (596-597).

It is not the capitalist per se that exploits the worker, but the capitalist system. So whilst the capitalist pays for the worker’s time, the commodity which the capitalist gets from the worker in that particular clock-time is that of the expenditure of human-energy in its mechanical form. Payment in clock-time also leaves the capitalist ignorant, it seems, about the period of clock-time that the worker works for himself, and that period of clocktime that he works solely for the capitalist. When it comes to wages, the

256

Chapter Seventeen

logic of capitalism, it seems, may differ from the logic of the capitalist. However, what the individual capitalist thinks may not necessarily be what capitalism thinks: This jeremiad is also interesting because it shows how the appearance only of the relations of production mirrors itself in the brain of the capitalist. The capitalist does not know that the normal price of labour also includes a definite quantity of unpaid labour, and that this very unpaid labour is the normal source of his gain. The category of surplus labour-time does not exist at all for him, since it is included in the normal working day, which he thinks he has paid for in the day’s wages (602).

Marx then proceeds to discuss wages as a function of the quantity of commodities produced at the end of a working day. With regards to piece wages, he states that, just as the value of human-energy appears as wages for time, wages for time now appear as piece wages. The worker is paid his wages according to the quantity of his physical output. Marx also converts the wages for piece work into wages per hour viz. in terms of clock-time. Whilst the capitalist pays by quantity of time, he focuses on the quantity of the output of commodities. Here, the worker gets paid for each piece, i.e. commodity, produced. In piece work, too, as long as wages are not based on the quantity of human-energy expended, then there is every possibility of the worker being “defrauded” of his human-energy in the form of wages: They furnish to the capitalist an exact measure for the intensity of labour. Only the working-time which is embodied in a quantum of commodities determined beforehand, and experimentally fixed, counts as socially necessary working time, and is paid as such. In the larger workshops of the London tailors, therefore, a certain piece of work, a waistcoat, e.g., is called an hour, or half an hour, the hour at 6d. By practice it is known how much is the average product of one hour. With new fashions, repairs, &c., a contest arises between master and labourer as to whether a particular piece of work is one hour, and so on, until here also experience decides. Similarly in the London furniture workshops, &c. If the labourer does not possess the average capacity, if he cannot in consequence supply a certain minimum of work per day, he is dismissed (605).

In the modern era, many companies focus on outputs. Marx argues that piece work has given rise to a new form of exploitation. The worker becomes the supervisor of his own exploitation, since he has to produce a set quantity of commodities in a given measured time. Because of the setting of a goal of a particular quantity of commodities, the worker is pressured to work more intensely. Wages are determined by both the

Wages: Exchange for Human-energy

257

quantity and the quality of the products. The worker is also the superintendent of his own work in terms of ensuring both quantity and quality. This is the “empowerment” of the worker for his own exploitation. He now resides in two worlds: in the world of the oppressed and in the world of the oppressor. He is both–yet he is one and the same worker. With piece wages, capitalism has perfected the art of outsourcing the exploitation of the worker to the worker himself or herself. With piece wages, we observe the development of the self-supervised worker, whereby the worker becomes adept at supervising the efficient expenditure of his own human-energy. He becomes schizophrenic man–supervisor and worker in one: Given piece-wage, it is naturally the personal interest of the labourer to strain his labour-power as intensely as possible; this enables the capitalist to raise more easily the normal degree of intensity of labour. It is moreover now the personal interest of the labourer to lengthen the working day, since with it his daily or weekly wages rise. This gradually brings on a reaction like that already described in time-wages, without reckoning that the prolongation of the working day, even if the piece wage remains constant, includes of necessity a fall in the price of the labour (606-607).

Marx then proceeds to analyse wages across countries. A whole range of factors is responsible for the differences in the value of human-energy across countries, and hence the money-form or the price of human-energy. Standards of living are different in the developing and the developed world; this will be a significant factor in the determination of the price of wages. Both the intensity with and the duration for which the worker works are also important factors in determining the price of human-energy across borders: In the comparison of the wages in different nations, we must therefore take into account all the factors that determine changes in the quantity of the value of labour-power; the price and the extent of the prime necessaries of life as naturally and historically developed, the cost of training the labourers, the part played by the labour of women and children, the productiveness of labour, its extensive and intensive magnitude. Even the most superficial comparison requires the reduction first of the average daywage for the same trades, in different countries, to a uniform working day. After this reduction to the same terms of the day-wages, time-wage must again be translated into piece-wage, as the latter only can be a measure both of the productivity and the intensity of labour (611-612).

Batteries are bought for their energy content, and not per hour or per day. Electricity is bought for its energy content, and not per duration. Gas

258

Chapter Seventeen

is bought for its energy content, and not per duration. Petrol and diesel are bought for their energy content, and not per duration. The worker is bought for his human-energy, but he is not paid for his human-energy content. The value of the myriad of commodities floating about in capitalistic society is not the function solely of time, although we often hear the capitalist ideological phrase “time is money”. Except for time shares, consultation times, etc. the capitalist does not sell his commodities using measured time as a standard of value. But for hundreds of millions of workers, the value of their work is measured in varied quantities of time, e.g. hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, etc. If the surplus-value accruing to the capitalist is as a result of the worker working surplus time for the capitalist, then it is because the worker expends surplus human-energy in that surplus time. The world of work has transformed since Marx’s time, but just like archaic concepts such as labour, it seems that the measurement of work in the capitalist production sphere is still caught up in a historical time-warp. For example, under slavery, work was not determined by the length of the working day, but by the weight of cotton that a slave could pick: “an ordinary day’s work is two hundred pounds” of cotton. “Any slave picking a lesser quantity was given a whip-lashing” (Northup in Meltzer, 1993: 164-165 vol II). But with the development of science, the measurement of work has reached new and reliable heights: The unit for the measurement of work ‘adopted in practice by British engineers’ was the ‘foot-pound’ while that in ‘purely scientific measurements’ was the ‘kinetic unit force acting through unit of space’. Discussion of definitions concluded with an explanation of work done in relation to kinetic and potential energy (Smith, 1998: 201).

Whilst the capitalist pays by the hour, and not by the quantity of human-energy contained in the commodity, he makes every second count, in terms of putting that human-energy to work. If the political economists did not or could not identify labour-power (human-energy) as the valuecreating substance, then Marx did not or could not identify the unit of measurement for this value-creating substance. But what the “millennium’s greatest thinker” has done in Capital, the working man’s bible, is to help society to make the much needed conceptual leap from labour to labourpower. In so doing, man is better able to understand his place in the world in general, and in the economic world in particular. That 21st century global society is still speaking of the labour-market means we have evolved as a modern society only in certain respects.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN THE PRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTION OF CAPITALISM FOR LIMITLESS ACCUMULATION

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. —Edward Abbey Profit is sweet, even if it comes from deception. —Sophocles

For the most part in Capital, Marx assumed, in line with political economy, that capitalism exists as an a priori system independent of history. From here onwards we are given more insights into how capitalism came into itself. “Simple Reproduction” is part 7 of Capital, which looks at “the accumulation of capital”. In chapter 5, on money, Marx discussed the “circulation of commodities”; in this chapter he discusses the “circulation of capital”. Henceforth we learn of the processual, fluid or flowing nature of capitalistic production. According to Brewer (1984: 68): If the capitalist consumes all of the surplus-value that he gets, and simply advances a capital of the same size in each period, then production continues at a constant level. This is what Marx calls simple reproduction.

Capital must be produced and reproduced as capital, and humanenergy must be produced and reproduced as human-energy, if capital accumulation is to be perpetuated. Each must feed into the other in order for the system to produce and reproduce itself. After William Petty, and within the context of capital accumulation, we may say that capital is the father and human-energy is the mother of accumulation; they must have social intercourse in order to produce and reproduce more capital and more human-energy. If the capitalist were to consume the surplus-value produced by the working class, then the system could be said to be one of simple reproduction. However, if a portion of the surplus-value is set aside

260

Chapter Eighteen

to purchase more human-energy, then more surplus-value can be reproduced. Marx considers a hypothetical scenario: society in its simplified form, in which all of the surplus-value is consumed. Just to recap: Marx commenced Capital with an in-depth analysis of the commodity. From part 7 onwards, we are made to journey into the beginnings of capitalism. By now we have ascertained that, with Capital, Marx moves from a micro to a macro analysis of society; from a concrete to a more fluid form of life; from the commodity to history. Part 7 is the culminating argument of Capital. It is here that Marx begins to bring it all together. He has transcended the microcosmic analysis of capitalism, and steps into the macrocosm framework for the analysis of this historical epoch. Having commenced with the commodity–the “atom” of society–he proceeds to talk about the capitalistic “organism” as a whole. He commenced with the “present”, and traverses into the historical development of the present. The capitalist takes his money to the market. The worker takes himself and his human-energy to the market. The money of the capitalist and the humanenergy of the worker form the basis for the commencement of commodity production, and for the circulation of capital. In this chapter we gain insights into the production and reproduction of the capitalist system as a whole, the production and reproduction of the worker as a dispenser of human-energy, and the production and reproduction of the capitalist as the personification of capital. Marx has taken as a given that the capitalist has a sum of money at the outset, goes to the market, purchases the means of production and a quantity of human-energy, and sets it to work to produce value, surplus-value and profit. In order for this value to be realised in the form of money–we will say gold–then such commodities will have to be “thrown into circulation”. This cycle of production, distribution and finally consumption, continues indefinitely, and perpetuates the “circulation of capital”: The conversion of a sum of money into means of production and labourpower, is the first step taken by the quantum of value that is going to function as capital. This conversion takes place in the market, within the sphere of circulation. The second step, the process of production, is complete so soon as the means of production have been converted into commodities whose value exceeds that of their component parts, and, therefore, contains the capital originally advanced, plus a surplus-value. These commodities must then be thrown into circulation. They must be sold, their value realised in money, this money afresh converted into capital, and so over and over again. This circular movement, in which the same phases are continually gone through in succession, forms the circulation of capital (618).

Production and Reproduction of Capitalism for Limitless Accumulation 261

Marx makes transparent the systemic nature of capitalist exploitation. Many stakeholders emerge who benefit from the exploitation of the worker’s human-energy. The capitalist “organism” lives off of the humanenergy of the working class species. It can only exist in its current form by virtue of its parasitic dependence on the human-energy of the working class: The capitalist who produces surplus-value i.e., who extracts unpaid labour directly from the labourers, and fixes it in commodities, is, indeed, the first appropriator, but by no means the ultimate owner, of this surplus-value. He has to share it with capitalists, with landowners, &c., who fulfil other functions in the complex of social production. Surplus-value, therefore, splits up into various parts. Its fragments fall to various categories of persons, and take various forms, independent the one of the other, such as profit, interest, merchants’ profit, rent, &c (618-619).

However, for the purposes of a simplified analysis, Marx considers the appropriators of human-energy as a homogenous entity. Society has to produce in order to sustain itself. Its production has to ensure its reproduction. In the following quote, we observe a circular flow of commodity production and consumption–nothing else. Production and consumption are continuous, incessant facts of life. Marx is also pointing to the interconnectedness of production and consumption. From an energy perspective, we may also view this as a constant flow of energy, but along this flow we “observe” the transformation of energy from one form to another: Whatever the form of the process of production in a society, it must be a continuous process, must continue to go periodically through the same phases. A society can no more cease to produce than it can cease to consume. When viewed, therefore, as a connected whole, and as flowing on with incessant renewal, every social process of production is, at the same time, a process of reproduction (619-620).

The capitalistic work process is designed for the production and reproduction of capital. Capitalism has to produce and reproduce the exploitative work process. As long as man makes it his goal in life to attract more money for money’s sake, then he is a capitalist. Capitalism is an accumulative process. It is a quantitative process. Its growth has to be measured in numbers and percentages. Capitalism therefore turns society into a quantitative society. Since capitalism exists fundamentally for producing surplus-value, then surplus-value has to emerge for each cycle of production and consumption:

262

Chapter Eighteen If production be capitalistic in form, so, too, will be reproduction. Just as in the former the labour process figures but as a means towards the selfexpansion of capital, so in the latter it figures but as a means of reproducing as capital–i.e., as self-expanding value–the value advanced. It is only because his money constantly functions as capital that the economic guise of a capitalist attaches to a man. If, for instance, a sum of £100 has this year been converted into capital, and produced a surplus-value of £20, it must continue during next year, and subsequent years, to repeat the same operation. As a periodic increment of the capital advanced, or periodic fruit of capital in process, surplus-value acquires the form of a revenue flowing out of capital (620).

Whilst the capitalist may have access to different forms of energy, he or she requires first and foremost the human-energy and hands of the worker. A continual supply of human-energy is vital for the take-off, maintenance and growth of capitalism. The capitalist also purchases the human-energy of the worker on credit, without paying any interest on this credit, i.e. he pays for the human-energy commodity after he has consumed it in the production sphere. Human-energy is the energy fund from which the entire of society draws, with some in society drawing much more than others. If the worker produces and reproduces a commodity, he also produces and reproduces his wage, and the capitalist’s profit. In this way he invariably produces and reproduces the working class, and the capitalist class: The purchase of labour-power for a fixed period is the prelude to the process of production; and this prelude is constantly repeated when the stipulated term comes to an end, when a definite period of production, such as a week or a month, has elapsed. But the labourer is not paid until after he has expended his labour-power, and realised in commodities not only its value, but surplus-value. He has, therefore, produced not only surplusvalue, which we for the present regard as a fund to meet the private consumption of the capitalist, but he has also produced, before it flows back to him in the shape of wages, the fund out of which he himself is paid, the variable capital; and his employment lasts only so long as he continues to reproduce this fund (444).

The worker produces the commodity, the “container” of surplus-value. This is appropriated by the capitalist. If we have to view the wages that the worker receives in terms of energy, then we find that the worker only receives a portion of his expended human-energy in its “transmuted form”. When viewed by class, we find that the entire capitalist class is purchasing human-energy, voraciously consuming it to produce value, surplus-value and profit, paying less than the value of the human-energy expended, and

Production and Reproduction of Capitalism for Limitless Accumulation 263

paying the worker after consuming his human-energy. When we view the class of workers, we find that its human-energy is continuously being exploited by the capitalist class, as long as less is paid for its humanenergy than the value it creates, and as long as the exchange of payment takes place after consumption. For example, in the case of a bag of potatoes, we do not consume it and then pay for it unless it is taken on credit for a higher price. It is not so with regards to the human-energy of the worker. It is always a set rate, e.g. $5 per day, or £25 per week, or ¥1000 per month, etc. When we look at the social relations in society in terms of classes and human-energy, we find that the capitalist class is continuously defrauding the working class: What flows back to the labourer in the shape of wages is a portion of the product that is continuously reproduced by him. The capitalist, it is true, pays him in money, but this money is merely the transmuted form of the product of his labour. While he is converting a portion of the means of production into products, a portion of his former product is being turned into money. It is his labour of last week, or of last year, that pays for his labour-power this week or this year. The illusion begotten by the intervention of money vanishes immediately, if, instead of taking a single capitalist and a single labourer, we take the class of capitalists and the class of labourers as a whole. The capitalist class is constantly giving to the labouring class order-notes, in the form of money, on a portion of the commodities produced by the latter and appropriated by the former. The labourers give these order-notes back just as constantly to the capitalist class, and in this way get their share of their own product. The transaction is veiled by the commodity form of the product and the money form of the commodity (621-622).

The historical formation of capitalism is once again alluded to. Wagework is but one of the ways in which a worker is able to sustain himself and his family. He could just as well attain a livelihood by being a peasant working on the lord’s manor. In the case of a peasant, his human-energy works for him and his family three days a week, and for three days his human-energy is at the service of the lord of the manor. Whilst the exploitation of the peasant is evident in the feudal system, it is not in the capitalistic system, owing to the nature of the payment for the worker’s human-energy. Marx also alludes to the illusion of wage-work being voluntary under capitalism. The exploitation of the peasant and the “payment” for his work–in feudal society–is clear for all to see. In capitalist society, the exploitation of the worker and the payment for his work is concealed:

264

Chapter Eighteen Variable capital is therefore only a particular historical form of appearance of the fund for providing the necessaries of life, or the labour-fund which the labourer requires for the maintenance of himself and family, and which, whatever be the system of social production, he must himself produce and reproduce. If the labour-fund constantly flows to him in the form of money that pays for his labour, it is because the product he has created moves constantly away from him in the form of capital. But all this does not alter the fact, that it is the labourer’s own labour, realised in a product, which is advanced to him by the capitalist. Let us take a peasant liable to do compulsory service for his lord. He works on his own land, with his own means of production, for, say, 3 days a week. The 3 other days he does forced work on the lord’s domain. He constantly reproduces his own labour-fund, which never, in his case, takes the form of a money payment for his labour, advanced by another person. But in return, his unpaid forced labour for the lord, on its side, never acquires the character of voluntary paid labour (622).

Marx considers a hypothetical scenario in order to explain the historical evolution of the capitalist and the worker. He assumes that capitalism starts accumulation by appropriating the land and the means of production of peasants. He is weaving a historical cloth of transformation, from the slavery and feudal epochs of human-energy exploitation to its capitalistic form. Just as the peasant produces and reproduces the livelihood fund for himself and the lord, the worker produces and reproduces the livelihood fund for himself and the capitalist. Historical exploitation continues under capitalism, but through the wage-form. In the same way that the peasant’s work of three days for the lord becomes a fund for the lord, under capitalism, a fund is also created by the worker for the capitalist. This fund appears in the form of accumulated capital. Marx criticises political economy for negating the actual source of capital: If one fine morning the lord appropriates to himself the land, the cattle, the seed, in a word, the, means of production of this peasant, the latter will thenceforth be obliged to sell his labour-power to the lord. He will, ceteris paribus [other things being equal], labour 6 days a week as before, 3 for himself, 3 for his lord, who thenceforth becomes a wages-paying capitalist. As before, he will use up the means of production as means of production, and transfer their value to the product. As before, a definite portion of the product will be devoted to reproduction. But from the moment that the forced labour is changed into wage labour, from that moment the labourfund, which the peasant himself continues as before to produce and reproduce, takes the form of a capital advanced in the form of wages by the lord. The bourgeois economist whose narrow mind is unable to separate the form of appearance from the thing that appears, shuts his eyes to the

Production and Reproduction of Capitalism for Limitless Accumulation 265 fact, that it is but here and there on the face of the earth, that even nowadays the labour fund crops up in the form of capital (622-623).

Marx suggests that, before the accumulation of capital through the means of unpaid work, the capitalist would have accumulated capital through other means. Interestingly, he uses the words “once upon a time”, and suggests that man became fixated with money, and with this money he goes to the market in order to purchase human-energy. He states further: “some accumulation … took place independently of the unpaid labour of others…” The question is: how did “the capitalist, once upon a time”, become “possessed of money”, in order to commence his capitalistic enterprise, “to frequent the market as a buyer of labour-power”? Did he get his money through usury? Was it through the slave trade? Was it through looting and stealing from other lands? Was the great Industrial Revolution only possible because of ill-gotten gains? Unfortunately, history does not tell us what might not have happened: Variable capital, it is true, only then loses its character of a value advanced out of the capitalist’s funds, when we view the process of capitalist production in the flow of its constant renewal. But that process must have had a beginning of some kind. From our present standpoint it therefore seems likely that the capitalist, once upon a time, became possessed of money, by some accumulation that took place independently of the unpaid labour of others, and that this was, therefore, how he was enabled to frequent the market as a buyer of labour-power. However this may be, the mere continuity of the process, the simple reproduction, brings about some other wonderful changes, which affect not only the variable, but the total capital (623).

Marx takes on the political economists over the capital accumulated by capitalists. According to Marx, the capitalist consumes his original capital; it is an illusion to believe that the capitalist consumes the surplus-value of the workers. Using the analogy of debt, Marx states that even though the capitalist may “own” buildings, means of productions etc., their value is what is important. In debt, one does not own the value of buildings, means of production, etc. It is the same, argues Marx, with regards to accumulated capital. If at the end of a specified measured time, the capitalist still has the same quantity of funds that he started off with, then the value of those funds really belongs to the worker, and not to the capitalist. It is not the material or money nature of capital that Marx is focusing on, but its value nature:

266

Chapter Eighteen If a capital of £1,000 beget yearly a surplus-value of £200, and if this surplus-value be consumed every year, it is clear that at the end of 5 years the surplus-value consumed will amount to 5 × £200 or the £1,000 originally advanced. If only a part, say one half, were consumed, the same result would follow at the end of 10 years, since 10 × £100= £1,000. General Rule: The value of the capital advanced divided by the surplusvalue annually consumed, gives the number of years, or reproduction periods, at the expiration of which the capital originally advanced has been consumed by the capitalist and has disappeared. The capitalist thinks, that he is consuming the produce of the unpaid labour of others, i.e., the surplus-value, and is keeping intact his original capital; but what he thinks cannot alter facts. After the lapse of a certain number of years, the capital value he then possesses is equal to the sum total of the surplus-value appropriated by him during those years, and the total value he has consumed is equal to that of his original capital. It is true, he has in hand a capital whose quantity has not changed, and of which a part, viz., the buildings, machinery, &c., were already there when the work of his business began. But what we have to do with here, is not the material elements, but the value, of that capital. When a person gets through all his property, by taking upon himself debts equal to the value of that property, it is clear that his property represents nothing but the sum total of his debts. And so it is with the capitalist; when he has consumed the equivalent of his original capital, the value of his present capital represents nothing but the total quantity of the surplus-value appropriated by him without payment. Not a single atom of the value of his old capital continues to exist (623624).

Marx considers the possibility that the capitalist has worked himself in order to produce surplus-value, which he then uses as original capital to purchase the means of production, raw materials and human-energy. But with changing society, there emerges an unequal exchange of money for human-energy and work, hence surplus-value is transformed into capital. In chapter 6, Marx stated that capitalistic production starts with the buyer and seller of human-energy meeting in the market, the one with money and the other with nothing but his human-energy to sell. Here he indicates that this state of things had a precursor to it: the creation of the objective and subjective conditions for the commencement of the capitalistic epoch. Whether nature makes man nothing but a seller of his human-energy is a subject that will be further explored in subsequent chapters: Apart then from all accumulation, the mere continuity of the process of production, in other words simple reproduction, sooner or later, and of necessity, converts every capital into accumulated capital, or capitalised surplus-value. Even if that capital was originally acquired by the personal labour of its employer, it sooner or later becomes value appropriated

Production and Reproduction of Capitalism for Limitless Accumulation 267 without an equivalent, the unpaid labour of others materialised either in money or in some other object. We saw in chapter VI that in order to convert money into capital something more is required than the production and circulation of commodities. We saw that on the one side the possessor of value or money, on the other, the possessor of the value-creating substance; on the one side, the possessor of the means of production and subsistence, on the other, the possessor of nothing but labour-power, must confront one another as buyer and seller. The separation of labour from its product, of subjective labour-power from the objective conditions of labour, was therefore the real foundation in fact, and the starting-point of capitalist production (624-625).

Capital–on the assumption that it belongs to the capitalist–is the starting point of simple reproduction. So as soon as the capitalist purchases the human-energy of the worker, the worker enters the workplace as an alien being. His human-energy is alienated, objectified, sold off to the capitalistic accumulation factory. His human-energy is no different from a bundle of wood or a bag of coal whose energy is about to be consumed by the capitalistic accumulating machine. If capitalism insists on the production and reproduction of surplus-value, then it also insists on the production and reproduction of the wage-labourer: But that which at first was but a starting-point, becomes, by the mere continuity of the process, by simple reproduction, the peculiar result, constantly renewed and perpetuated, of capitalist production. On the one hand, the process of production incessantly converts material wealth into capital, into means of creating more wealth and means of enjoyment for the capitalist. On the other hand, the labourer, on quitting the process, is what he was on entering it, a source of wealth, but devoid of all means of making that wealth his own. Since, before entering on the process, his own labour has already been alienated from himself by the sale of his labourpower, has been appropriated by the capitalist and incorporated with capital, it must, during the process, be realised in a product that does not belong to him. Since the process of production is also the process by which the capitalist consumes labour-power, the product of the labourer is incessantly converted, not only into commodities, but into capital, into value that sucks up the value-creating power, into means of subsistence that buy the person of the labourer, into means of production that command the producers. The labourer therefore constantly produces material, objective wealth, but in the form of capital, of an alien power that dominates and exploits him; and the capitalist as constantly produces labour-power, but in the form of a subjective source of wealth, separated from the objects in and by which it can alone be realised; in short he produces the labourer, but as a wage labourer. This incessant reproduction,

268

Chapter Eighteen this perpetuation of the labourer, is the sine quâ non [an essential condition] of capitalist production (625).

We are given more insights into the functioning of the laws of energy in relation to food and the human body. In order for him to produce and maintain his human-energy, the worker has to consume energy in the form of food, in the same way that machinery requires fossil energy in the form of coal. The energy that the worker consumes in the form of food is placed primarily at the service of capitalist accumulation, as he has to work long hours or intensely in order to sustain a basic standard of living for himself and his family. Energy in the form of basic food is essential to the production and reproduction of the worker: When treating of the working day, we saw that the labourer is often compelled to make his individual consumption a mere incident of production. In such a case, he supplies himself with necessaries in order to maintain his labour-power, just as coal and water are supplied to the steamengine and oil to the wheel. His means of consumption, in that case, are the mere means of consumption required by a means of production; his individual consumption is directly productive consumption. This, however, appears to be an abuse not essentially appertaining to capitalist production (626).

Marx starts to look at class relations instead of individual capitalists per se. By converting part of his capital into human-energy, the capitalist ensures the reproduction of the working class and hence of their humanenergy. The ever ready available supply of human-energy is fundamental to capitalism. It is the only commodity that produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and it is the surplus-value fund from which the capitalist extracts a profit. Workers and capitalists are involved in mutual co-production with each other. The wage that the worker receives is used to purchase basic necessaries which the worker requires in order to live. Hence, capitalism benefits in two ways: one, through the creation of surplus-value by the working class, and two, by selling the commodities that the working class produces back to them: The matter takes quite another aspect, when we contemplate, not the single capitalist, and the single labourer, but the capitalist class and the labouring class, not an isolated process of production, but capitalist production in full swing, and on its actual social scale. By converting part of his capital into labour-power, the capitalist augments the value of his entire capital. He kills two birds with one stone. He profits, not only by what he receives from, but by what he gives to, the labourer. The capital given in exchange for labour-power is converted into necessaries, by the consumption of

Production and Reproduction of Capitalism for Limitless Accumulation 269 which the muscles, nerves, bones, and brains of existing labourers are reproduced, and new labourers are begotten. Within the limits of what is strictly necessary, the individual consumption of the working class is, therefore, the reconversion of the means of subsistence given by capital in exchange for labour-power, into fresh labour-power at the disposal of capital for exploitation. It is the production and reproduction of that means of production so indispensable to the capitalist: the labourer himself (626627).

Political economists viewed workers as machines and compared them to inanimate machines. The reproduction of the worker also ensures that skills are refined “from one generation” to the next. Capitalism continuously strives for higher efficiency in human-energy expenditure, and with greater use, the “human-machine” gets better at expending its humanenergy: Potter, the chosen mouthpiece of the manufacturers, distinguishes two sorts of ‘machinery,’ each of which belongs to the capitalist, and of which one stands in his factory, the other at night-time and on Sundays is housed outside the factory, in cottages. The one is inanimate, the other living. The inanimate machinery not only wears out and depreciates from day to day, but a great part of it becomes so quickly super-annuated, by constant technical progress, that it can be replaced with advantage by new machinery after a few months. The living machinery, on the contrary, gets better the longer it lasts, and in proportion as the skill, handed from one generation to another, accumulates (631).

Capitalism solidifies the dependency relationship between the working class and the capitalist class. The capitalist system has evolved into a selfgenerating force for the production and reproduction of human-energy and surplus-value. The material, social, cultural, political and ideological spheres bend themselves in the service of the accumulation monster. What has been shaped and formed by history is made out to be a natural way of life for all times by political economy and mainstream economic science. Human-energy is the lifeblood of capital accumulation, and capitalism would go to the ends of the earth to appropriate such human-energy. Where it is cheaper to attract human-energy to its accumulation zone, it will do so. Under capitalism, there exists the freedom to either exploit the human-energy of workers, or to sell one’s own human-energy for its exploitation. It is this absurd choice of freedom which capitalism produces and reproduces on a daily basis. If the slave was owned by the master, then the worker is owned by the capitalist system. His entire being becomes regulated by the logic of capital accumulation. In order for a vampire to go on living, it requires an incessant supply of blood. In order for capitalism

270

Chapter Eighteen

to grow, it requires an incessant supply of human-energy. If capitalism is a master conductor for surplus-value production and reproduction inside the factory, then it is also a master conductor for the production and reproduction of human-energy in broader society. A slave may be owned by one master for life. A worker may be owned by many capitalists for different periods of his life. If time conceals the exploitative nature of human-energy, then contractual time also conceals the fact that the worker is a slave to capitalism: Capitalist production, therefore, of itself reproduces the separation between labour-power and the means of labour. It thereby reproduces and perpetuates the condition for exploiting the labourer. It incessantly forces him to sell his labour-power in order to live, and enables the capitalist to purchase labour-power in order that he may enrich himself. It is no longer a mere accident, that capitalist and labourer confront each other in the market as buyer and seller. It is the process itself that incessantly hurls back the labourer on to the market as a vendor of his labour-power, and that incessantly converts his own product into a means by which another man can purchase him. In reality, the labourer belongs to capital before he has sold himself to capital. His economic bondage is both brought about and concealed by the periodic sale of himself, by his change of masters, and by the oscillations in the market-price of labour-power (632).

Capitalism is an economic model predicated on limitless accumulation. It therefore has to produce and reproduce such limitless accumulation. About 100 years after Marx wrote Capital, the pattern of accumulation indicates the production and reproduction of capitalism on a global scale. At the country level, accumulation is measured as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), commonly referred to as the growth of a country. At the company level, it appears as increased profit. At the personal level, it is viewed as the increasing wealth of the individual. In modern society, the accumulation of capital is measured in monetary terms. Social status is also tied to the accumulation of capital. Accumulation of all sorts abides by the logic of capitalism. Capital extends its tentacles into the worker, both inside the workplace and in broader society. Capitalism is not only a system of material production; it is also a system of social production and reproduction. The question that the modern world is then faced with is: will capitalism overcome the laws of energy, or will the laws of energy stop capitalism on its limitless track?

CHAPTER NINETEEN THE CONVERSION OF SOCIAL SURPLUS-VALUE INTO PRIVATE CAPITAL ACCUMULATION

Labour is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labour, and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. —Abraham Lincoln The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists. —Joan Violet Robinson

In chapter 6 of this book, we looked at the “transformation of money into capital”. In this chapter, as the title suggests, we will look at the surplus-value created by the surplus human-energy of the worker, which is converted into capital. If the capitalist “transforms his money into capital”, then he is only able to do so because surplusvalue is turned into money, which is then converted into capital. In this chapter, Marx intensifies his critique of the political economists for their erroneous analysis regarding the determinants of capital accumulation. He considers the different arguments of political economy regarding the original and accumulating wealth of capitalists, and shows why these arguments lack evidence and credibility. The arguments of political economy belonged more to the ideological sphere than to the scientific domain. In this regard, the words of Roll (1973, 116) are relevant: The net effect of Locke’s and North’s philosophy was to undermine still further the claim to special status made by landed property and to help in the creation of private property per se, as an institution of capitalism.

Marx titled the first section of this chapter “Capitalist Production on a Progressively Increasing Scale, Transition of the Laws of Property that Characterise Production of Commodities into Laws of Capitalist Appropriation”. Until the section on accumulation, we were made to

272

Chapter Nineteen

understand how capital produces wealth. Marx has thus far unravelled the many layers of capitalistic functioning, and finally pronounces that surplus-value creates capital, and not the other way around. For the most part in Capital, Marx has taken capitalism as a given, as occurring naturally in nature, as an a priori to surplus-value and wealth creation. Now we learn how capital itself is constructed. We have a class of humanenergy extractors, and a class of human-energy dispensers. In the same way that the soil and its nutrients are the foundation for the fruit that is borne by trees, the wealth of nations and of capitalistic enterprises is born from the surplus human-energy of workers: Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value. Employing surplus-value as capital, reconverting it into capital, is called accumulation of capital (634).

England in the 18th and 19th centuries was the most economically powerful country in the world, and it is still economically powerful to a large extent. Its currency was then, and still is, the pound. Marx uses the following example to illustrate how surplus-value is converted into capital. In the illustration below, £8,000 of the £10,000 is invested in constant capital and £2,000 in wages for the human-energy of workers for a specified quantity of time (but to be expended in a manner that will be decided upon by the capitalist). In this production, the workers’ surplus human-energy produces a surplus product of 40,000 lbs. of yarn: First let us consider this transaction from the standpoint of the individual capitalist. Suppose a spinner to have advanced a capital of £10,000, of which four-fifths (£8,000) are laid out in cotton, machinery, &c., and onefifth (£2,000) in wages. Let him produce 240,000 lbs. of yarn annually, having a value of £2,000. The rate of surplus-value being 100%, the surplus-value lies in the surplus or net product of 40,000 lbs. of yarn, onesixth of the gross product, with a value of £2,000 which will be realised by a sale. £2,000 is £2,000. We can neither see nor smell in this sum of money a trace of surplus- value. When we know that a given value is surplusvalue, we know how its owner came by it; but that does not alter the nature either of value or of money (634).

Having generated a surplus-value (in money terms, one of £2,000), the capitalist continues the cycle of investing £1,600 in constant capital and 400 pounds in more human-energy in the form of spinning workers. The surplus-value is now transformed into capital for the capitalist, which once again enters the production sphere and subsequently enters the

Conversion of Social Surplus-Value into Private Capital Accumulation 273

market sphere, where a surplus-value of £400 in money is realised. Hence we observe a cycle of production and market activities whereby money supposedly gives birth to more money. The first form in which surplusvalue appears is the commodity form. The form in which capital first appears is the money form, which we assume to have been in gold. This cycle of production of surplus-value and conversion into money is an ongoing process. In this cyclical and dynamic process, surplus-value is produced and reproduced. The capitalist begins with money. He goes to the human energy market and buys human-energy and means of production. He then brings these two sets of “objects” together in the work process. Out of this work process emerges the commodity. The commodity is then sold, out of which emerges the surplus-value, and finally the capitalist’s profit. This money then goes back into production. And it goes on and on and on in perpetuity. Marx is drawing our attention to this dynamic process of capital accumulation: The capital value was originally advanced in the money form. The surplusvalue on the contrary is, originally, the value of a definite portion of the gross product. If this gross product be sold, converted into money, the capital value regains its original form. From this moment the capital value and the surplus-value are both of them sums of money, and their reconversion into capital takes place in precisely the same way. The one, as well as the other, is laid out by the capitalist in the purchase of commodities that place him in a position to begin afresh the fabrication of his goods, and this time, on an extended scale. But in order to be able to buy those commodities, he must find them ready in the market (635).

Marx considers society to be one of capitalists and their related commodities. We can hence speak of the total number of capitalists in a particular society, for example England, and we can also speak of the total number of commodities produced in a country. If we take the period of one year, then the annual quantity of commodities produced can be measured. Marx is adamant that surplus products are not consumed by the capitalist class, as stated by political economy. If this was the case, then it would simply be a case of “simple reproduction”: The annual production must in the first place furnish all those objects (usevalues) from which the material components of capital, used up in the course of the year, have to be replaced. Deducting these there remains the net or surplus-product, in which the surplus-value lies. And of what does this surplus-product consist? Only of things destined to satisfy the wants and desires of the capitalist class, things which, consequently, enter into the consumption fund of the capitalists? Were that the case, the cup of

274

Chapter Nineteen surplus-value would be drained to the very dregs, and nothing but simple reproduction would ever take place (635-636).

Accumulation is an active and physical process. Accumulation is a dynamic process. Accumulation is a building-up, and an expansive process. Accumulation is the accumulation of mass. Accumulation occurs as a result of energy in general, and human-energy in particular. The market cannot by itself increase the quantity of commodities which it finds in its sphere. Quantity–and hence accumulation–is produced in the work place. This means that for an annual quantity of surplus commodities, an annual quantity of human-energy has to be expended in its production. Where that human-energy is expended, and into which commodities, is not of concern here. We merely look at the quantity of human-energy that is expended in the surplus commodities in a given year (measured-time). But in order for capital to accumulate, the production and circulation process has to continue ad-infinitum. Hence it is only surplus-value which contains the seeds for the birth of new capital. If surplus-value is the seed of capital, then human-energy is the DNA of surplus-value: To accumulate it is necessary to convert a portion of the surplus-product into capital. But we cannot, except by a miracle, convert into capital anything but such articles as can be employed in the labour process (i.e., means of production), and such further articles as are suitable for the sustenance of the labourer (i.e., means of subsistence). Consequently, a part of the annual surplus labour must have been applied to the production of additional means of production and subsistence, over and above the quantity of these things required to replace the capital advanced. In one word, surplus-value is convertible into capital solely because the surplusproduct, whose value it is, already comprises the material elements of new capital (636).

We have thus far observed both the extensive and the intensive mechanisms used by the capitalist class in order to suck out as much human-energy from the working class as is possible. But there comes a time when such mechanisms come up against limits to human-energy extraction. It is then that the capitalist class turns to more workers. But this is only possible if there is already available a reservoir of human-energy as contained in multitudes of workers. Nature does not make wage-workers, so wage-workers have to be “made” by other means–the capitalist system itself. Where workers’ human-energy does not resolve itself into wages or commodities for themselves, it resolves itself into surplus commodities, and subsequently as surplus-value and accumulation for the capitalist class. Where simple reproduction was once the order of the day, we now

Conversion of Social Surplus-Value into Private Capital Accumulation 275

have capital accumulation spiralling outward and onward, and in the 21st century, it seems to be spiralling “out of control”: Now in order to allow of these elements actually functioning as capital, the capitalist class requires additional labour. If the exploitation of the labourers already employed do not increase, either extensively or intensively, then additional labour-power must be found. For this the mechanism of capitalist production provides beforehand, by converting the working class into a class dependent on wages, a class whose ordinary wages suffice, not only for its maintenance, but for its increase. It is only necessary for capital to incorporate this additional labour-power, annually supplied by the working class in the shape of labourers of all ages, with the surplus means of production comprised in the annual produce, and the conversion of surplus-value into capital is complete. From a concrete point of view, accumulation resolves itself into the reproduction of capital on a progressively increasing scale. The circle in which simple reproduction moves, alters its form, and, to use Sismondi’s expression, changes into a spiral (636-637).

Capital gives birth to smaller capital and smaller capital gives birth to even smaller capital–each adding to the burgeoning character of big capital. In the 21st century, we hence have infinite growth pitted against a finite planet. It seems that as long as capitalism has a constant supply of human-energy and nature, it will continue to grow. Capitalism has grown in leaps and bounds since Marx first wrote the words below. In many places on earth, various forms of growth have taken place. From New York City to the City of London, from Beijing to Lagos, capitalism grows sideways and upwards. From coins to bank notes, capitalism grows. In the accounting sheets of businesses and banks, capitalism grows. But whilst capitalism grows, human-energy and nature are frightfully depleted: Let us now return to our illustration. It is the old story: Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, and so on. The original capital of £10,000 brings in a surplus-value of £2,000, which is capitalised. The new capital of £2,000 brings in a surplus-value of £400, and this, too, is capitalised, converted into a second additional capital, which, in its turn, produces a further surplus-value of £80. And so the ball rolls on (637).

Thus far we have looked at how nature is transformed into mass, with human-energy as the key agent in this transformation. We have not yet assessed, on a wider scale, the consequences of this transformation on both nature and the working class, the unemployed included. On the journey of deconstructing the capitalistic epoch, Marx finally stops and asks the question of the genesis of the first quantity of capital in the hands of the

276

Chapter Nineteen

capitalist. And with a somewhat hesitant tone, he accepts the dominant view of political economy: that it is the work of the individual and of his forefathers that produces wealth, which is passed down from father to son: The original capital was formed by the advance of £10,000. How did the owner become possessed of it? ‘By his own labour and that of his forefathers,’ answer unanimously the spokesmen of political economy. And, in fact, their supposition appears the only one consonant with the laws of the production of commodities (637).

So having “grudgingly accepted” that a capitalist comes into his own through his and his forefathers’ work, Marx starts to pull the economic science rug from under the feet of political economy bit by bit. He starts to unravel the deception of political economy regarding its analytical science of capitalism and its genesis. For what it is worth, there is fair exchange taking place in the free market. But taken as a class, it is in effect the working class that are paying each other, and not the capitalist class paying the workers from their capital–which they supposedly worked for and inherited from their forefathers. It is the money that was supposed to be paid in full to one set of workers which now pays for another set of workers, and the process continues ad infinitum: But it is quite otherwise with regard to the additional capital of £2,000. How that originated we know perfectly well. There is not one single atom of its value that does not owe its existence to unpaid labour. The means of production, with which the additional labour-power is incorporated, as well as the necessaries with which the labourers are sustained, are nothing but component parts of the surplus product, of the tribute annually exacted from the working class by the capitalist class. Though the latter with a portion of that tribute purchases the additional labour-power even at its full price, so that equivalent is exchanged for equivalent, yet the transaction is for all that only the old dodge of every conqueror who buys commodities from the conquered with the money he has robbed them of (637-638).

There are two forms of consumption that the working class engages in: one, the consumption of raw material and modes of production in the production process, and two, the consumption of those things (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) which members of the working class need in order to reproduce their own and their families’ lives. The working class injects accumulation into capital by not being paid for a portion of their humanenergy. A portion of the additional capital gained for unpaid work is used to pay for a new supply of human-energy in the form of workers, or stored human-energy in the form of machines. If the latter situation dominates, then the machines take the place of the worker, i.e. “dead” human-energy

Conversion of Social Surplus-Value into Private Capital Accumulation 277

displaces “live” human-energy. Year in and year out, the unpaid humanenergy of the working class leads to the compounding of surplus-value, and hence to capital accumulation: If the additional capital employs the person who produced it, this producer must not only continue to augment the value of the original capital, but must buy back the fruits of his previous labour with more labour than they cost. When viewed as a transaction between the capitalist class and the working class, it makes no difference that additional labourers are employed by means of the unpaid labour of the previously employed labourers. The capitalist may even convert the additional capital into a machine that throws the producers of that capital out of work, and that replaces them by a few children. In every case the working class creates by the surplus labour of one year the capital destined to employ additional labour in the following year. And this is what is called: creating capital out of capital (638).

Capitalism produces and reproduces its own social relations; the reproduction of the capitalist class on the one hand, and the reproduction of the working class on the other. This internal logic and dynamic of capitalism ensures both its accumulation and its reproduction. Marx uses the concept of “primitive labour” to indicate accumulation as a result of “work done” by the capitalist in the past. In the penultimate chapter we will learn more about such primitive work, conducted by the capitalist class in waiting with the assistance of the state. That “the more the capitalist has accumulated, the more is he able to accumulate” simply means that the rich get richer: The accumulation of the first additional capital of £2,000 presupposes a value of £10,000 belonging to the capitalist by virtue of his ‘primitive labour,’ and advanced by him. The second additional capital of £400 presupposes, on the contrary, only the previous accumulation of the £2,000, of which the £400 is the surplus-value capitalised. The ownership of past unpaid labour is thenceforth the sole condition for the appropriation of living unpaid labour on a constantly increasing scale. The more the capitalist has accumulated, the more is he able to accumulate (638).

Marx begins to examine how the worker can be exploited for his human-energy whilst the laws of exchange still function normally. But he expresses hesitation about the nature of exchange in capitalist society: “…there is only an apparent exchange.” So with capitalism taken as a whole, the law of exchange, which apparently ensures the exchange of equivalents, is merely the beginning of capitalism, leading to the later exploitation of the human-energy of the working class in the production

278

Chapter Nineteen

sphere. Exchange in the capitalist market is supposedly the exchange of equivalents, but in the workplace, “fraud” and/or exploitation is committed. If human-energy is the private property of the worker to sell, then his human-energy becomes the private property of the capitalist to exploit. If human-energy helped build the pyramids block by block, then it also builds capital, pound by pound, dollar by dollar, penny by penny and joule by joule: In so far as the surplus-value, of which the additional capital, No. 1, consists, is the result of the purchase of labour-power with part of the original capital, a purchase that conformed to the laws of the exchange of commodities, and that, from a legal standpoint, presupposes nothing beyond the free disposal, on the part of the labourer, of his own capacities, and on the part of the owner of money or commodities, of the values that belong to him; in so far as the additional capital, No. 2, &c., is the mere result of No. 1, and, therefore, a consequence of the above conditions; in so far as each single transaction invariably conforms to the laws of the exchange of commodities, the capitalist buying labour-power, the labourer selling it, and we will assume at its real value; in so far as all this is true, it is evident that the laws of appropriation or of private property, laws that are based on the production and circulation of commodities, become by their own inner and inexorable dialectic changed into their very opposite. The exchange of equivalents, the original operation with which we started, has now become turned round in such a way that there is only an apparent exchange. This is owing to the fact, first, that the capital which is exchanged for labour-power is itself but a portion of the product of others’ labour appropriated without an equivalent; and, secondly, that this capital must not only be replaced by its producer, but replaced together with an added surplus. The relation of exchange subsisting between capitalist and labourer becomes a mere semblance appertaining to the process of circulation, a mere form, foreign to the real nature of the transaction, and only mystifying it. The ever repeated purchase and sale of labour-power is now the mere form; what really takes place is this–the capitalist again and again appropriates, without equivalent, a portion of the previously materialised labour of others, and exchanges it for a greater quantity of living labour. At first the rights of property seemed to us to be based on a man’s own labour. At least, some such assumption was necessary since only commodity-owners with equal rights confronted each other, and the sole means by which a man could become possessed of the commodities of others, was by alienating his own commodities; and these could be replaced by labour alone. Now, however, property turns out to be the right, on the part of the capitalist, to appropriate the unpaid labour of others or its product, and to be the impossibility, on the part of the labourer, of appropriating his own product. The separation of property from labour has

Conversion of Social Surplus-Value into Private Capital Accumulation 279 become the necessary consequence of a law that apparently originated in their identity (638-640).

Under private property laws, if you buy a car, you have the right to consume it however you wish to do so. If you buy human-energy, you have the right to consume it. According to Marx, the law of exchange only requires that commodities with exchange-value be exchanged for one another, and is not applicable to their use-values. And because of its “peculiar” nature, human-energy can be consumed with few limitations. However, under the capitalistic mode of production, the right to property results in the accumulation of capital for the capitalist, and the exploitation of the worker. If one views it from a class perspective, then one will observe that capitalistic reproduction takes place in an “uninterrupted” manner. There is a constant flow of human-energy, which is purchased and put under the command and control of capital. Workers and capitalists do not approach each other in the market as respective classes. Hence, the individual relations between the capitalist and the worker conceals the fact that they each belong to a different class. Since the exchange of commodities does not take place between classes but between individuals, the laws of exchange become distorted by private property laws. Private property laws focus on the individual as the unit of economic life, and the class relations of capitalist society are concealed. The law of exchange has no influence over the production process. As long as private property is secured and as long as the law of exchange is abided by, the capitalist has carte blanche over the production process: No matter how long may be the series of periodical reproductions and former accumulations through which the capital now invested may have passed, it always retains its primal virginity. So long as the laws of exchange are observed in every single act of exchange, individually considered, the mode of appropriation can be completely revolutionised without in the least affecting the property rights bestowed by the production of commodities. The same right remains in force, whether it be at a time when the product belonged to the producer, and when this producer, exchanging equivalent for equivalent, could enrich himself only by his own labour, or whether it be under capitalism, where the social wealth becomes to an ever-increasing degree the property of those, who are in a position to appropriate to themselves again and again the unpaid labour of others (643).

Marx proceeds with section 2, titled “Erroneous Conception, by Political Economy, of Reproduction on a Progressively Increasing Scale”. Whilst Marx drew much of his material and many of his ideas for writing

280

Chapter Nineteen

Capital from political economy, he continues with his examination of what he believes is the “ambiguity” of these schools of thought. He articulates what appear to be the causes of capital accumulation, but then proceeds to what he believes are reasons for capital accumulation. The classical political economist Adam Smith rationalised that accumulated capital is utilised to purchase more labour (human-energy), and this idea has led to the popular sentiment, even up to this day, that capital investment is required in order to create employment. We should note that “political economy as a science begins at a time when the foundations of industrial capitalism were already well laid” (Roll, 1973: 20). Marx lays out an intellectual assault on the views put forward by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. He rejects the persistent belief that surplus-value results solely in the purchase and employment of more human-energy. Capital constantly gives birth to its twins: constant capital and variable capital or human-energy. In the production process, human-energy is consumed, and the worker also consumes the “means of production” in the realisation of commodity production: According to this, all surplus-value that is changed into capital becomes variable capital. So far from this being the case, the surplus-value, like the original capital, divides itself into constant capital and variable capital, into means of production and labour-power. Labour-power is the form under which variable capital exists during the process of production. In this process the labour-power is itself consumed by the capitalist while the means of production are consumed by the labour-power in the exercise of its function, labour. At the same time, the money paid for the purchase of the labour-power, is converted into necessaries, that are consumed, not by ‘productive labour,’ but by the ‘productive labourer.’ Adam Smith, by a fundamentally perverted analysis, arrives at the absurd conclusion, that even though each individual capital is divided into a constant and a variable part, the capital of society resolves itself only into variable capital, i.e., is laid out exclusively in payment of wages. For instance, suppose a cloth manufacturer converts £2,000 into capital. One portion he lays out in buying weavers, the other in woollen yarn, machinery, &c. But the people, from whom he buys the yarn and the machinery, pay for labour with a part of the purchase money, and so on until the whole £2,000 are spent in the payment of wages, i.e., until the entire product represented by the £2,000 has been consumed by productive labourers. It is evident that the whole gist of this argument lies in the words ‘and so on,’ which send us from pillar to post. In truth, Adam Smith breaks his investigation off, just where its difficulties begin (646-647).

Marx pronounces that surplus-value ends up as both revenue and accumulation for the capitalist. He dispels the myth held by political

Conversion of Social Surplus-Value into Private Capital Accumulation 281

economists such as Malthus that the capitalist makes personal sacrifices in the form of abstinence from consumption of life’s pleasures for the basis of his accumulated wealth. This is sometimes couched as the “abstinence theory”. In continuing his attack on the “abstinence theory” made famous by the political economists, Marx states that the capitalist is a “victim” of capitalism. But if the worker is the unfortunate man and the capitalist is the fortunate man, both are small men in relation to capitalism. Just like the worker, who is compelled to sell his human-energy, the capitalist is compelled to “play out” the role of capitalist imposed on him by the system of capitalism. In this way he ensures the accumulation of capital. The production of commodities takes place, not really to meet the needs of people, but for the sake of production itself, for the sake of accumulation. That a soldier may have to kill on the battlefield does not necessarily make him a killer. Likewise, a capitalist performs the function allotted to him by the historical system of capitalism. There were many capitalists in Marx’s day, but he did not single them out for being capitalists. For Marx, the monster is capitalism and not the capitalist per se, in the same way that it is really not the soldier who is responsible for throwing the grenades on the killing fields of war, but the war-machine that compels him to do so. Both are victims of the forces of history in the making. At this point, it is apt to quote one of Marx’s famous sayings: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under selfselected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” This thought raises a few questions: Would the capitalist prefer a different life to that of a capitalist? What are the effects of competition on the life of a capitalist and his family? According to Fine (1989: 32), “the need to accumulate is felt by each individual capitalist as an external coercive force”. Capitalists are involved in a ruthless competition to see who can accumulate the most capital. Their social standing amongst family, friends and society also colludes with capitalist greed to ensure that he accumulates. The rest of society tries to follow suit. Capitalism, it seems, also leads to a “higher form of society”: Except as personified capital, the capitalist has no historical value, and no right to that historical existence, which, to use an expression of the witty Lichnowsky, ‘hasn’t got no date.’ And so far only is the necessity for his own transitory existence implied in the transitory necessity for the capitalist mode of production. But, so far as he is personified capital, it is not values in use and the enjoyment of them, but exchange-value and its augmentation, that spur him into action. Fanatically bent on making value expand itself, he ruthlessly forces the human race to produce for production’s sake; he thus forces the development of the productive powers of society, and creates those material conditions, which alone can

282

Chapter Nineteen form the real basis of a higher form of society, a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle. Only as personified capital is the capitalist respectable. As such, he shares with the miser the passion for wealth as wealth. But that which in the miser is a mere idiosyncrasy, is, in the capitalist, the effect of the social mechanism, of which he is but one of the wheels. Moreover, the development of capitalist production makes it constantly necessary to keep increasing the amount of the capital laid out in a given industrial undertaking, and competition makes the immanent laws of capitalist production to be felt by each individual capitalist, as external coercive laws. It compels him to keep constantly extending his capital, in order to preserve it, but extend it he cannot, except by means of progressive accumulation (648-649).

The capitalist’s wealth is not a result of his abstinence from pleasures, but as a result of the unpaid human-energy of the working class layer in society. The worker has to “bite the bullet” in so far as his and his family’s pleasures are concerned. The capitalist’s natural predisposition for pleasure and enjoyment conflicts with his historical role of accumulating. The capitalist’s gain is the working man’s pain. The capitalist’s life becomes measured by how much he can accumulate in life. He becomes the indicator which all men, women and children are compelled to aspire to. But whilst he comfortably accumulates, the rest of humankind struggles to merely exist. If slavery and the feudal modes of production have had new beginnings, so too is this the case regarding the capitalistic mode of production. Capitalism has emerged from the horizon of history, and thrown sections of society into an accumulation frenzy. If the capitalist indulges in luxury through choice, then the worker “indulges” in abstinence through historical compulsion: At the historical dawn of capitalist production,–and every capitalist upstart has personally to go through this historical stage–avarice, and desire to get rich, are the ruling passions. But the progress of capitalist production not only creates a world of delights; it lays open, in speculation and the credit system, a thousand sources of sudden enrichment. When a certain stage of development has been reached, a conventional degree of prodigality, which is also an exhibition of wealth, and consequently a source of credit, becomes a business necessity to the ‘unfortunate’ capitalist. Luxury enters into capital’s expenses of representation. Moreover, the capitalist gets rich, not like the miser, in proportion to his personal labour and restricted consumption, but at the same rate as he squeezes out the labour-power of others, and enforces on the labourer abstinence from all life’s enjoyments. Although, therefore, the prodigality of the capitalist never possesses the bona fide character of the open-handed feudal lord’s prodigality, but, on the contrary, has always lurking behind it the most sordid avarice and the

Conversion of Social Surplus-Value into Private Capital Accumulation 283 most anxious calculation, yet his expenditure grows with his accumulation, without the one necessarily restricting the other. But along with this growth, there is at the same time developed in his breast, a Faustian conflict between the passion for accumulation, and the desire for enjoyment (650-651).

An economy obsessed with surplus-value and profit gives birth to an unsustainable world. One percent of the world’s population has accumulated huge quantities of wealth. The law of accumulation stands steadfast under capitalism and is unique to it. Western Europe, the birthplace of capitalism, is experiencing accumulation through austerity measures in the 21st century. The capitalist class shudders and shivers when accumulation is threatened. All sorts of dreadful things are said to happen if accumulation is slowed or stopped. People in all countries are forced to accumulate–first for their employers through frenzied production, and then for themselves through consumerism. The “too big to fail” banks are physical markers of capital accumulation. Accumulation is the heart and soul of capitalism. State-aided means of stimulating capitalism (austerity measures, quantitative easing, the bailing out of banks, incessant war, etc.) are common features since the 2008 financial crisis. State-aided capitalism is back in vogue. The privatisation of state assets is a growing part of capitalist accumulation in the 21st century. Capitalism created the social conditions for its accumulation through credit. Bankers get huge bonuses for the financial crisis, whilst sections of society lose their homes, their jobs, their money, their dreams and their hopes. Some countries have accumulated much more than others. Within countries, sub-sets of society have accumulated much more than others. Institutional racism is a powerful tool for capitalist accumulation. Religious strife is a powerful tool for capitalist accumulation. So is ethnic strife. The capitalist class continues to accumulate the surplus-value of the working class every day of every year. When this surplus is converted into money, it can be exchanged for more means of production and more human-energy. Under capitalistic accumulation, the mantra is: “mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the wealthiest of us all?” Under capitalism, if a worker has worked for about 40 years of his life, and if he has accumulated a meagre quantity of wealth for himself and his family, then he has definitely accumulated a large quantity of wealth for his employer. Capitalism has thrown the world into turmoil on the basis of its accumulation logic. But according to political economy and mainstream economic science, the “historical mission” of the capitalist is to accumulate:

284

Chapter Nineteen Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets! ‘Industry furnishes the material which saving accumulates.’ Therefore, save, save, i.e., reconvert the greatest possible portion of surplus-value, or surplusproduct into capital! Accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie, and did not for a single instant deceive itself over the birth-throes of wealth. But what avails lamentation in the face of historical necessity? If to classical economy, the proletarian is but a machine for the production of surplus-value; on the other hand, the capitalist is in its eyes only a machine for the conversion of this surplusvalue into additional capital. Political Economy takes the historical function of the capitalist in bitter earnest. In order to charm out of his bosom the awful conflict between the desire for enjoyment and the chase after riches, Malthus, about the year 1820, advocated a division of labour, which assigns to the capitalist actually engaged in production, the business of accumulating, and to the other sharers in surplus-value, to the landlords, the place-men, the beneficed clergy, &c., the business of spending (652653).

Capital accumulation can also take place when capitalism turns to nature and what nature has to offer “without cost”. Nature forms the mass or the material basis of all wealth, but it is the human-energy that is entwined in transformed nature that gives it its value. Marx’s many illustrations are meant to isolate the human-energy acting on nature as the key variable accounting for the accumulation of capital. His conclusion is that wealth is the creative work of nature and human-energy. With the development of science and technology, capital accumulation is given a boost. Waste production is eliminated or minimised to ensure the maximum surplus-value output. But as commodity production gets more competitive, the worker is the one who feels the heat of this competition, as his human-energy is called upon to respond to the accumulation arsenal of the capitalist. Material development entails the constant addition of human-energy to existing mass or materials. A dune in the desert grows larger in size as a result of the constant addition of sand-particles; capital grows larger with each joule of human-energy added to it. This humanenergy is always part of the material world, however its form may change. The human-energy contained in the instruments of work also gravitates towards capital accumulation: “this gratuitous service of past labour, when seized and filled with a soul by living labour, increases with the advancing stages of accumulation.” Capital is a fund of past human-energy and work, but instead of belonging to the workers, it belongs to the capitalists. We are made aware that capital is not a fixed entity, but a dynamic and flexible system that invents and reinvents itself in order to overcome any

Conversion of Social Surplus-Value into Private Capital Accumulation 285

resistance to its accumulation. In line with Newtonian physics, the political economists viewed capitalism as a fixed entity, whereas Marx adopted an Einsteinian world view in so far as there are dynamic flows evident in and of capitalism: “Classical economy always loved to conceive social capital as a fixed magnitude of a fixed degree of efficiency” (668). Marx has accepted the narrative of the political economists that states that capital creates surplus-value. What Marx has done, however, is to show that before capital creates surplus-value, surplus-value creates capital. At the outset, Marx did not dispel the political economy analysis of capitalism. For example, he did not start with the history of capitalism and say: capitalism is built on primitive accumulation, fraud and theft! What he did was to pull apart the major erroneous understandings of the political economists bit by bit, piece by piece, regarding the determinants of capital accumulation.

CHAPTER TWENTY THE GENERAL LAW OF CAPITALIST ACCUMULATION AND THE WRETCHEDNESS OF THE WORKING CLASS

It would be easier, where property is well secured, to live without money than without poor; for who would do the work? —Bernard de Mandeville It is not the possession of land, or of money, but the command of labour which distinguishes the opulent from the labouring part of the community. —Sir F. M. Eden

Once capitalism sinks in its historical roots, it develops internal laws of its own–one of which is what Marx refers to as: “the general law of capitalist accumulation” - the title of chapter 25 in Capital. In this chapter, capitalist accumulation is taken as an independent variable, and humanenergy is taken as the dependent variable. It is a chapter that observes as well as predicts the negative impacts of capital accumulation on the working class in wider society. Marx goes on to reveal that the free market, during the capitalistic epoch, benefits the capitalist class at the expense of the working class, the unemployed included. 100 years later, 20th century man would learn that nature is also under severe threat from the logic of capitalistic accumulation and the vagaries of the free market. In the previous chapter, Marx presented the vacating of the land by the peasant as a hypothetical scenario. In doing this, he was in fact highlighting the real historical transition from feudalism to capitalism. If the world is concentrated with wealth, it is also saturated with poverty. Who are the poor? What do they own–if they own anything? Where do they live? In some countries like China and India, human-energy is in abundance, and in countries like Japan and Thailand, it is argued that human-energy is in short supply. In October of 2015, China moved away from its one child policy and introduced its new two child policy. By the stroke of a pen, its human-energy market will increase in the coming years.

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

287

Humans are effective transformers of energy into mechanical energy for the execution of work. However, when the increasing costs of human-energy threaten the existence of capitalism, capitalism circumvents the direct human-energy of the workers, and sources its energy directly from nature, through machinery and technology. By displacing human-energy in favour of machinery, capitalism also gradually and paradoxically diminishes its profits, since exploited human-energy is the only source of surplus-value. In this chapter, we are also introduced to the concept of surplus workers or surplus population. Before Marx analyses the broader impacts of capital accumulation on the working class, he proceeds to first unpack the “composition of capital”, the two main types being “value composition” and “technical composition”: The composition of capital is to be understood in a two-fold sense. On the side of value, it is determined by the proportion in which it is divided into constant capital or value of the means of production, and variable capital or value of labour-power, the sum total of wages. On the side of material, as it functions in the process of production, all capital is divided into means of production and living labour-power. This latter composition is determined by the relation between the mass of the means of production employed, on the one hand, and the mass of labour necessary for their employment on the other. I call the former the value-composition, the latter the technical composition of capital (671).

The technical composition of capital is “the physical ability of a worker to transform a certain quantity of use-values into a commodity in a given period of time” (Harvey, 2010: 264). Marx proceeds further to examine the internal dynamic character of capitalism. He refers to the correlation between value composition and technical composition as that of “organic composition” and argues that the value composition of capital is dependent on its technical composition. I believe Marx’s aim is to demonstrate, somewhat mathematically, how the internal dynamism of capital envelops broader society and goads it along its accumulation path: Between the two there is a strict correlation. To express this, I call the value composition of capital, in so far as it is determined by its technical composition and mirrors the changes of the latter, the organic composition of capital. Wherever I refer to the composition of capital, without further qualification, its organic composition is always understood (671).

We are introduced to the concepts of “individual capital” and “social capital”. So we might have many capitalists involved in the production of home furniture, for example. Some capitalists may be involved in the

288

Chapter Twenty

mining of gold. Other capitalists may be involved in the production of clothing, etc. Marx refers to all of these different individuals and groups of capital as social capital–and it is this social capital, within the boundaries of the nation state, that he is concerned with. We may choose to call this Gross Domestic Social Capital: The many individual capitals invested in a particular branch of production have, one with another, more or less different compositions. The average of their individual compositions gives us the composition of the total capital in this branch of production. Lastly, the average of these averages, in all branches of production, gives us the composition of the total social capital of a country, and with this alone are we, in the last resort, concerned in the following investigation (671-672).

Capitalist growth is only possible through investment in humanenergy. This fundamental fact means that more workers must always be available for the valorisation and accumulation of capital. In order for capital accumulation to continue, it is necessary for a portion of the surplus-value be used to purchase more human-energy. We also note that Marx considers the production of commodities, not within the duration of the working day, or the week, or the month, but for an entire year. In terms of temporality, a year is the measured time that it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. Again, the accounting of the movement of the earth revolving around the sun is just that: an accounting system. It is not the measurement of time, but the accounting or measurement of movement. It is this movement that aids man in breaking down time into units; years, in this case. Another method for increasing the accumulation of capital is to expand the markets for the commodities produced. With the opening of new markets, and the supply of more commodities, the demand for more human-energy also increases. You may then have a situation whereby the supply of human-energy falls short of what is required by social capital per annum. With the emergence of this phenomenon, we have an increase in the price of human-energy as measured by clock-time. In other words, if capital demands more human-energy than can be supplied, then the cost of human-energy rises. If human-energy is in abundant supply, then its cost falls. Capital accumulation is inextricably linked to the accumulation of human-energy i.e. the accumulation of the proletariat. In other words, the production, reproduction and accumulation of the proletariat is a prerequisite for the production, reproduction and accumulation of capital: Growth of capital involves growth of its variable constituent or of the part invested in labour-power. A part of the surplus-value turned into additional

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

289

capital must always be re-transformed into variable capital, or additional labour fund. If we suppose that, all other circumstances remaining the same, the composition of capital also remains constant (i.e., that a definite mass of means of production constantly needs the same mass of labourpower to set it in motion), then the demand for labour and the subsistencefund of the labourers clearly increase in the same proportion as the capital, and the more rapidly, the more rapidly the capital increases. Since the capital produces yearly a surplus-value, of which one part is yearly added to the original capital; since this increment itself grows yearly along with the augmentation of the capital already functioning; since lastly, under special stimulus to enrichment, such as the opening of new Markets, or of new spheres for the outlay of capital in consequence of newly developed social wants, &c., the scale of accumulation may be suddenly extended, merely by a change in the division of the surplus-value or surplus-product into capital and revenue, the requirements of accumulating capital may exceed the increase of labour-power or of the number of labourers; the demand for labourers may exceed the supply, and, therefore, wages may rise. This must, indeed, ultimately be the case if the conditions supposed above continue. For since in each year more labourers are employed than in its predecessor, sooner or later a point must be reached, at which the requirements of accumulation begin to surpass the customary supply of labour, and, therefore, a rise of wages takes place. A lamentation on this score was heard in England during the whole of the fifteenth, and the first half of the eighteenth centuries. The more or less favourable circumstances in which the wage working class supports and multiplies itself, in no way alter the fundamental character of capitalist production. As simple reproduction constantly reproduces the capital relation itself, i.e., the relation of capitalists on the one hand, and wage workers on the other, so reproduction on a progressive scale, i.e., accumulation, reproduces the capital relation on a progressive scale, more capitalists or larger capitalists at this pole, more wage workers at that. The reproduction of a mass of labour-power, which must incessantly re-incorporate itself with capital for that capital’s self-expansion; which cannot get free from capital, and whose enslavement to capital is only concealed by the variety of individual capitalists to whom it sells itself, this reproduction of labour-power forms, in fact, an essential of the reproduction of capital itself. Accumulation of capital is, therefore, increase of the proletariat (672-673).

In section two Marx discusses the “relative diminution of the variable part of capital simultaneously with the progress of accumulation and of the concentration that accompanies it”. Let us call the constant composition of capital potential energy, and the variable composition of capital humanenergy. Over time, the capitalist spends more money on constant capital or potential energy and a lesser quantity of money on variable capital or human-energy. Once human-energy is stored in machines and technology,

290

Chapter Twenty

this stored human-energy is preferred over living human-energy. In the periodic lifespan of capitalism, there is, for various reasons, a gradual contraction in the volume or quantity of human-energy that is employed by the capitalist class: This change in the technical composition of capital, this growth in the mass of means of production, as compared with the mass of the labour-power that vivifies them, is reflected again in its value composition, by the increase of the constant constituent of capital at the expense of its variable constituent. There may be, e.g., originally 50 per cent. of a capital laid out in means of production, and 50 per cent. in labour-power; later on, with the development of the productivity of labour, 80 per cent. in means of production, 20 per cent. in labour-power, and so on. This law of the progressive increase in constant capital, in proportion to the variable, is confirmed at every step (as already shown) by the comparative analysis of the prices of commodities, whether we compare different economic epochs or different nations in the same epoch. The relative magnitude of the element of price, which represents the value of the means of production only, or the constant part of capital consumed, is in direct, the relative magnitude of the other element of price that pays labour (the variable part of capital) is in inverse proportion to the advance of accumulation (682683).

Marx accepts the fact that, before the crystallisation of the capitalistic mode of production proper, there were individuals who came into a “certain accumulation of capital”. There was an increase in the quantity of capitalists; however, this increase could only come about because individuals had access to private property. Marx reminds us of the historical path that capitalism has taken thus far, and it is a dynamic one at that. In capitalism’s historical path, a major triumph was its ability to tap into the energy of nature for accumulation purposes: “huge natural forces can be pressed into the service of production.” Marx introduces the concept of “primitive accumulation”. In so far as accumulation is concerned, once the impetus for accumulation has commenced, then capitalism develops a momentum for the continuous consolidation and reproduction of this accumulation. However, within this accumulation logic, a contradiction of sorts takes root: that which enables the accumulation of capital, viz. human-energy, experiences a diminishment in relation to constant capital. An important introduction at this point in Capital is the historic, transformative, dynamic and dialectical nature of capitalism: A certain accumulation of capital, in the hands of individual producers of commodities, forms therefore the necessary preliminary of the specifically

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

291

capitalistic mode of production. We had, therefore, to assume that this occurs during the transition from handicraft to capitalistic industry. It may be called primitive accumulation, because it is the historic basis, instead of the historic result of specifically capitalist production. How it itself originates, we need not here inquire as yet. It is enough that it forms the starting point. But all methods for raising the social productive power of labour that are developed on this basis, are at the same time methods for the increased production of surplus-value or surplus-product, which in its turn is the formative element of accumulation. They are, therefore, at the same time methods of the production of capital by capital, or methods of its accelerated accumulation. The continual re-transformation of surplusvalue into capital now appears in the shape of the increasing magnitude of the capital that enters into the process of production. This in turn is the basis of an extended scale of production, of the methods for raising the productive power of labour that accompany it, and of accelerated production of surplus-value. If, therefore, a certain degree of accumulation of capital appears as a condition of the specifically capitalist mode of production, the latter causes conversely an accelerated accumulation of capital. With the accumulation of capital, therefore, the specifically capitalistic mode of production develops, and with the capitalist mode of production the accumulation of capital. Both these economic factors bring about, in the compound ratio of the impulses they reciprocally give one another, that change in the technical composition of capital by which the variable constituent becomes always smaller and smaller as compared with the constant (684-685).

Capitalism first turns on the workers, and then gradually turns on the smaller capitalists, swallows them whole and balloons as it goes about its centralisation drive. The centralisation–and hence the accumulation of capital–means that capital looks everywhere in order to grow itself. Its only ethic is one of accumulation, and the ethic of workers’ interests does not exist. So if workers have to be let go or fired, then so be it. In the 21st century, many countries have competition laws as part and parcel of their economic policies. This is in response to companies emerging into monopolistic positions; companies nonetheless do go on to be monopolistic under capitalism. However, where companies are too big to out-do each other, they have resorted to price-fixing. In recent times, the four biggest banks in the world have been fined $6bn for fixing the exchange rates–so much for competition and the free market! The focus of Marx’s centralisation argument is that capital seeks to destroy or out-manoeuvre other capital, or what we would nowadays call businesses. Marx also speaks about the credit system being a highly effective mechanism for capital accumulation. The financial crisis of 2008–one of many in the

292

Chapter Twenty

lifespan of capitalism–was an indication of the antagonistic nature of capital accumulation through the medium of runaway credit: The laws of this centralisation of capitals, or of the attraction of capital by capital, cannot be developed here. A brief hint at a few facts must suffice. The battle of competition is fought by cheapening of commodities. The cheapness of commodities depends, caeteris paribus [all things equal], on the productiveness of labour, and this again on the scale of production. Therefore, the larger capitals beat the smaller. It will further be remembered that, with the development of the capitalist mode of production, there is an increase in the minimum amount of individual capital necessary to carry on a business under its normal conditions. The smaller capitals, therefore, crowd into spheres of production which Modern Industry has only sporadically or incompletely got hold of. Here competition rages in direct proportion to the number, and in inverse proportion to the magnitudes, of the antagonistic capitals. It always ends in the ruin of many small capitalists, whose capitals partly pass into the hands of their conquerors, partly vanish. Apart from this, with capitalist production an altogether new force comes into play–the credit system. In its beginning, the credit system sneaks in as a modest helper of accumulation and draws by invisible threads the money resources scattered all over the surface of society into the hands of individual or associated capitalists. But it soon becomes a new and formidable weapon in the competitive struggle, and finally it transforms itself into an immense social mechanism for the centralisation of capitals (686-687).

In order to accumulate, capitalism sucks up other businesses, and the accumulated capital seeks out other avenues and opportunities to grow itself. Diversification in other capital ventures ensures the accumulation of capital. The goal to accumulate spawns an array of brilliant innovative and business ideas: communication technology, food technology, transport technology, manufacturing technology, etc. Hence, planet earth has never in the billions of years of its history witnessed what it has witnessed in the past 250 years, since the Industrial Revolution. From razors to railroads, mobile phones to mega-machines, cosmetics to cars, food to freeways, stock markets to skyscrapers, the world is abound with accumulation. But centralisation for the purposes of accumulation means that the workforce is shed along the freeway of accumulation. Workers are daily dropped off at the wayside under the labels of downsizing, rightsizing, rationalising, austerity measures and the like. Businesses and companies also undergo transformations in their energy profiles, from predominantly involving first human-energy then inanimate energy (coal, nuclear, etc.) and machinery:

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

293

The additional capitals formed in the normal course of accumulation, serve mainly as vehicles for the exploitation of new inventions and discoveries, or of industrial improvements in general. However, the old capital likewise arrives in due time at the moment when it must renew its head and limbs, when it casts off its old skin and is likewise born again in its perfected industrial form, in which a smaller quantity of labour suffices to set in motion a larger quantity of machinery and raw materials. The absolute decrease of the demand for labour necessarily following therefrom will naturally be so much the greater, the more these capitals going through the process of rejuvenation have become accumulated in masses by means of the movement of centralisation (689).

In the 21st century, the concept of growth is a euphemism for accumulation. For most of its existence, capitalism has been “blessed” with growth or accumulation. However, there has also been a cry in developing countries about “jobless growth” or “jobless accumulation”, pointing to the accumulative nature of capitalist interests and not necessarily to the growth of a country per se, although the label “country” is used to mask this contradiction. Marx argued that although capital accumulation is measured quantitatively, it occurs as a result of a qualitative change in its composition, i.e. the expansion of constant capital and the diminution of its human-energy component or composition. The question then remains: what happens to the variable or human-energy composition of capital? The accumulation of capital, though originally appearing as its quantitative extension only, is effected, as we have seen, under a progressive qualitative change in its composition, under a constant increase of its constant, at the expense of its variable constituent (689-690).

“Supply and demand are among the fundamental building blocks of economic theory” (Kishtainy et al., 2012: 110). The supply and demand ratio is also applicable to human-energy, where the worker is the supplier of his or her human-energy, and the employer will look to purchase this human-energy as cheaply as possible. Whilst neoliberal economic science portrays the relationship between supply, demand and price as a given, Marx argues that the phenomena of supply, demand and price are influenced by the workings of capitalism. Whilst the accumulation of capital is secured under the lock and key of capitalist private property, the discarded component which was once part of capital finds itself locked out of the economy, whilst at the same time serving the accumulative interests of the same economy. By existing on the fringes of the economy, surplus human-energy reveals to workers the menacing effects of the capitalist

294

Chapter Twenty

economy. By creating the conditions for the cheapening of human-energy, capitalism creates social conditions which are favourable for capital accumulation: The industrial reserve army, during the periods of stagnation and average prosperity, weighs down the active labour-army; during the periods of over-production and paroxysm, it holds its pretensions in check. Relative surplus population is therefore the pivot upon which the law of demand and supply of labour works. It confines the field of action of this law within the limits absolutely convenient to the activity of exploitation and to the domination of capital (701).

We observe that capitalism is a “double edged sword” when it comes to the demand and supply of human-energy. The lifespan of capitalism consists of oscillations; it demands human-energy when its accumulation increases, and then discards human-energy when its accumulation plateaus or diminishes, hence contributing to the accumulating unemployment of human-energy. This increasing potential supply of human-energy creates the conditions for ensuring that the price of employed human-energy is constrained from rising. We observe that the law of supply and demand is under the stewardship of capitalism’s purpose of accumulation; that it is no longer the logic of supply and demand per se that regulates prices, but rather the logic of capitalist accumulation that “manipulates” the law of supply and demand. Through his material impoverishment–and his boss’s riches–the worker becomes conscious of his subjection to capital. Through their co-operation in the production realm and their communal exploitation, workers also learn to organise themselves into trade unions. Somewhere along the path of their impoverishment, they have learnt that “unity is strength”. Capitalists use all available means to denounce any resistance to the supply and demand law regarding human-energy. However, the history books are filled with pages on how capitalists, with the assistance of states, coerce and move large pools of workers from faraway lands to production zones. In this artificial way of increasing supply, a constant pool of human-energy is available at the feet of the God of Capitalism. If the free human-energy market, as in the beginning of the colonisation process, cannot provide the necessary quantity of humanenergy, then the state will violently step in to ensure a constant supply of human-energy. Capitalism sure knows how to change the supply and demand goal-posts. Marx, it seems, loathes the hypocritical analysis of classical political economy: Capital works on both sides at the same time. If its accumulation, on the one hand, increases the demand for labour, it increases on the other the

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

295

supply of labourers by the ‘setting free’ of them, whilst at the same time the pressure of the unemployed compels those that are employed to furnish more labour, and therefore makes the supply of labour, to a certain extent, independent of the supply of labourers. The action of the law of supply and demand of labour on this basis completes the despotism of capital. As soon, therefore, as the labourers learn the secret, how it comes to pass that in the same measure as they work more, as they produce more wealth for others, and as the productive power of their labour increases, so in the same measure even their function as a means of the self-expansion of capital becomes more and more precarious for them; as soon as they discover that the degree of intensity of the competition among themselves depends wholly on the pressure of the relative surplus population; as soon as, by Trades’ Unions, &c., they try to organise a regular co-operation between employed and unemployed in order to destroy or to weaken the ruinous effects of this natural law of capitalistic production on their class, so soon capital and its sycophant, political economy, cry out at the infringement of the ‘eternal’ and so to say ‘sacred’ law of supply and demand. Every combination of employed and unemployed disturbs the ‘harmonious’ action of this law. But, on the other hand, as soon as (in the colonies, e.g.) adverse circumstances prevent the creation of an industrial reserve army and, with it, the absolute dependence of the working class upon the capitalist class, capital, along with its commonplace Sancho Panza, rebels against the ‘sacred’ law of supply and demand, and tries to check its inconvenient action by forcible means and State interference (702-703).

In the section on the “different forms of the relative surplus population and the general law of capitalist accumulation”, Marx introduces three forms in which surplus human-energy exists under capitalism. When the world is unsustainably consuming large quantities of oil energy, coal energy, nuclear energy, biofuel energy, gas energy, renewable energy, etc., there is a huge surplus of human-energy that lies idle, longing to be employed, even if it means being employed in the brutal and harsh capitalistic economy: In the centres of modern industry–factories, manufactures, ironworks, mines, &c.–the labourers are sometimes repelled, sometimes attracted again in greater masses, the number of those employed increasing on the whole, although in a constantly decreasing proportion to the scale of production. Here the surplus population exists in the floating form (703).

From the time a man enters the world and until the time he “exits”, nature “allocates” to him an energy budget–an energy budget that is dependent on his access to food intake. For example: “the maximum sustainable energy conversion of food by a human is about 330 W, of

296

Chapter Twenty

which an average of 100 W can be used to perform work” (Sørensen, 2012: 27). However, much of his human-energy has been usurped by capitalism by the time man “exits” the world. We note that if the rate of human-energy expenditure by the worker in capitalistic work is excessive, the worker will live a shorter life: The consumption of labour-power by capital is, besides, so rapid that the labourer, half-way through his life, has already more or less completely lived himself out. He falls into the ranks of the supernumeraries, or is thrust down from a higher to a lower step in the scale. It is precisely among the work-people of modern industry that we meet with the shortest duration of life (704).

Capitalism is the historical force that twists and tweaks society and nature to align with the end goal of capitalism viz. the accumulation of capital. Whereas Malthus blamed poverty on the overpopulation factor, Marx draws a correlation between the demand for human-energy and the incremental increase in population since the coming into being of the capitalist epoch: In order to conform to these circumstances, the absolute increase of this section of the proletariat must take place under conditions that shall swell their numbers, although the individual elements are used up rapidly. Hence, rapid renewal of the generations of labourers (this law does not hold for the other classes of the population). This social need is met by early marriages, a necessary consequence of the conditions in which the labourers of modern industry live, and by the premium that the exploitation of children sets on their production (704-705).

Capitalistic production takes root in the countryside, thus sweeping away the demand for human-energy in farming and agriculture. It is this push factor that creates the abundant supply or reserve of human-energy, swelling the ranks of the “urban or manufacturing proletariat”. With capitalism’s inducement of such social engineering, the “agricultural labourer is, therefore reduced to the minimum of wages, and always stands with one foot already in the swamp of pauperism” (498). In the 21st century: The global integration of economies, including labour markets, has brought many opportunities for workers and businesses and has spurred economic growth. However progress has not been beneficial for all. Millions of people are trafficked while they search for decent jobs, are held in debt bondage or in slavery-like conditions, and are trapped by poverty and discrimination (ILO, 2012: 1).

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

297

The creation of the urban proletariat has its roots in the 17th century– the adolescent years of capitalistic development. With nothing else to sell but their human-energy, the browbeaten workers formed a reserve army of human-energy for the most exploitative sectors of capitalistic development. If the fittest survive, then the fitness of capitalism is dependent on the unfit amongst the working class, as the former exploits the latter to the fullest, by first swelling its ranks and then paying the erratically employable as low a wage as possible: The third category of the relative surplus population, the stagnant, forms a part of the active labour army, but with extremely irregular employment. Hence it furnishes to capital an inexhaustible reservoir of disposable labour-power. Its conditions of life sink below the average normal level of the working class; this makes it at once the broad basis of special branches of capitalist exploitation. It is characterised by maximum of working-time, and minimum of wages. We have learnt to know its chief form under the rubric of ‘domestic industry.’ It recruits itself constantly from the supernumerary forces of modern industry and agriculture, and specially from those decaying branches of industry where handicraft is yielding to manufacture, manufacture to machinery. Its extent grows, as with the extent and energy of accumulation, the creation of a surplus population advances. But it forms at the same time a self-reproducing and selfperpetuating element of the working class, taking a proportionally greater part in the general increase of that class than the other elements. In fact, not only the number of births and deaths, but the absolute size of the families stand in inverse proportion to the height of wages, and therefore to the amount of means of subsistence of which the different categories of labourers dispose. This law of capitalistic society would sound absurd to savages, or even civilised colonists. It calls to mind the boundless reproduction of animals individually weak and constantly hunted down (705-706).

The continent that gave the rest of the world capitalism has become used to media showing the destitute and the vulnerable in Africa and other parts of the developing world. However, in 2015, Europe is witnessing the povertisation of some of its people–a rather unusual phenomenon for countries that have taken on the badge of “developed nations”. Piketty (2014: 376) states that: It is an illusion to think that something about the nature of modern growth or the laws of the market economy ensures that the inequality of wealth will decrease and harmonious stability will be achieved.

298

Chapter Twenty

Marx proceeds to discuss the vulnerable of society, the victims of the free market, underpinned by capitalism’s logic of accumulation: The lowest sediment of the relative surplus population finally dwells in the sphere of pauperism. Exclusive of vagabonds, criminals, prostitutes, in a word, the ‘dangerous’ classes, this layer of society consists of three categories. First, those able to work. One need only glance superficially at the statistics of English pauperism to find that the quantity of paupers increases with every crisis, and diminishes with every revival of trade. Second, orphans and pauper children. These are candidates for the industrial reserve army, and are, in times of great prosperity, as 1860, e.g., speedily and in large numbers enrolled in the active army of labourers. Third, the demoralised and ragged, and those unable to work, chiefly people who succumb to their incapacity for adaptation, due to the division of labour; people who have passed the normal age of the labourer; the victims of industry, whose number increases with the increase of dangerous machinery, of mines, chemical works, &c., the mutilated, the sickly, the widows, &c. Pauperism is the hospital of the active labour-army and the dead weight of the industrial reserve army. Its production is included in that of the relative surplus population, its necessity in theirs; along with the surplus population, pauperism forms a condition of capitalist production, and of the capitalist development of wealth. It enters into the faux frais [incidental operating expenses] of capitalist production; but capital knows how to throw these, for the most part, from its own shoulders on to those of the working class and the lower middle class (706707).

Marx uses the concept of “energy” twice in the following passage. I assume that he is using it as an “everyday” word and not as a scientific concept. He points to the two poles of capitalism: expansive wealth and accumulation and the deepening and widening of the unemployment and poverty of the masses. Marx refers to this as the “absolute general law of capitalist accumulation”: The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and, therefore, also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army. The same causes which develop the expansive power of capital, develop also the labour-power at its disposal. The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus population, whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour. The more extensive, finally, the lazarus-layers of the working class, and the industrial reserve army, the greater is official pauperism. This is the absolute general law of capitalist

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

299

accumulation. Like all other laws it is modified in its working by many circumstances, the analysis of which does not concern us here (707).

Mental problems are rife under 21st century capitalism. Working class families are under immense pressure to survive in a capitalistic society. Depression, suicide, anxiety, bi-polar disorder, etc., form part and parcel of the integral profile of the capitalistic system. Accumulation of wealth, accumulation of poverty, accumulation of decadence, accumulation of misery, accumulation of the built environment, accumulation of environmental destruction, accumulation of energy, accumulation of waste heat, etc., are all “children” of the capitalistic epoch. According to Marx, the worker is never well-off under capitalism. On the contrary, and as we have observed thus far, the worker is an object for the valorisation of capital, a mere dispenser of human-energy, a vital source for the accumulation of capital. If man is born whole, then capitalism breaks him apart. If man is born into a world of natural plenty, then capitalism ensures that he lives his life in poverty and relative poverty. If man is born as a member of the human race, then capitalism strips him of all humanity. Where capitalism flourishes, humanity diminishes: We saw in Part IV., when analysing the production of relative surplusvalue: within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital. But all methods for the production of surplus-value are at the same time methods of accumulation; and every extension of accumulation becomes again a means for the development of those methods. It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse. The law, finally, that always equilibrates the relative surplus population, or industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the labourer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil,

300

Chapter Twenty slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital (708-709).

The following illustration indicates the level of accumulation in the United Kingdom during the years 1855-1865. This is also an indication of the increasing quantities of natural resources that were extracted from nature in just 10 years! In 1855 alone, 61,453,079 tons of coal were extracted. “Coal does not make us think about the rich but about the poor” (Freese, 2006: 2). This rich energy feedstock–which would go on to play a key role in the Industrial Revolution–would change the economic and social world forever. The use of coal would also be recognised as a major contributor to global warming and subsequent climate change. Marx’s quote, below, also points to the inextricable link between natural resources, energy, production, trade and finances; they all combine in securing the accumulation of capital: In 1855 there were produced in the United Kingdom 61,453,079 tons of coal, of value £16,113,167; in 1864, 92,787,873 tons, of value £23,197,968; in 1855, 3,218,154 tons of pig-iron, of value £8,045,385; 1864, 4,767,951 tons, of value £11,919,877. In 1854 the length of the railroads worked in the United Kingdom was 8,054 miles, with a paid-up capital of £286,068,794; in 1864 the length was 12,789 miles, with capital paid up of £425,719,613. In 1854 the total sum of the exports and imports of the United Kingdom was £268,210,145; in 1865, £489,923,285 (714).

What is the condition of the worker outside of the capitalistic production sphere? There is an inextricable link between the private and the public–they are two sides of the same capitalistic accumulation coin. In the 1780s, Manchester was the “centre of wealth-creation and urban growth”. It was also a place for “epidemics of typhus, influenza, diarrhoea and cholera”. In describing Manchester in his book, The Condition of the Working Class in England, Engels states: The race that lives in those ruinous cottages or in dark wet cellars, in measureless filth and stench…must really have reached the lowest stage of humanity (Kidd, 2002: 40).

Whilst human-energy forms the sub-stratum of the wealth of the capitalist class, it is the conditions outside of the workplace which push the worker into the urban workplace in the first place: In the chapters on the ‘working day’ and ‘machinery,’ the reader has seen under what circumstances the British working class created an

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

301

‘intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power’ for the propertied classes. There we were chiefly concerned with the social functioning of the labourer. But for a full elucidation of the law of accumulation, his condition outside the workshop must also be looked at, his condition as to food and dwelling. The limits of this book compel us to concern ourselves chiefly with the worst paid part of the industrial proletariat, and with the agricultural labourers, who together form the majority of the working class (717).

“More than one thousand million people worldwide remain living in extreme poverty–on less than $1.25 a day” (World Bank Report, 2014). In 19th century England, the number of people living in poverty was around 900,000. Contrary to political economy, and now neoliberal economic science, the free market has not acted in the best interest of all. All it has done thus far is to produce and reproduce wealth on one side and poverty on the other. We are given an insight into the poverty of one amongst the many families in Manchester in 1842 in Kidd (2002: 36): Robert O’Brien, Jersey Street, a dyer with four children; has had no work for many months; his wife has been lately confined; they have been whole days without food; they have sold or pledged all that they could for food or rent for the cellar they occupy.

With capitalistic accumulation, Marx also points to the accumulation of social ills, poverty being chief amongst these. There is an incremental increase in the percentage of people finding themselves in poverty as capitalism develops and capital accumulation gains momentum: But first, one word on official pauperism, or on that part of the working class which has forfeited its condition of existence (the sale of labourpower), and vegetates upon public alms. The official list of paupers numbered in England 851,369 persons; in 1856, 977,767; in 1865, 971,433. In consequence of the cotton famine, it grew in the years 1863 and 1864 to 1,079,382 and 1,014,978. The crisis of 1866, which fell most heavily on London, created in this centre of the world Market, more populous than the kingdom of Scotland, an increase of pauperism for the year 1866 of 19.5% compared with 1865, and of 24.4% compared with 1864, and a still greater increase for the first months of 1867 as compared with 1866…But frightful increase of ‘deaths by starvation’ in London during the last ten years proves beyond doubt the growing horror in which the working-people hold the slavery of the workhouse, that place of punishment for misery (717-718).

Nowadays, many different types of food and drink contain their quantities of energy content on their packaging. For those who wish to

302

Chapter Twenty

shed some weight, such information helps them in their mathematical calculations of weight-loss programs. Others may view such information as a way of getting through a busy day at work. If human bodies are human-energy dispensers for capital accumulation, then they also require a constant supply of energy to sustain their metabolic functioning, as well as to engage in objective activities such as work, play, etc. The body requires energy–in the form of food–for its metabolic functioning, as well as for different types of livelihood activities–let alone activities for different lifestyles. “Meat provides practically all the proteins and vitamins required by the human body, in addition to its energy content” (Sørensen, 2012: 122). “There is no specific carbohydrate requirement for the human, but in a balanced diet, about 50% of the energy requirement of the body should be provided from this source” (McMurray, 1977: 123). Winter (2009: 140) states: At all points in the body at all instants in time, the Law of Conservation of Energy applies. For example, any body segment will change its energy, only if there is a flow of energy in, or out of any adjacent structure (tendons, ligaments, or joint contact surfaces).

Marx provides an interesting analysis of the significance of food as an energy source for the nourishment of workers during the Industrial Revolution. This breakdown is at the level of the element: During the cotton famine of 1862, Dr. Smith was charged by the Privy Council with an inquiry into the conditions of nourishment of the distressed operatives in Lancashire and Cheshire. His observations during many preceding years had led him to the conclusion that ‘to avert starvation diseases,’ the daily food of an average woman ought to contain at least 3,900 grains of carbon with 180 grains of nitrogen; the daily food of an average man, at least 4,300 grains of carbon with 200 grains of nitrogen; for women, about the same quantity of nutritive elements as are contained in 2 lbs of good wheaten bread, for men 1-9 more; for the weekly average of adult men and women, at least 28,600 grains of carbon and 1,330 grains of nitrogen. His calculation was practically confirmed in a surprising manner by its agreement with the miserable quantity of nourishment to which want had forced down the consumption of the cotton operatives. This was, in December, 1862, 29,211 grains of carbon, and 1,295 grains of nitrogen weekly (718).

“…human cells still follow 24-hour cycles of gene activity, hormone secretion and energy production” (Callender, 2012: 38). “In the brain and nerves, the energy is needed to perform electrical work; in the skeletal muscles, for mechanical work; in the kidney and red blood cells, for

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

303

osmotic work; and so forth” (McMurray, 1977: 77). The direct correlation between energy contained in food and the energy to perform work is contained in Marx’s thought below: Among the agricultural labourers, those of England, the wealthiest part of the United Kingdom, were the worst fed. The insufficiency of food among the agricultural labourers, fell, as a rule, chiefly on the women and children, for ‘the man must eat to do his work’ (719).

Earth shares itself in the form of big strong houses for the rich and small weak houses for the poor–if the latter are fortunate enough to have a shelter over their heads. Slums are a huge part of planet earth’s profile, from Brazil to Barbados, India to Indonesia, South Africa to Somalia, etc. We have the accumulation of gated communities at the same time as the accumulation of slums under capitalism. Lots of earth is a prerequisite for capital accumulation, because earth is the keeper of raw materials and money in the form of gold. Earth-space is needed for the mushrooming of factories, workshops and industries. Lots of earth-space is needed to lay down roads and railways, and for the establishment of commercial hubs. Lots of earth- space is needed for energy sources aside from that of human-energy. In the same way that workers are concentrated and centralised in workshops, they are concentrated and centralised in housing that is not fit for humans. With each day, the accumulation logic of capitalism grows stronger, and hovers over the working class like a menacing cloud. Their lives and their humanity have given way to the rule of money, power and greed. If space is contracted in the factories for the intense usurpation of the workers’ energy, then so too is the space where workers live and work contracted. Nature–which served man for millions of years–is subsumed into the lap of capitalism, the supreme architect of accumulation. As the changing material conditions birthed different forms of social ill, responses for their mitigation were birthed in the parliament of the time. In England, as elsewhere in the world, both past and present: The intimate connexion between the pangs of hunger of the most industrious layers of the working class, and the extravagant consumption, coarse or refined, of the rich, for which capitalist accumulation is the basis, reveals itself only when the economic laws are known. It is otherwise with the ‘housing of the poor.’ Every unprejudiced observer sees that the greater the centralisation of the means of production, the greater is the corresponding heaping together of the labourers, within a given space; that therefore the swifter capitalistic accumulation, the more miserable are the dwellings of the working-people. ‘Improvements’ of towns, accompanying the increase of wealth, by the demolition of badly built quarters, the

304

Chapter Twenty erection of palaces for banks, warehouses, &c., the widening of streets for business traffic, for the carriages of luxury, and for the introduction of tramways, &c., drive away the poor into even worse and more crowded hiding places. On the other hand, every one knows that the dearness of dwellings is in inverse ratio to their excellence, and that the mines of misery are exploited by house speculators with more profit or less cost than ever were the mines of Potosi. The antagonistic character of capitalist accumulation, and therefore of the capitalistic relations of property generally, is here so evident, that even the official English reports on this subject teem with heterodox onslaughts on ‘property and its rights.’ With the development of industry, with the accumulation of capital, with the growth and ‘improvement’ of towns, the evil makes such progress that the mere fear of contagious diseases which do not spare even ‘respectability,’ brought into existence from 1847 to 1864 no less than 10 Acts of Parliament on sanitation, and that the frightened bourgeois in some towns, as Liverpool, Glasgow, &c., took strenuous measures through their municipalities (721-722).

With gold having achieved the status of money par excellence in Marx’s time, capitalism throughout the world would be catapulted onto a higher level of capital accumulation. Over time, the country that gave the world more money in the form of gold would also give the world the most expensive of earth’s metals: platinum. Regarding the 34 miners of the Marikana mines in South Africa who were herded, shot and killed by the South African police force: as journalists and researchers delved deeper into the lives of the miners, one of the striking features was that most were from faraway places, and living in houses made of tin, with no electricity and no water. Housing conditions for miners in 19th century England were not dissimilar from the housing conditions of the miners of Marikana in the 21st century. Whilst housing conditions have improved for the English working class, they remain in a sorry state for millions of people in many parts of the world: In conflict with ‘public opinion,’ or even with the Officers of Health, capital makes no difficulty about ‘justifying’ the conditions partly dangerous, partly degrading, to which it confines the working and domestic life of the labourer, on the ground that they are necessary for profit. It is the same thing when capital ‘abstains’ from protective measures against dangerous machinery in the factory, from appliances for ventilation and for safety in mines, &c. It is the same here with the housing of the miners (732).

The financial crisis that stunned the capitalistic world in 2008–also known as the Great Recession–had its roots in the capitalistic system of

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

305

accumulation, but “blossomed” in the banking and financial sectors. It would be a crisis that would highlight the myth of the free market being the supreme mediator of human affairs in society. Considered centre-right, the then President of France, Mr Nicholas Sarkozy, cried out: “the idea of the all-powerful market that could not be contradicted by any rules, by any political intervention was a crazy idea” (web 1). The previous financial crisis–known as the Great Depression–occurred in 1929. The then president of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had similar sentiments to those expressed by Sarkozy. During the next five years of his presidency, Roosevelt would adopt a policy of strong government intervention in the free market and lift the United States out of the Great Depression. Marx describes the financial crisis of the mid-1800s. The cause of the 1866 financial crisis was overproduction and the failure of the London Bank in relation to credit. We recall that money is a representation of human-energy as value in commodities. After all, “money is a veil behind which the action of real, economic forces is concealed” (Pigou in Kishtainy, 2012: 299). When the financial economy violates the law of conservation of energy, a crisis will occur. In the quote below, Marx argues that even the “aristocracy of the working class” are not immune from capitalism’s harsh impacts: Before I turn to the regular agricultural labourers, I may be allowed to show, by one example, how industrial revulsions affect even the best-paid, the aristocracy, of the working class. It will be remembered that the year 1857 brought one of the great crises with which the industrial cycle periodically ends. The next termination of the cycle was due in 1866. Already discounted in the regular factory districts by the cotton famine, which threw much capital from its wonted sphere into the great centres of the money-market, the crisis assumed, at this time, an especially financial character. Its outbreak in 1866 was signalised by the failure of a gigantic London Bank, immediately followed by the collapse of countless swindling companies. One of the great London branches of industry involved in the catastrophe was iron shipbuilding. The magnates of this trade had not only over-produced beyond all measure during the overtrading time, but they had, besides, engaged in enormous contracts on the speculation that credit would be forthcoming to an equivalent extent. Now, a terrible reaction set in, that even at this hour (the end of March, 1867) continues in this and other London industries (733-734).

Capitalism incorporates the entire of nature and society into its accumulation machine. Acting under the neoliberal guise of human progress and development–but motivated by the competition for accumulation–capitalism continues its accumulation march over people

306

Chapter Twenty

and the natural environment. It seeks out more and newer forms of energy to both grow its accumulation machinery and accelerate the speed at which it does so. Its love-hate relationship with human-energy compels it to function with the most calculating of strategies. Marx describes the modus operandi of infant capitalism in the once idyllic countryside of England–a countryside described nostalgically by Oliver Goldsmith in his poem “The Deserted Village”: “how often have I loitered o’er thy green, where humble happiness endeared each scene!” (1770). The countryside that Goldsmith once knew was no more. It is a countryside that now grows exchange-value on its land as “the man of wealth and pride; takes up a space that many poor supplied” (1770). Like the many countries in the world which craft laws to attract cheap migrant work when human-energy is required for a prospering economy, so too do farmers keep the peasants off the land and then devise ways to attract back their human-energy “when English agriculture, so careful and intensive, wants extra hands”. If the “free” market allows for the freedom to exchange commodities, then human-energy which is “freed” for sale in the human-energy market is as a result of the “forcible draining of men from the surface of the land”: The continual emigration to the towns, the continual formation of surplus population in the country through the concentration of farms, conversion of arable land into pasture, machinery, &c., and the continual eviction of the agricultural population by the destruction of their cottages, go hand in hand. The more empty the district is of men, the greater is its ‘relative surplus population,’ the greater is their pressure on the means of employment, the greater is the absolute excess of the agricultural population over the means for housing it, the greater, therefore, in the villages is the local surplus population and the most pestilential packing together of human beings. The packing together of knots of men in scattered little villages and small country towns corresponds to the forcible draining of men from the surface of the land. The continuous superseding of the agricultural labourers, in spite of their diminishing number and the increasing mass of their products, gives birth to their pauperism. Their pauperism is ultimately a motive to their eviction and the chief source of their miserable housing which breaks down their last power of resistance and makes them mere slaves of the landed proprietors and the farmers. Thus the minimum of wages becomes a law of Nature to them. On the other hand, the land, in spite of its constant ‘relative surplus population,’ is at the same time underpopulated. This is seen, not only locally at the points where the efflux of men to towns, mines, railroad-making, &c., is most marked. It is to be seen everywhere, in harvest-time as well as in spring and summer, at those frequently recurring times when English agriculture, so careful and intensive, wants extra hands. There are always too many agricultural labourers for the ordinary, and always too few for the

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

307

exceptional or temporary needs of the cultivation of the soil. Hence we find in the official documents contradictory complaints from the same places of deficiency and excess of labour simultaneously. The temporary or local want of labour brings about no rise in wages, but a forcing of the women and children into the fields, and exploitation at an age constantly lowered. As soon as the exploitation of the women and children takes place on a larger scale, it becomes in turn a new means of making a surplus population of the male agricultural labourer and of keeping down his wage. In the east of England thrives a beautiful fruit of this vicious circle–the socalled gang-system, to which I must briefly return here (761-762).

Labour brokering, in the 21st century, is one of the methods used by capitalism to accumulate: “Third party labour contractors are increasingly prevalent in Global Production Networks (GPNs), and are a potential channel for ‘new forms of slavery’” (Barrientos, 2011: 3). Marx gives us an insight into one of the very first acts of the outsourcing of work. By passing on the recruitment and management of workers and their humanenergy to external agents, the capitalist farmer displaces the exploitation of human-energy from his sphere of influence to that of the gang master; what we nowadays may refer to as a labour broker. However, unlike present-day labour brokers, the labour broker of Marx’s time earned just a little more than “his” workers: The gang consists of 10 to 40 or 50 persons, women, young persons of both sexes (13-18 years of age, although the boys are for the most part eliminated at the age of 13), and children of both sexes (6-13 years of age). At the head is the gang master, always an ordinary agricultural labourer, generally what is called a bad lot, a scapegrace, unsteady, drunken, but with a dash of enterprise and savoir-faire [sophistication]. He is the recruiting-sergeant for the gang, which works under him, not under the farmer. He generally arranges with the latter for piece-work, and his income, which on the average is not very much above that of an ordinary agricultural labourer, depends almost entirely upon the dexterity with which he manages to extract within the shortest time the greatest possible amount of labour from his gang (764).

In his poem The Deserted Village, Goldsmith mourns the loss of humanity: “where wealth accumulates, and men decay” (1770). 100 years later, in Capital, Marx would mention the dichotomy of capitalism’s development: “the cleanly weeded land, and the uncleanly human weeds, of Lincolnshire, are pole and counterpole of capitalistic production.” In the capitalistic world of the 21st century, the developed world’s dependency on the countries of the South for natural resources is an established fact. In Western Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, England depended on

308

Chapter Twenty

Ireland for raw materials as well as workers for its industries and its military: England, a country with fully developed capitalist production, and preeminently industrial, would have bled to death with such a drain of population as Ireland has suffered. But Ireland is at present only an agricultural district of England, marked off by a wide channel from the country to which it yields corn, wool, cattle, industrial and military recruits (771).

Marx’s “general law of capitalist accumulation” sought to show the far-reaching tentacles of capitalism, from factories and workshops to all other spheres of wider society. London, New York, Dubai, Hong Kong, Beijing, etc. are capitals of the world, and are also places of accumulated capital. The concentration of capital entails putting more surplus-value into production, and branching off into other capitalistic ventures. Centralisation, on the other hand, entails mergers, taking over other businesses, driving people out of business, etc. Capital also moves its accumulation to other countries: “From 1970 to 2008–in a period of 39 years–$1.8 trillion dollars has been illicitly taken out of Africa” (Kar and Kartright-Smith, 2008). Capitalism, over time, will become more capitalintensive and less worker-intensive, as it constantly revolutionises its “method of production” (Foley, 1986: 125). One of the biggest contradictions of capitalism is that the employed are forced to over-work in the context of high unemployment levels. Since the 2008 money crisis, unemployment is still on the rise: Over 201 million were unemployed in 2014 around the world, over 31 million more than before the start of the global crisis. And, global unemployment is expected to increase by 3 million in 2015 and by a further 8 million in the following four years (ILO, 2015: 13).

London stands tall as the financial capital of the world, but it was built on the backs of the workers of the Industrial Revolution and colonised lands. The accumulation of capital by the elite in all countries has been fairly well documented since the 2008 financial crisis. The high suicide rate caused by the 2008 financial crisis is the offspring of the ruthlessness of capitalism. In his book Liquid Times–Living in an Age of Uncertainty, Zygmunt Bauman states: “ninety per cent of the total wealth of the planet remains in the hands of just 1 per cent of the planet’s inhabitants” (2007: 6). According to Oxfam (2015: 2): “in 2014, the richest 1% of people in the world owned 48% of global wealth, leaving just 52% to be shared

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation

309

between the other 99% of adults on the planet.” In Capital in the TwentyFirst Century, Pikkety (2014: 438) writes: The wealthiest 1 percent–45 million people out of 4.5 billion–have about 3 million euros a piece on average. This is about 50 times the size of the average global fortune, or 50 percent of total global wealth in aggregate.

This is the state of the concentration of wealth and the inequality gap in the world in the 21st century, more than 150 years after Marx wrote Capital. Since the 2008 capitalist crisis, the hard-won gains of the working class over the centuries have come under various forms of attack. Whilst political economy believed that the free market would see to the upkeep of the common man, Marx’s analysis in Capital shows this to be the opposite of true. It is because of his lack of faith in “the invisible hand” and its ability to serve the interests of workers that Marx believed workers’ interests could only be secured by themselves. Time–like “the invisible hand”–also does not heal the plight of the working class. Instead, the workers’ collective human-energies will win them their “rightful” place in history. Hence, Marx’s core principle for the interests of the workers–as inscribed on his tombstone: WORKERS OF ALL LANDS UNITE.

CHAPTER TWENTY ONE PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION: THE VIOLENT HISTORY OF CAPITALISM AND THE LABOUR MARKET AIDED BY THE HEAVY HAND OF THE STATE

Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of selfinterest backed by force. —George Bernard Shaw Our land is everything to us...I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember that our grandfathers paid for it– with their lives. —John Wooden Legs

Where did it all start? How did the commodity come to be defined primarily by its exchange-value? How did one man become a seller of human-energy, and the other a buyer of human-energy? What was the starting point for manufacture, and the concentration of workers into factories and workshops? How did “Mr Moneybags” come into money, enabling him to purchase ample quantities of human-energy, the means of production and raw materials? What did the slave-dealers do with all of the money that they got from the slave trade? Where did all of the money acquired from usury and interest during the Middle Ages go? Where did all the money, in the form of gold, stolen from foreign lands end up? Why do we have a world made up of capitalists and wage-workers? What happened to the communal property once owned by people throughout the world? What happened to all of the self-earned property once owned by people throughout the world? Why do some people have land, means of production, etc. as their private property, and the rest of humankind have primarily their human-energy as their private property? How did the free market, with no or very little state intervention in the economy, become the mediator of economic life in modern society? How did we come to be a society obsessed with making commodities comprising surplus-value?

Primitive Accumulation

311

How did capitalism come into existence? Marx provides answers to many of these questions in part 8 of Capital: “The So-Called Primitive Accumulation.” The 2008 financial crisis caused scholars–even economists– to look at the history of capitalism. By the 17th century, England was the most capitalistic country of the world (Kocka, 2010). In her book The Relentless Revolution-A History of Capitalism, Appleby (2010: 25) defines capitalism as “a cultural system rooted in economic practices that rotate around the imperative of private investors to turn a profit”. The uniqueness of capitalism as an economic system is that it is based on wage labour (work), i.e. it is dependent on the continuous availability of human-energy, which it finds in the free market. In chapter 6 of Capital, titled “The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power”, Marx stated: The question why this free labourer confronts him in the market, has no interest for the owner of money, who regards the labour-market as a branch of the general market for commodities. And for the present it interests us just as little. We cling to the fact theoretically, as he does practically. One thing, however, is clear–nature does not produce on the one side owners of money or commodities, and on the other men possessing nothing but their own labour-power. This relation has no natural basis, neither is its social basis one that is common to all historical periods. It is clearly the result of a past historical development, the product of many economic revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series of older forms of social production (188).

If “nature does not produce on the one side owners of money or commodities, and on the other men possessing nothing but their own labour-power”, then we have to look to history for the cause of such a state of affairs. Intelligence and the entrepreneurial spirit are usually associated with the wealth component of the capitalistic system. Another concept that forms the basis of the capitalistic order is that of “laissez faire, laissez passer”– meaning little or no government in the affairs of commerce and business (Pirenne, 1914). Political economy and neoliberal economic science portray capitalism as a natural system, whereby man has to compete with man in order to accumulate wealth. According to the German philosopher Hegel, the ideal spirit will lead humankind to an ideal world sometime in the future. Hence we hear from most economists on a daily basis that there have to be rich people in order to create jobs and lift the masses out of poverty. The capitalistic economy has also been allocated a mystical and miraculous aura, placing the nature of the economy squarely in the hands of a divinity. This discourse has been made famous by the single one-liner by Adam Smith: “the invisible hand.” However, we have been historically awakened by Marx–as well as by the

312

Chapter Twenty One

events of the 20th and 21st centuries–to the myth of such a doctrine. One of the 20th century’s teleological economic advocates of capitalism was Walt Whitman Rostow, who championed the five stages of capitalistic economic development which a country supposedly has to undergo in order to be considered progressive, developed and successful. All these scholars of the past and the present who uphold the logic of capitalism are popularised in the public domain and university texts. Some are even immortalised in the symbolic culture of capitalist society–a classic example being Adam Smith, whose portrait appears on the dollar notes of the American fiat money–the currency standard for the entire world. What Marx does in the chapter on “primitive accumulation” is to counter the silence of classical and mainstream economists as to the violent beginnings of the capitalistic mode of production. The question that we are now faced with is: how did capitalism take root? As a salvo against the political economists of his time, Marx provides an answer with the chapter titled “the Secret of Primitive Accumulation”. Whilst Adam Smith recognised that the capitalist would have had to commence from an already acquired wealth base, he artfully used the concept “previous accumulation”–a concept that conceals the violent beginnings of the capitalist system. Thus far, in the main, we have examined capitalism within its own so-called economic boundary. However, the capitalistic system–like any other system–has historical roots and does not exist in a space-time vacuum. We also witness in mainstream economic analysis the de-contextualisation of the capitalist economy from the biophysical context or natural environment. The energy flows into and out of the capitalist economy are also downplayed or negated. I have also pointed out the tendency of mainstream economic analysis to mask labour-power as labour, as well as to have a “blind spot” regarding the concept of humanenergy. Marx reminds us that the capitalist system, which forms the architecture of living in the 21st century, has its root-ends dipped in primitive accumulation, a historical process that commenced about five centuries ago. From the outset of Capital, Marx reveals how money is converted into capital, and how capital produces surplus-value, which in turn produces more capital. But in order for capitalism as we know it to have commenced, it has to have had a “beginning”. If surplus-value is converted into capital, then surplus human-energy had to be expended to generate surplus-value. In order for surplus human-energy to be readily available, then it is necessary that such human-energy be extricated from the land. Whereas Adam Smith viewed the precursor to capitalist development as “previous accumulation”, and Walt Whitman Rostow

Primitive Accumulation

313

viewed the birth of capitalism as “preconditions for take-off”, Marx viewed the genesis of capitalism as “primitive accumulation”: We have seen how money is changed into capital; how through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour-power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalistic accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalistic mode of production, but its starting point (784).

The biblical rendition of life on earth–and in heaven–is a strongly held one. It seems that with all of the science that pervades our lives, superstition is still a modern cultural trait. It is no coincidence that capitalism would rather have religion mask its real nature and have science consolidate and strengthen its nature. If sin commenced with Adam biting the apple, then evil ran riot on earth when nation states grabbed entire “apple orchards”. In the information age, the dominant narrative is still one of society being ordained by the “heavens above” to be divided into masters and servants or capitalists and workers. A recent speaker on television, when asked about the 80 individuals that own the wealth of almost 3.5 billion people combined, remarked upon his satisfaction with such a state of affairs. He commented that the 80 individuals were an excellent example of what the other 3.5 billion people can strive towards! If Marx, in his time, thought that a biblical framework to understanding the economy was one of “insipid childishness”, then such a comment, when made by a speaker in the 21st century, is definitely one of outright ideological propaganda, in defence of the capitalist order: This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great

314

Chapter Twenty One majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property (784).

Private property in the 21st century–like in the 19th century–is wrapped in a sacred cloth and portrayed as having been part of an “idyllic” existence from the beginning of time. Private property is always partnered with society, religion and family. Private property is the cornerstone of the capitalist order–and even the slightest threat to private property is a strike at the heart of capitalism. But the very powers that protect the existence of private property are the same powers that have turned common property and self-earned property into capitalistic private property over the ages. Hence, Marx states: “in actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part” and that “as a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic” (564). In Capital, Marx mostly analysed capitalism from the perspective of the capitalist buying human-energy, and the worker selling his human-energy. It was taken as a given by political economy that the worker comes into the world naturally as a worker, and the capitalist naturally as a capitalist. Through such a parochial lens, the worker is perceived to be fortunate to be employed by the capitalist. The question that lurks behind such a phenomenon is: what historical conditions force workers to sell their human-energy commodity, even though they may appear free to do so? The capitalist system presupposes the complete separation of the labourers from all property in the means by which they can realise their labour. As soon as capitalist production is once on its own legs, it not only maintains this separation, but reproduces it on a continually extending scale. The process, therefore, that clears the way for the capitalist system, can be none other than the process which takes away from the labourer the possession of his means of production; a process that transforms, on the one hand, the social means of subsistence and of production into capital, on the other, the immediate producers into wage-labourers. The so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms the prehistoric stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it (785-786).

Life is a seamless flow of energy transformations, oscillating between order and entropy. With the changes in energy sources and applications in the adolescent centuries of capitalism, we also observe changes in modes

Primitive Accumulation

315

of production. Slave society would have been constructed mainly by the human-energy of slaves, and animal energy in the form of horse-power, cattle and oxen. Feudal society would have had a similar energy base, but with peasants largely forming the human-energy pool. Animal energy also formed a large part of the economic foundation of feudal society. Driven by the imperative to accumulate, capitalism would be built mainly on the foundation of human-energy, but would grow its energy base with other forms of discovered energy source. A transition from one society to the next is predicated on the transition from one energy source to the next, and the manner in which this energy source is put to use. Marx states that: “the economic structure of capitalist society has grown out of the economic structure of feudal society. The dissolution of the latter set free the elements of the former” (565). If human-energy in the form of peasants were “freed” from the land, this human-energy was again “imprisoned” with the beginnings of capitalistic manufacture, and then capitalistic industry. With nowhere to go, and nothing but their human-energy to exchange for a meagre livelihood, the peasants in their millions were a readily available reservoir of human-energy for the hungry capitalistic monster. Mainstream history, according to Marx, tells the story of how “imprisoned” man of past feudal and slave societies was freed; never of how man once again became “imprisoned” by the capitalistic mode of production: The immediate producer, the labourer, could only dispose of his own person after he had ceased to be attached to the soil and ceased to be the slave, serf, or bondman of another. To become a free seller of labourpower, who carries his commodity wherever he finds a market, he must further have escaped from the regime of the guilds, their rules for apprentices and journeymen, and the impediments of their labour regulations. Hence, the historical movement which changes the producers into wage-workers, appears, on the one hand, as their emancipation from serfdom and from the fetters of the guilds, and this side alone exists for our bourgeois historians. But, on the other hand, these new freedmen became sellers of themselves only after they had been robbed of all their own means of production, and of all the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal arrangements. And the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire (786).

Economic history may be twisted, turned, distorted or overlooked, but its impacts are felt by nature and the poor people of the world on a daily basis. After 500 years of capitalism, there are still many living in abject poverty, whilst some live in conspicuous affluence. But Marx lifts the veil off the violent birth of this anti-human, anti-nature economic system,

316

Chapter Twenty One

whose existential motive is to accumulate. History is littered with the violent extraction of people from their lands, and England (Great Britain) was the biggest beneficiary of primitive accumulation. If man appears to “freely” sell his human-energy as a commodity in the free market, it is because he has been “freed” of his land and his self-earned property, or means of production, by the violent beginnings of capitalism: In the history of primitive accumulation, all revolutions are epoch-making that act as levers for the capital class in course of formation; but, above all, those moments when great masses of men are suddenly and forcibly torn from their means of subsistence, and hurled as free and ‘unattached’ proletarians on the labour-market. The expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant, from the soil, is the basis of the whole process. The history of this expropriation, in different countries, assumes different aspects, and runs through its various phases in different orders of succession, and at different periods. In England alone, which we take as our example, has it the classic form (787).

Land-grabs, aided and abetted by the state, were the first, key element of the primitive accumulation of capital. Whilst work and human-energy are the conduits for wealth creation, the land is the source of all wealth. By seizing the source of all wealth viz. the peoples’ land, as well as securing a readily available and steady supply of workers and human-energy, capitalism had secured its formula and assets for primitive accumulation. The powerful forces of society–the most powerful being that of the British army–systematically and forcefully evicted people from their land–their giver of life. Whilst the feudal lords were in conflict with their king, the king himself, God’s ruler on earth, oversaw the injustices that plagued the lands of Great Britain. The dissolution of the old way of life, the feudal way of life, and the birth of a new way of life, the capitalistic way of life, are said to have commenced around 1450. 550 years later, the capitalistic system that was born and bred on the forceful and violent theft of land continues to expropriate land from peoples throughout the world. Capitalism then converts the confiscated land into private ownership, and subsumes it in capital accumulation. In England, wool was once the revered commodity and its owners, the sheep, were a species valued over and above man. Man, once the “ruler” of the earth, had to “give up” his land to bleating sheep. “Like lambs to the slaughter”, the evicted peasants would soon “offer” their human-energy to the capitalistic system that was about to take off in 15th century England. Where peasants once lived, worked, played and prayed, the sheep roamed free:

Primitive Accumulation

317

In insolent conflict with king and parliament, the great feudal lords created an incomparably larger proletariat by the forcible driving of the peasantry from the land, to which the latter had the same feudal right as the lord himself, and by the usurpation of the common lands. The rapid rise of the Flemish wool manufactures, and the corresponding rise in the price of wool in England, gave the direct impulse to these evictions. The old nobility had been devoured by the great feudal wars. The new nobility was the child of its time, for which money was the power of all powers. Transformation of arable land into sheep-walks was, therefore, its cry (789-790).

Land that was held by the Catholic Church was confiscated or sold off at next-to-nothing prices to those with wealth or of higher standing. Even “the legally guaranteed property of the poorer folk in a part of the church’s tithes was tacitly confiscated” (569), and these folk converted into humanenergy dispensers. As the economic and social lives of the people were transformed, the governing class had to respond to the burgeoning pauperism by officially introducing a “poor rate”. It was not the poor rate that caused pauperism, but rather pauperism that forced the emergence of a poor rate. Marx’s maxim that “being determines consciousness” becomes evident when “the law itself becomes now the instrument of the theft of the people’s land”. Hence the law upholding and protecting appropriated private property was born and bred in the blood, sweat and tears of the many people that were once removed from their communal or self-earned property. By destroying the institutions of communal and democratically owned property, capitalism secured the institutions of private and antidemocratically owned property. With the expropriation of communal and self-earned property, farmland swelled in size to form what in the 18th century were referred to as “capital farms” or “merchant farms”. The inhabitants of communal land were directed to the manufacturing industries where, as proletarians, their human-energy would be seized upon, extracted and converted into surplus-value, profit and capital accumulation: Communal property–always distinct from the State property just dealt with–was an old Teutonic institution which lived on under cover of feudalism. We have seen how the forcible usurpation of this, generally accompanied by the turning of arable into pasture land, begins at the end of the 15th and extends into the 16th century. But, at that time, the process was carried on by means of individual acts of violence against which legislation, for a hundred and fifty years, fought in vain. The advance made by the 18th century shows itself in this, that the law itself becomes now the instrument of the theft of the people’s land, although the large farmers make use of their little independent methods as well. The parliamentary

318

Chapter Twenty One form of the robbery is that of Acts for enclosures of Commons, in other words, decrees by which the landlords grant themselves the people’s land as private property, decrees of expropriation of the people (795-796).

We observe that the creation of capitalist wealth is nothing but the conversion of sustainable livelihoods into lives of poverty. In the example provided by Marx, the “enclosure of commons”, in producing wealth for a small section of society, produced poverty for the many others. In neoliberal economic science, we are constantly bombarded with the marvels of trickle-down economics; claims that in time wealth will filter down to the masses. However, a Marxian analysis points to the contrary– that it is in fact the sustainable livelihoods of the masses that are gradually siphoned off by the powerful in society, thereby concentrating large quantities of wealth in the hands of a few. Under 21st century capitalism, the extremely wealthy are sometimes referred to as oligarchs, a term that is associated with the super-rich in capitalist society. Under capitalism, wealth concentrates, and is never distributed by the rich, though some amongst the rich do engage in philanthropy. In the following quote, Marx points to the general “amnesia” and historical “blind spot” regarding the roles played by the rich and the state in the theft of common land. It is indeed the case that “those who control the means of production also control the information and knowledge that is produced”–the superstructure is heavily weighted in favour of the ruling class: In the 19th century, the very memory of the connexion between the agricultural labourer and the communal property had, of course, vanished. To say nothing of more recent times, have the agricultural population received a farthing of compensation for the 3,511,770 acres of common land which between 1801 and 1831 were stolen from them and by parliamentary devices presented to the landlords by the landlords? (800).

In the 1600s, Queen Elizabeth I cried: “the poor man is everywhere in subjection” (569). In the capitalism of the 21st century, millions are without homes, even though they are born into the home of nature. Like sheep, which took precedence when it came to land during the clearing of the peasants, it is still the case in many countries that animals are given more land and more protection than people. In many places in the world, the capitalist system has pitted man against the animal kingdom. Having commenced in the 15th century, land clearing became the hallmark of capitalism. Centuries later, capitalism continues unabated in its quest to “free” the land of people, or “free” the people from their land and thereby convert them to wage-workers. Land-grabs from indigenous and naturebased peoples have almost always resulted in investors and developers

Primitive Accumulation

319

gathering and growing vast riches, with the resultant impoverishment of indigenous and nature-based communities. Land held in common is perceived to be holding countries back from capitalistic forms of economic development and the attainment of a higher GDP. Cultural and ideological productions, an example being Hardin’s 1968 “The Tragedy of the Commons”, are used as economic templates to justify and goad governments and businesses into privatising land held in common. 19th century Scotland is provided as a case study of the ruthless gene of agricultural capitalism, under the stewardship of a ruthless member of the royal household. If royalty was practiced in the palace, then ruthlessness was the order of the day in the land of the Scots, ruled over by “this fine lady”–the Duchess of Sutherland: As an example of the method obtaining in the 19th century, the ‘clearing’ made by the Duchess of Sutherland will suffice here. This person, well instructed in economy, resolved, on entering upon her government, to effect a radical cure, and to turn the whole country, whose population had already been, by earlier processes of the like kind, reduced to 15,000, into a sheep-walk. From 1814 to 1820 these 15,000 inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically hunted and rooted out. All their villages were destroyed and burnt, all their fields turned into pasturage. British soldiers enforced this eviction, and came to blows with the inhabitants. One old woman was burnt to death in the flames of the hut, which she refused to leave. Thus this fine lady appropriated 794,000 acres of land that had from time immemorial belonged to the clan. She assigned to the expelled inhabitants about 6,000 acres on the sea-shore–2 acres per family. The 6,000 acres had until this time lain waste, and brought in no income to their owners. The Duchess, in the nobility of her heart, actually went so far as to let these at an average rent of 2s. 6d. per acre to the clansmen, who for centuries had shed their blood for her family. The whole of the stolen clanland she divided into 29 great sheep farms, each inhabited by a single family, for the most part imported English farm-servants. In the year 1835 the 15,000 Gaels were already replaced by 131,000 sheep. The remnant of the aborigines flung on the sea-shore tried to live by catching fish. They became amphibious and lived, as an English author says, half on land and half on water, and withal only half on both (801-802).

Marx points out that capitalist private property is a relatively new institution, even though it may appear to be a pervasive institution in the globalised world of the 21st century. What belonged to the many was usurped and concentrated in the hands of a few. What is now considered as a sacred institution under capitalism was ill-gotten, and mostly through violent means. What is now propagated as the natural set-up of modern society was a non-existent entity just a few centuries ago. If capital

320

Chapter Twenty One

accumulation in the modern world takes place through the “invisible hand” of the market, then communal property was grabbed and converted into private property by the iron fist of the state. With the conversion of communal and self-earned property into capitalistic private property, the “free” worker was born: The spoliation of the church’s property, the fraudulent alienation of the State domains, the robbery of the common lands, the usurpation of feudal and clan property, and its transformation into modern private property under circumstances of reckless terrorism, were just so many idyllic methods of primitive accumulation. They conquered the field for capitalistic agriculture, made the soil part and parcel of capital, and created for the town industries the necessary supply of a ‘free’ and outlawed proletariat (805).

We have thus far gained insights into how communal property was converted into “modern private property”. The question that we are now confronted with is: what happened to the millions of inhabitants that were thrown off of their land, and who could not find work in the manufacturing workshops of Britain from the 15th century onwards? With history made transparent through Marx’s “primitive accumulation”, the obvious consequence of a people without land and without work is a society littered with “beggars, robbers, vagabonds”, etc. To be a vagabond is to also practice the nature-given gift of the freedom of movement–though a limited form of movement in the prevalence of modern private property. In 21st century England, spikes are placed in public places in order to prevent the homeless from taking naps in such places. This in the land which gave the world capitalism for 550 years; a system that was mooted to take people out of poverty! A sign that says “Trespassers Will be Prosecuted” is a sign that ensures that freedom of movement is curtailed or restricted. Hence the first salvo against the freedom of movement in the age of capitalism is that of modern private property. The second salvo that sought to restrict freedom of movement on public or common property was legislation sanctioned by the kings and queens of Western Europe. To recall, the all-enduring salvo that seals the fate of the movement of man under the capitalist order is that of clock-time as implemented in the work sphere, as well as in society at large. In the 21st century, movements are also carefully watched by powerful governments, through the many cameras that line city streets. We also note how the movement of refugees and migrants in Europe is severely restricted in the midst of the refugee and migrant crisis of 2015. To think that one of the core principles of the formation of the European Union was to do with the freedom of

Primitive Accumulation

321

movement! It is therefore not surprising that one of the posters held up in a London rally against David Cameron and his government’s lack of positive leadership, a “leadership” that maintains an uncomfortable “silence” on the refugee and migrant crisis, said: “Humans are OK!” Man is born free to roam and move in nature’s domain, but everywhere his movements are bound by capitalism’s “ball and chain”: The proletariat created by the breaking up of the bands of feudal retainers and by the forcible expropriation of the people from the soil, this ‘free’ proletariat could not possibly be absorbed by the nascent manufactures as fast as it was thrown upon the world. On the other hand, these men, suddenly dragged from their wanted mode of life, could not as suddenly adapt themselves to the discipline of their new condition. They were turned en masse into beggars, robbers, vagabonds, partly from inclination, in most cases from stress of circumstances. Hence at the end of the 15th and during the whole of the 16th century, throughout Western Europe a bloody legislation against vagabondage. The fathers of the present working class were chastised for their enforced transformation into vagabonds and paupers. Legislation treated them as ‘voluntary’ criminals, and assumed that it depended on their own good will to go on working under the old conditions that no longer existed (805-806).

As if having their land stolen from them and not having the “opportunity” to exchange their human-energy for a wage was not enough to bear; the beggars and vagabonds were “whipped”, had their “ears branded” or “sliced off” and were sometimes “executed” as per legislations overseen by “Their Majesties” Henry VII, then Henry VIII and subsequently Queen Elizabeth I. All of this with the explicit intention of curtailing their movements and forcing them to adapt to be sellers of the only commodity that they carried with them, their human-energy: Thus were the agricultural people, first forcibly expropriated from the soil, driven from their homes, turned into vagabonds, and then whipped, branded, tortured by laws grotesquely terrible, into the discipline necessary for the wage system (808-809).

Marx forces us to step outside of the capitalist system and see it for what it is: a system whose adherents and “sycophants” have perfected the art and “science” of justifying what is really an unjust, unequal and unfree economic system. Through the centuries, the working class have been able to organise themselves and challenge the exploitative nature of capitalism. Nevertheless, capitalism has always managed–with the explicit and implicit assistance of the state–to overcome all threats posed by the working class. Where and when the working class go on strike, by

322

Chapter Twenty One

withholding or conserving their human-energy, their daily livelihoods are threatened by the lack of an income, thereby highlighting their dependence on the capitalist system for their survival. The laws of capitalism, aided and abetted by the laws of the state, secure its power over the working class, compelling the worker to accept his fate in life as merely a dispenser of human-energy. Once a horse is tamed, its movements are thereafter regulated by the cracking of the whip, learnt communication and symbols. Its movements proceed thenceforth to work for the interests of its owner. Similarly, once the guns and laws of the state re-engineer pre-capitalistic societies to reconstitute themselves into capitalistic ones, then the culture of capitalism itself does the work of socialising man into its ways, workings and thinking. Capitalist doctrine views the “invisible hand” as the conductor of the affairs of society, ensuring that the system works in the best interest of all. But what is now considered an “invisible hand” was once the “strong arm” or “heavy hand” of the state and private interest groups. Such heavy handedness and interventionist measures ensured the deepening, strengthening and consolidation of the capitalistic system. Those born into the capitalistic order learn along the way that capitalism is a natural and eternal system. But Marx’s account of historical capitalism reminds us that violence is bred in the bone of the capitalistic system: It is not enough that the conditions of labour are concentrated in a mass, in the shape of capital, at the one pole of society, while at the other are grouped masses of men, who have nothing to sell but their labour-power. Neither is it enough that they are compelled to sell it voluntarily. The advance of capitalist production develops a working class, which by education, tradition, habit, looks upon the conditions of that mode of production as self-evident laws of nature. The organisation of the capitalist process of production, once fully developed, breaks down all resistance. The constant generation of a relative surplus-population keeps the law of supply and demand of labour, and therefore keeps wages, in a rut that corresponds with the wants of capital. The dull compulsion of economic relations completes the subjection of the labourer to the capitalist. Direct force, outside economic conditions, is of course still used, but only exceptionally. In the ordinary run of things, the labourer can be left to the ‘natural laws of production,’ i.e., to his dependence on capital, a dependence springing from, and guaranteed in perpetuity by, the conditions of production themselves. It is otherwise during the historic genesis of capitalist production. The bourgeoisie, at its rise, wants and uses the power of the state to ‘regulate’ wages, i.e., to force them within the limits suitable for surplus value-making, to lengthen the working day and to keep the labourer himself in the normal degree of dependence. This is an essential element of the so-called primitive accumulation (809).

Primitive Accumulation

323

In the 14th century–in its infant stage of accumulation–the contradictions existing within and without the capitalist system were still in their budding phases. Notwithstanding the fact that peasants were converted to wageworkers, guild organisations were dominated by the hands and humanenergy of workers, and not complicated tools, or simple machinery, for that matter. With an as yet undeveloped constant capital base, but with the ever-increasing accumulation of capital, human-energy and the hand of the worker were increasingly in demand but lacking in supply. Along the path of capitalist development–a process “evolving through many centuries”– the agricultural capitalist emerged before the industrial capitalist. England, in the 15th and 16th centuries, witnessed small-scale farmers growing their wealth through “the agricultural revolution”, “employing wage workers” and paying them a low wage, “the usurpation of the common lands” and the “augmentation of cattle”. “No wonder, therefore, that England at the end of the 16th century, had a class of capitalist farmers, rich, considering the circumstances of the time” (816). In the following of Marx’s thoughts, we begin to detect the opportunistic character of capital, supplying the wage-worker with the required things that he historically provided for himself and his family. It could even be argued that slavery as we know it finally ended, because the cost of keeping a slave may have been more than the cost of a slave-turned-wage-worker. It was also more financially beneficial for a master to hire out his slave. Just as in manufacture and industry, the agricultural worker expends more of his human-energy working for the capitalist farmer than for himself and his family. Having originally been thrown off the land, human-energy was gradually transformed into variable capital. The appropriated means of production formed the foundation of constant capital for the historically emerging capitalist: In spite of the smaller number of its cultivators, the soil brought forth as much or more produce, after as before, because the revolution in the conditions of landed property was accompanied by improved methods of culture, greater co-operation, concentration of the means of production, &c., and because not only were the agricultural wage labourers put on the strain more intensely, but the field of production on which they worked for themselves became more and more contracted. With the setting free of a part of the agricultural population, therefore, their former means of nourishment were also set free. They were now transformed into material elements of variable capital. The peasant, expropriated and cast adrift, must buy their value in the form of wages, from his new master, the industrial capitalist. That which holds good of the means of subsistence holds with the raw materials of industry dependent upon home agriculture. They were transformed into an element of constant capital (817-818).

324

Chapter Twenty One

To recap, when energy and human-energy are contracted in space, then they can be directed away from “useless activities” and aimed towards the production of commodities embodying surplus-value and profit. Hence by collecting the tools, machines, workers and raw materials from small cottage workshops, and concentrating them in larger barracks, the budding capitalist had unknowingly “discovered” the efficient and economical use and expenditure of human-energy. By shrinking transport time, play time, resting time, talking time, contemplating time, etc., capitalism transformed the various times of man into full on work-time. In actual fact, the humanenergy traditionally expended in transport, play, rest, talk, thinking, etc., was now “freed” to be directed primarily to the production of surplusvalue. The secret to capitalism’s development is its ability to create objective conditions for the worker to dispense as large a quantity of human-energy as possible in a given measured time: The spindles and looms, formerly scattered over the face of the country, are now crowded together in a few great labour-barracks, together with the labourers and the raw material. And spindles, looms, raw material, are now transformed from means of independent existence for the spinners and weavers, into means for commanding them and sucking out of them unpaid labour. One does not perceive, when looking at the large manufactories and the large farms, that they have originated from the throwing into one of many small centres of production, and have been built up by the expropriation of many small independent producers (818).

Two forms of capital were inherited by the capitalist mode of production from the middle ages viz., usurer’s capital and merchant’s capital (822). In the main, capitalist development was spurred on by the colonisation of other continents and countries, the looting of common lands and natural resources, and the subjugation of the colonised to slavery and wage-work. Christopher Columbus is celebrated for discovering the new world. However, “he also deserves to be remembered for initiating the American slave trade” (Meltzer, 1993: 4). Europe was in conflict with itself, both over domestic territory and over colonies, and “even a vast continent like Africa was not big enough to satisfy national ambitions” (Lindsay, 1979: 18). In the case of South Africa, centuries of colonisation “culminated in the notorious Land Act of 1913” (Wilson and Ramphele, 1989: 191); with the dispossession of land, the landless started to depend more on wage-work for their survival (Hendricks and Ntsbeza, 2010: 227). Their human-energy was exploited by an “economic system of colonial and racial capitalism” (Terreblanche, 2005: 420). In 1805, war in Europe resumed, and in 1806 the British sent a large force to the Cape, which easily defeated the small Dutch garrison. The indigenous peoples of South

Primitive Accumulation

325

Africa would soon come face to face with “the world’s strongest empire”, and “serve as large new reserves of manpower” (Johnson, 2004: 63). By combining the “assets obtained by colonising foreign continents”, England was able to achieve “industrial growth with substantial economic benefits, primarily to be reaped by the factory owners” (Sørensen, 2012: 337). Having commenced around 1672, by the year 1800, 120 ships per annum were leaving the shores of England, transporting 35,000 slaves. With her enormous profits from the slave trade, “England built her commercial supremacy”, which helped launch the Industrial Revolution. Africa was also carved out as a market for England’s commodities (Meltzer, 1993: 43). Many atrocities were committed by the colonial powers against the colonised; the umbilical cord of capitalist development stretches all the way to the colonised lands of the world. The majority of man’s ancestors who were closest to nature, the hunter-gathers of all five continents, were decimated, in the main by colonial powers. Others had their human-energy “tamed” to perform different types of work for their conquerors. From Native Americans to Aborigines to Africans, their ways of life would be no more, as the colonial powers expropriated their lands, and subjected these lands and the conquered to the machinery of primitive accumulation and capitalist development. Through the power of the state, capitalism and its ensuing power were born. Marx states in Capital: The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England’s Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China, &c…. The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power (823824).

326

Chapter Twenty One

The Indian continent received its political independence from the British Empire in 1945. However, for centuries, the British Empire had caused the ruin of India through its colonial policies and practices. Besides serving as a continent for the extraction of natural resources, as well as a carved-out market to which British goods would flow, India also served as a strategic “base from which Britain could dominate southern Asia and the Indian Ocean” in order to expand its economic interests. Tea and opium are synonymous with India and Britain–the latter being the beneficiary of proceeds from both (James, 2004: 138). In looking east, Britain had greatly swelled her loot through primitive accumulation, which formed the foundation from which modern capitalism would take off: The English East India Company, as is well known, obtained, besides the political rule in India, the exclusive monopoly of the tea-trade, as well as of the Chinese trade in general, and of the transport of goods to and from Europe. But the coasting trade of India and between the islands, as well as the internal trade of India, were the monopoly of the higher employés of the company. The monopolies of salt, opium, betel and other commodities, were inexhaustible mines of wealth. The employés themselves fixed the price and plundered at will the unhappy Hindus. The Governor-General took part in this private traffic. His favourites received contracts under conditions whereby they, cleverer than the alchemists, made gold out of nothing. Great fortunes sprang up like mushrooms in a day; primitive accumulation went on without the advance of a shilling (825).

History makes geography transparent, and vice-versa. Whilst industrial capitalism took off in England, the “treasures captured outside Europe by undisguised looting, enslavement, and murder, floated back to the mothercountry and were there turned into capital”, and started England on the way to becoming a wealthy and powerful country. As capitalism developed in England, the colonies also formed a ready-made market for England’s commodities. Back then, the free market was under the command and control of the British Empire, and was as free as a slave in an iron ball and chain. Thus far Marx’s argument is that primitive accumulation–the precursor to capitalist development–is anything but laissez faire–let alone idyllic. The free market and capitalism, in their historical beginnings, were as incompatible as peace and violence. Fast forward a few centuries to 2008, and we have the biggest ever money and credit crisis marking the beginning of the 21st century. The lesson that debunks the first myth of neoliberal economic science is: that the capitalist free market cannot be relied on to rule over the commodity and money transactions of human society, where exploitation, capital accumulation and the destruction of nature are the order of the day. As the capitalist free

Primitive Accumulation

327

market stood by in uncomfortable silence, the states in the developed world dished out outrageous sums of money to private banks and businesses. The lesson that debunks the second myth of neoliberal economic science is: the state does intervene in the capitalist free market– to secure and safeguard the economic interests of the rich and powerful. When states seek to act in the interest of the majority of their citizens, for example by providing government-aided health care, education, etc., the activists of the private sector bellow: “Nanny State!” However, with the handing out of social money to private businesses during the 2008 financial crisis, there was a hypocritical silence regarding the use of the “Nanny State” label; on the contrary, these actions were referred to as “bail-out” measures! Throughout the history of capitalism–if we look carefully–we find the active intervention of the state to sustain the capitalist order. In so far as the private wealth of individuals and families is accumulated through the aiding and abetting of an interventionist state, then a form of “primitive accumulation” is also at work in the 21st century. The 2008 money crisis revealed the incompetence of the “invisible hand” at fixing capitalist free market failure. The crisis also revealed the active intervention of states in many parts of the world that prevents large private enterprises from falling through the economic cracks, especially in the US and the continent of Europe, the birthplaces of capitalistic free market ideology. It is an expensive lesson for the taxpayer about how a serious subject such as the economy cannot be left to invisible body parts to sort out. With the socialised rescue package for private individuals, the “invisible hand” superstition is dying a slow but sure death. The most recent form of “primitive accumulation” is the “austerity measures” forced by powerful countries on the common people, workers and the unemployed; Greece being a case in point. The country that gave the world democracy was itself denied democracy by the developed world during the 2008 financial crisis. The Greek people were prevented from holding a referendum on whether to accept the austerity measures imposed on the country by the elites, the European Union, the IMF and the World Bank. The source of the 2008 financial crisis was pinned down as the irresponsible handing out of credit for purchasing homes to the American people by banks. So countries like Greece now sit with public debt that they can ill afford to pay back to the European Union, a collective of countries embracing co-operation and togetherness, but advocating the ideology of individualism and competition amongst other countries of the world. The US banking system also had a primary role in the Great Depression between 1929 and 1933 (Fergusson, 2009). Having originated in “Genoa and Venice in the middle ages”, we observe that public debt is a

328

Chapter Twenty One

big feature of 21st century living. Venice and Genoa were also the birthplaces of banking houses (Galbraith, 1975: 18). Credit attempts to guarantee capitalism’s existence into the future, whilst securing capital accumulation in the present. For Marx, “public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation”. It is said that, in the 21st century, banks are too big to fail. In contemporary times, banks hold huge quantities of investment and retirement funds (Kocka, 2010). We recall that money represents human-energy, which finds its expression in gold, which is real mass. However, if fiat money does not find its expression in real mass, representing human-energy, then you have a situation whereby banks have, in effect, attempted to create human-energy, which violates the first law of energy conservation. In order to overcome the violation of this law, the financial system implodes, leading to what is known as a bust in the economy. By introducing fiat money, banks have therefore created money out of “thin air”, so to speak. The financial system–like the natural world–is subject to the law of energy conservation. The Tulip Financial Crisis of 1600, the crisis in the 1800s, the Great Depression of 1929 and the Great Recession of 2008 are historical testimonies to the fact that the financial world is rooted in the material world, a world of mass and energy, and that it cannot grow wings of its own, however the growth pundits would like to think of infinite growth: Hence the accumulation of the national debt has no more infallible measure than the successive rise in the stock of these banks, whose full development dates from the founding of the Bank of England in 1694. The Bank of England began with lending its money to the Government at 8%; at the same time it was empowered by Parliament to coin money out of the same capital, by lending it again to the public in the form of bank-notes. It was allowed to use these notes for discounting bills, making advances on commodities, and for buying the precious metals. It was not long ere this credit-money, made by the bank itself, became the coin in which the Bank of England made its loans to the State, and paid, on account of the state, the interest on the public debt. It was not enough that the bank gave with one hand and took back more with the other; it remained, even whilst receiving, the eternal creditor of the nation down to the last shilling advanced. Gradually it became inevitably the receptacle of the metallic hoard of the country, and the centre of gravity of all commercial credit. What effect was produced on their contemporaries by the sudden uprising of this brood of bankocrats, financiers, rentiers, brokers, stock-jobbers, &c., is proved by the writings of that time (828).

Marx makes the link between the exploited child workers of the Industrial Revolution and the financial capital that existed in the United

Primitive Accumulation

329

States at that time. As long as money is the proxy or representative for the quantity of human-energy expended, then hidden behind the money form is the human form. The mass of real money that exists in the world today is a representation of human-energy expended in the production sphere. When a country’s debt rises, it means that the country is living on the human-energy of its citizens that has not yet been expended. In order to close the gap between human-energy “consumed” and human-energy “owed”, states make laws that are intended to usurp more of its peoples’ human-energy, through increasing the retirement age, increasing working hours, raising taxes, etc. Marx traces national debt to the time when Venice was the financial capital of the world–and a lender of money. Today, London and New York are the financial capitals of the world, and the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund lend money to governments and large institutions. With the 2008 financial crisis, countries that are steeped in debt are faced with major social and political upheavals. The political project of the 20th century–the European Union–is revealing cracks in its collectivisation endeavour as countries face internal pressure to exit the EU. In 2015, Greece elected a new government in response to the austerity measures imposed by the European Union. But even the once leftist government of Greece could not escape the contradictions of capitalism, as strongly held views on anti-austerity measures tore the political establishment of Greece apart. The economic world does seem to rule the political world. The base-structure does seem to condition the superstructure. The real world does seem to trump the ideal world. Being does seem to “determine” consciousness: With the national debt arose an international credit system, which often conceals one of the sources of primitive accumulation in this or that people. Thus the villainies of the Venetian thieving system formed one of the secret bases of the capital-wealth of Holland to whom Venice in her decadence lent large sums of money. So also was it with Holland and England. By the beginning of the 18th century the Dutch manufactures were far outstripped. Holland had ceased to be the nation preponderant in commerce and industry. One of its main lines of business, therefore, from 1701-1776, is the lending out of enormous quantities of capital, especially to its great rival England. The same thing is going on today between England and the United States. A great deal of capital, which appears today in the United States without any certificate of birth, was yesterday, in England, the capitalised blood of children. (828-829).

The world was globalised long before the concept of “globalisation” became fashionable. Again, history makes geography more transparent. Whilst England and the United States are on two different continents, their

330

Chapter Twenty One

economies were tied at the navel. Just as the owners of the “satanic mills” depended on the children of England, so too did the United States of America depend on slaves for the creation of surplus-value: Whilst the cotton industry introduced child-slavery in England, it gave in the United States a stimulus to the transformation of the earlier, more or less patriarchal slavery, into a system of commercial exploitation. In fact, the veiled slavery of the wage workers in Europe needed, for its pedestal, slavery pure and simple in the new world (833).

The world is saturated with human-energy markets, into which both workers and capitalists enter; the one to sell and the other to buy. That this is so pervasive and embedded in our society makes it appear as if nature has produced these diametrically opposed economic species, the capitalist and the worker. Marx is speaking sarcastically, in reference to the erroneous beliefs of political economy, when he refers to capitalism as a nature-imposed system. If anything, it is a system of “laws” that has been established through a particular historical process–a historical process steeped in plunder, looting, murder and greed. Through primitive accumulation, the state plants the seeds from which capitalists and workers grow; the one with the means to produce, and the other with his humanenergy to exchange. Wherever he goes, the worker carries a sign that says HUMAN-ENERGY FOR SALE: Tantae molis erat, to establish the ‘eternal laws of Nature’ of the capitalist mode of production, to complete the process of separation between labourers and conditions of labour, to transform, at one pole, the social means of production and subsistence into capital, at the opposite pole, the mass of the population into wage labourers, into ‘free labouring poor,’ that artificial product of modern society. If money, according to Augier, ‘comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,’ capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt (833-834).

Like all “roads which lead to Rome”, primitive accumulation in all lands finally finds its destiny in the modern capitalist mode of production in England. Where once, self-earned private property was generated through the work of its owner, under capitalism, modern private property emerges firstly through the confiscation of the property of the dispossessed, and secondly through wage-work: From that moment new forces and new passions spring up in the bosom of society; but the old social organization fetters them and keeps them down. It must be annihilated; it is annihilated. Its annihilation, the transformation of the individualised and scattered means of production into socially

Primitive Accumulation

331

concentrated ones, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, the expropriation of the great mass of the people from the soil, from the means of subsistence, and from the means of labour, this fearful and painful expropriation of the mass of the people forms the prelude to the history of capital. It comprises a series of forcible methods, of which we have passed in review only those that have been epochmaking as methods of the primitive accumulation of capital. The expropriation of the immediate producers was accomplished with merciless Vandalism, and under the stimulus of passions the most infamous, the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious. Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e., on wage labour (835-836).

If primitive accumulation planted the seed of the capitalist epoch, then it also inadvertently planted the seed for the class struggle–which is still ongoing after centuries. In Marx’s quote below, we observe the transition of capitalism from state-dependency to “Strong Man”! With such a transition emerges the privatisation of the means of production and the socialisation of work; the strengthened capitalist system also brings together workers into a single class formation. Marx’s thought below is a clear and concise analysis of the capitalist system, past, present and future–not in terms of time, but in terms of the transformation of society. We gain an insight into how capitalism grows roots in all corners of the globe and captures the entire world in its web of accumulation, the natural environment included. Never has the earth been more transformed than under the capitalist order. The intensification of the globalisation process increases and so does the concentration and centralisation of capital. Once capitalism takes off from the groundwork prepared by primitive accumulation, it then depends on its “immanent laws” to continue on its freeway of destruction and accumulation, until its demise, predicted by Marx, as a result of its internal contradictions: As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the labourers are turned into proletarians, their means of labour into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labour and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of

332

Chapter Twenty One capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-Market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated (836837).

The free market and “the invisible hand” were conspicuous by their absence when budding capitalists were on the look-out for land, means of production and human-energy. In the genesis, history and final “destiny” of capitalism, Marx identified two economic historical shifts: one, the violent transformation of common property and “self-earned private property” into “capitalistic private property”, and two, the usurpation of “capitalistic private property” by the workers, who, according to Marx, are the only creators of wealth. The latter is what you might call democratic action to relieve the autocratic capitalist class of capitalist private property and wealth which have been attained through means which were anything but free, just, fair and democratic: The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people (837).

Primitive Accumulation

333

Marx exposes the obvious ideological bent of political economy regarding its understanding of private property. It is all well and good to proclaim the existence of private property and the wage worker as a nature-bestowed set of affairs, but primitive accumulation presupposes capitalistic private property and the free worker. Having established the institution of capitalist law and property in Western Europe, once primitive accumulation was secured, the capitalist model was exported to the colonies. However, when the political economy paradigm confronted the self-sufficiency of the colonies, it triggered primitive accumulation in order to create the material conditions that fit its world-view regarding capitalist private property and the free worker. Capitalist law and property, with their roots dipped in violence, plunder and murder, were the ideal paradigms held up for the colonised of the world. In the colonies, man was part of an economy that did not compel him and his family to live off wage-work. That would soon change with the coming of the colonialists and political economy to the far ends of the earth: Political economy confuses on principle two very different kinds of private property, of which one rests on the producers’ own labour, the other on the employment of the labour of others. It forgets that the latter not only is the direct antithesis of the former, but absolutely grows on its tomb only. In Western Europe, the home of political economy, the process of primitive accumulation is more or less accomplished. Here the capitalist regime has either directly conquered the whole domain of national production, or, where economic conditions are less developed, it, at least, indirectly controls those strata of society which, though belonging to the antiquated mode of production, continue to exist side by side with it in gradual decay. To this ready-made world of capital, the political economist applies the notions of law and of property inherited from a pre-capitalistic world with all the more anxious zeal and all the greater unction, the more loudly the facts cry out in the face of his ideology. It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime everywhere comes into collision with the resistance of the producer, who, as owner of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself, instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic systems, manifest itself here practically in a struggle between them. Where the capitalist has at his back the power of the mother-country, he tries to clear out of his way by force the modes of production and appropriation based on the independent labour of the producer. The same interest, which compels the sycophant of capital, the political economist, in the mothercountry, to proclaim the theoretical identity of the capitalist mode of production with its contrary, that same interest compels him in the colonies to make a clean breast of it, and to proclaim aloud the antagonism of the two modes of production. To this end, he proves how the development of

334

Chapter Twenty One the social productive power of labour, co-operation, division of labour, use of machinery on a large scale, &c., are impossible without the expropriation of the labourers, and the corresponding transformation of their means of production into capital. In the interest of the so-called national wealth, he seeks for artificial means to ensure the poverty of the people. Here his apologetic armor crumbles off, bit by bit, like rotten touchwood (838-839).

The definition of who or what constitutes a capitalist is an elusive one in the 21st century, since wage-work is the feature of so many aspects of the economy. Marx states that being an owner of self-earned property, money, machines or any other means utilised in the production process does not, in and of itself, place the badge of capitalist on a man. It is only when there is a readily available supply of human-energy which can be exchanged for a wage, and which the man with money and capital can purchase, that he takes on the role of a capitalist. The colony that Marx uses to demonstrate his argument is Australia. In 1776, Captain James Cook sailed to Australia, and declared the country “no man’s land”. “Everyone knows, if he knows nothing else” that Australia was the land of the Aborigines. Marx uses the narrative of Mr Wakefield to demonstrate that if there is ample land from which people can draw a sustainable livelihood, capitalism does not have “a dog’s chance” of taking root. If people are able to live off the land, then capitalism is denied the ready and available supply of human-energy it needs to take off and continue as a mode of production. This illustration by Wakefield was evidence that there was no free market for human-energy in the colonies. If a free humanenergy market did emerge, then it was only after the indigenous inhabitants were “freed” from their land. In an earlier thought, Marx ridicules the political economists’ “iron law” of supply and demand. In the following quote, we note that the notion of supply and demand is conditioned by factors such as the availability of other choices from which to draw a livelihood. This led Marx to pronounce that “capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things”. It seems that, if really given a choice, people would choose freedom from capitalism, rather than to be “free” to sell their human-energy to the capitalist accumulation machine: First of all, Wakefield discovered that in the Colonies, property in money, means of subsistence, machines, and other means of production, does not as yet stamp a man as a capitalist if there be wanting the correlative–the wage-worker, the other man who is compelled to sell himself of his own free will. He discovered that capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things. Mr. Peel, he

Primitive Accumulation

335

moans, took with him from England to Swan River, West Australia, means of subsistence and of production to the quantity of £50,000. Mr. Peel had the foresight to bring with him, besides, 300 persons of the working class, men, women, and children. Once arrived at his destination, ‘Mr. Peel was left without a servant to make his bed or fetch him water from the river.’ Unhappy Mr. Peel who provided for everything except the export of English modes of production to Swan River! (839-840).

History reveals that capitalistic private property and the free humanenergy market are made possible with the “freeing” of the land, and the “freeing” of indigenous peoples from their land. The economic texts used in schools, colleges and universities do not narrate the violent beginnings of the capitalistic form of private property. The Milton Friedmans of mainstream economic science artfully dodge the violent historical beginnings of capitalism, in a similar manner to that in which Adam Smith did: We have seen that the expropriation of the mass of the people from the soil forms the basis of the capitalist mode of production. The essence of a free colony, on the contrary, consists in this–that the bulk of the soil is still public property, and every settler on it therefore can turn part of it into his private property and individual means of production, without hindering the later settlers in the same operation. This is the secret both of the prosperity of the colonies and of their inveterate vice–opposition to the establishment of capital (841-842).

Once primitive accumulation provides the green shoots of capitalism, capitalism performs the magnificent trick of “not only constantly reproducing the wage-worker as wage-worker, but produces always, in production to the accumulation of capital, a relative surplus-population of wage-workers”. In this way, capitalism regulates the “law of supply and demand” of human-energy. This manufactured reality is what the political economist insists has been the status quo since time immemorial, i.e. the system of capitalism is a “free contract between buyer and seller, between equally independent owners of commodities, the owner of the commodity capital and the owner of the commodity”, human-energy. However, in the colonies, where wage-workers did not exist, they were artificially created by the artificial pricing of the land on which they lived. Marx refers to such a process as the “violation of the sacred law of supply and demand”, as some segments of English society are exported to the colonies to secure a ready and available supply of human-energy for capitalist accumulation. The main thrust of Marx’s argument in discussing the colonial project is:

336

Chapter Twenty One that the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of self-earned private property; in other words, the expropriation of the labourer (848).

In the 21st century, almost two centuries after Marx wrote Capital, there are many places in the world where people are forced off of their lands. As a result of not having a land of their own, millions of people around the globe possess human-energy that is “floating, stagnant or latent”. There are also capitalistic-induced conflicts throughout the world, from Africa to the Middle East. Such conflicts also cause massive displacement of people, and they and their human-energy have no land or natural resources to work on. Whilst primitive accumulation was the handmaiden of capitalism, austerity, privatisation and bail-outs of the 21st century are all different faces of primitive accumulation, the heavy hand of the state seeking to give capitalism a hand up when it stumbles on its way to historical oblivion. If commodities possess exchange-value and surplusvalue in the modern world, then its history lies in the primitive accumulation of capital, and the violent carving out of the human-energy market for the production of these exchange-value and surplus-value commodities. Modern capitalism is the violent child of history. Even in the modern, 21st century civilised world, its intrinsic violent nature rears its ugly head now and then–as in the Marikana Massacre of August 2012.

CHAPTER TWENTY TWO CONCLUSION: TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SCIENCES INFORMED BY THE LAWS OF ENERGY

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. —John Maynard Keynes Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist. —Kenneth E. Boulding

Adam Smith, in An Inquiry into the Causes of The Wealth of Nations (2003 [1776]: 572), stated that the free market or “invisible hand” would ensure that man: by pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

Marx’s critique was not against capitalism or the capitalist per se, but against the “scientific” manner in which the scholarly section of society analysed and understood this historical epoch. Hence, his seminal work was not titled Capital, A Critique of Capitalism. Neither was it titled Capital, A Critique of the Capitalist. The full title of Marx’s seminal work is Capital, A Critique of Political Economy. Marx had “accepted” the narrative of the classical political economists, and political economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, William Petty, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, etc. However, through Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, he showed that Adam Smith’s doctrine of “own interest” has not benefitted the whole of humankind. Adam Smith’s “own interest” ideology has instead benefitted a minority in the world, and caused untold

338

Chapter Twenty Two

hardship, poverty, suffering and death for the rest of mankind, during its ideological reign–and still does. Marx had learnt a lot about the “science” of economics from the political economists of his time and of before. Their thoughts formed a large part of the foundation on which he wrote Capital, A Critique of Political Economy. What Marx did, however, was to turn their arguments on their heads, in the same way that he “turned Hegel on his head”. In Capital, Marx did not construct the world of capitalism; nor did he construct a world of socialism, communism or utopia, for that matter. What he did do was deconstruct the world of capitalism as constructed by political economy, and laid bare its “heart and soul”. We may think of the material nature of capitalism as its “heart”, and its ideological nature as its “soul”. For Marx, classical political economy, what we now call economic science, failed in its attempts to fully and factually explain the economic life of man. The first main aim of Capital, I believe, was to get us to understand how and why capital and capitalism is continuously produced and reproduced. The second aim, I believe, was to get us to understand that capitalism is another historical epoch in the life of man, and not the ahistorical, nature-based system alluded to by political economy. At the outset of Capital, Marx had accepted how economy and society had been presented by scholars of political economy. But for the “millennium’s greatest thinker”, the beauty of capitalism was but “skin-deep”. He “accepted” the world as it appeared, as it was portrayed by political economy scholars before and during his lifetime, but worked towards deciphering its real character, its inner workings, its “DNA”. It is only as the book unfolds through its many pages that the layers concealing the real nature of capitalism are assiduously peeled away, and we see capitalism for what it is: a ruthless system stamped with an emblem saying “Made in History”, and not “Made in Nature”. By the end of Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, the “bad guy” is not the individual capitalist per se, but capitalism as a historically evolving system. For Marx, individual capitalists are but mere role-players in the grand scheme of unfolding history, not immune to history’s workings: triumphs and tribulations, peace and war, love and hate, life and death, hope and despair, victory and defeat, dialogue and violence, sanity and depression, good and evil, God and the Devil. Contradictions are to capitalism what blood is to vampires. In traversing the continuum of the imagined to the real, Marx untangled the contradictory knots holding together the political economy narrative of capitalism. His analytical telescope was first pointed at the material nature of society, the commodity and money, before he turned to the social, political, geographical and the historical origin of capital. Marx took all of

Conclusion

339

the arguments of political economy as given, and treated them as “facts”, but gradually, he pulled apart the ideological glue which meshed together such illusory ideas as equality, freedom, democracy and just prices under capitalism. Bit by bit, he unravelled the scam of the capitalist system, and the flawed thinking of its economic “scientists”. He stood in the shoes of political economy and took cognisance of its views about capitalism from top to bottom. But then, he gradually and meticulously exposed the Capitalistic Emperor and his courtyard advisors from bottom to top. He retraced capitalism’s steps, and with each step, exposed the real nature of the system–beyond appearances and ideological garb. His verdict: the global modern capitalistic economy rests on the material architecture carved out by a history of violence, theft and bloodshed, and upheld as a natural system by the doctrines of the political economists of the 18th and 19th centuries. In Capital, Marx showed that, contrary to the doctrine of political economy: “if money, according to Augier, comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek, capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt” (833-834). If Adam Smith was the ideological spokesperson for classical political economy during the budding days of capitalistic development, then Milton Friedman was the ideological spokesperson of the neoliberal economic science of modern capitalism in its highly developed form. Building on the foundation of political economy, contemporary neoliberal economic science upholds a 500-year-old system as the economic template for all of humankind’s time on earth–approximately three million years. 500 years of capitalistic time is about 0.05% of the economic lifetime of man on earth. In this 0.05% of man’s lifetime on earth, capitalism has destroyed the livelihoods of many, and has proven to be a monstrous parasite on nature. For more than 100 years, countries such as the Soviet Union would try to circumvent the capitalistic way of life, but capitalism has proven to have a strangle-hold on history thus far. On the 20th of November 1989, the Berlin Wall, separating the capitalist West from the communist East, was torn down. The world, in the main, celebrated the triumph of capitalism and the free market over communism and a stateplanned economy. It is 26 years since the Berlin Wall was taken down. The triumph of capitalism was celebrated as signalling the “end of history”. The “spectre of communism” that Marx warned was spreading throughout Europe in his lifetime was not even a “lame duck”. It was a dead duck, even after 150 years of the Communist Manifesto. Marx’s scholarly goose, it seemed, was cooked. However, it has not all been smooth sailing for capitalism. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 2008

340

Chapter Twenty Two

financial crisis witnessed governments violating free market doctrine in order to bail out the capitalistic private sector. The more aware in society whispered: “Socialism and state protection for the rich, capitalism and the free market for the poor!” The Capitalistic Emperor was stripped of his ideological clothes by his own praise-singers! “Nanny states” intervened and aided the rich in society, and left the masses exposed to austerity measures and the vagaries of the free market. Capitalism came out as “top dog” when the Berlin Wall fell on the 20th of November 1989. However, the government intervention in the 2008 private sector crisis dealt capitalism a huge ideological blow. Mainstream economic science, capitalist sympathisers and “sycophants” can never again argue with conviction (although it has not deterred them from trying) for a free market without the visible hand of the state. By bailing out a large private sector component of the US, Hank Paulson, the US Treasurer General of the George Bush era, unwittingly struck down the main ideological pillar of capitalism–very little or no interference from the state. The world would never again appear “black and white” in terms of state intervention or no state intervention in the free market. The cheerleading country of capitalism and the free market, the US, could no longer preach to the rest of the world about the virtues of state non-intervention in the economy. The ideological foundation of capitalism has been shaken at its very core. In the 1600s Queen Elizabeth I cried: “the poor man is everywhere in subjection” (569). In 2009, 400 years later, her distant heir to the throne, Queen Elizabeth II asked a gathering of economists at the London School of Economics why none of the world-renowned economists foresaw the financial crisis of 2008, a condition that was to generate relative poverty amongst her “subjects”. “Why did nobody notice it?” she asked. The formal response to Her Majesty, The Queen, a week or so later, was: In summary, Your Majesty, the failure to foresee the timing, extent and severity of the crisis and to head it off, while it had many causes, was principally a failure of the collective imagination of many bright people, both in this country and internationally, to understand the risks to the system as a whole (Stewart, 2009, Sunday 26th July).

According to Rist (2011: 162): “the crisis that shook the world economy from summer 2007 is what we have to thank for the redoubled intensity of the critiques of economic ‘science.’” It seems economic science has lots of “homework” to do in order to better understand the workings of the capitalist economy. It would do well to commence with the violent history of capitalism and the state’s active role in designing and executing the infrastructure of capitalism, and continue with the study of

Conclusion

341

how energy in general, and human-energy in particular, was and is fundamental to capitalism’s accumulative character. For about 250 years, governments, businesses, mainstream economic science, etc. have abided religiously by Adam Smith’s teachings on the nature of man in the world: by pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good (2003 [1776]: 572).

What 21st century woman and man now know is that we have never known so much harm to be done to the natural environment under the economic principle of “own interest”. If “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”, then it seems that having no intention to promote the public good leads directly to “hell” itself. Never has nature been so transformed than it has under the capitalist mode of production, under the ideological umbrella of “own interest”. Capitalism’s pursuit of endless accumulation of profit has resulted in huge social and ecological costs (Clark and York, 2005: 394). This is because, under the current economic system, huge quantities of matter are continuously converted into energy (Georgescu-Roegen, 1977: 268-269). Man has to take from nature in order to live, but in the capitalist era, man consumes huge volumes of nature and at too quick a pace. Scale and speed of production and consumption are friends of capitalism, but the nemesis of nature. Scale and speed of production and consumption also result in the obesity and stresses of people in a capitalist competitive world. Whereas nature produces and consumes in natural time, capitalism produces and consumes with measured time as its helper. Since “greed is good” for capitalism, then speed helps feed capitalism’s need for greed. Whilst previous societies appropriated “subjects” such as fish, timber, fruit, roots, gold, etc. from nature’s ecosystems, capitalist society is now known to appropriate such colossal volumes of “subjects” from ecosystems that nature has been stamped as “degraded” or “under threat” from rapacious development. Many of nature’s “subjects” have become extinct, or are at risk of becoming extinct. If capitalism exploits human-energy by paying the worker less than the actual value that his or her human-energy creates, then nature is exploited, because it offers its energy “gratis” to man. With the accumulation of capital, we have the depreciation of nature. If political economists saw wealth in every commodity, and if indeed “earth is the mother and labour the father”, as William Petty famously stated, then political economy was blind not to see the poverty of nature present in every surplus-value commodity. Nature and historical capitalism are on

342

Chapter Twenty Two

a collision course. Man and nature are sacrificed at the altar of capital accumulation. In capitalist society, in the main, man is perceived to be separate from nature. It is indeed a capitalist-induced pathology of the mind to believe that man is separate from nature. The impacts of capitalism, as devastating as they have been, and are, are rationalised under the banner of human progress. The so-called march of the progress of modern man is not to be disturbed by elementary concerns such as the state of nature under the capitalistic mode of production. All other things, it seems, such as unemployment, poverty, etc., are incidental or insignificant in relation to capital accumulation. Nature is bundled up and tossed onto the conveyor belt of capital accumulation. Nature is the substrate into which value is injected. If the worker’s human-energy is drawn into the accumulation fold, so is the natural environment. With more natural resources extracted from nature, capitalist man grows richer with material mass–whilst nature grows poorer in biodiversity. During the Industrial Revolution, speed “contaminated” the natural environment, as nature was devoured at high speeds for the hungry machines in the “satanic mills” of 18th and 19th century England. Modern industry devours nature’s resources at break-neck speed, and spews out waste into her lap at break-neck speed as well. With machines and fossil-energy replacing human-energy for the extraction of raw materials, the natural environment proceeds to take on the form of a global factory as division of work, machinery and inanimate forms of energy produce and reproduce nature’s destruction in order to further expand and develop capitalism’s construction. The displacement of human-energy in favour of energy from nature means that nature has to give off “herself” to the capitalistic mode of production. She cannot give off “herself” in large quantities and at high speeds and still remain whole, natural and healthy. Higher and more powerful forms of energy will consume more natural resources from nature. As long as capitalism continues to displace human-energy in favour of inanimate forms of energy, then the destruction of the natural environment will continue unabated. With the ushering in of the Industrial Revolution, nature also had to give way to the built environment, as vast tracts of the natural environment had to be cleared, and continue to be cleared in the 21st century capitalistic world, for accumulative infrastructure development. It is the giant scale and speedy rate at which the natural environment has been and is being carved out which has given social-birth to environmental science and the numerous disciplinary branches of environmental studies. Besides the exploitation of workers, the other hazard of a system predicated on limitlessness is that its material base, i.e. earth, is predicated on finiteness.

Conclusion

343

If you have an economic system based on infiniteness living off a finite planet, you have the ingredients for environmental disasters of various sorts. That capitalism leaves behind devastation in the natural environment in its quest for more energy is considered collateral damage by the advocates of capitalism, the state included. Also, the distribution network is a dazzling arena of commodity movement. The goal is to enable the flow of commodities to more places, in many directions, and at an increasing speed. From the ocean-ways to the airways, the freeways to the railways, surplus-value commodities are on the move; every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every month and every year, the cycle continues. It is the brilliant distribution network of the capitalistic free market that witnesses the movement of commodities to all destinations on earth’s landscapes. But the incessant movement of surplus-value commodities requires huge quantities of energy, and in the 21st century, every bit of nature’s energy is harvested and placed in the service of commodity production and movement. The state of energy in the world at present is different from the state of energy in the world when Adam Smith wrote An Enquiry into the Causes of the Wealth of Nations, and when Marx wrote Capital, A Critique of Political Economy. The logic of capitalism is to use energy efficiently–which it does, in the production process. However, capitalism’s accumulation logic results in the highly inefficient and unsustainable use of energy. Our human activities seem out of sync with the rhythms of nature, and we have reached a stage in global economic development whereby, not only is the earth being consumed at an alarming rate, it is also heating up as a result of our incessant energybased economic activities. Capitalism is eating away the earth. It is doing this through the medium of energy. The nature of man under the capitalist mode of production is to make money and accumulate. But the nature of man under nature is to live according to the laws of nature, as understood via the laws of energy. However, while the laws of nature have always existed, not so the nature and laws of capitalism: With respect to the physical world, then, it was the primary duty of the natural philosopher to guide students to see for themselves the truth that, since the laws of Nature were unalterable by human beings, man had to work according to those laws if he were to avoid failure. Man therefore needed to acknowledge in humility his limitations. Unable to create, destroy or restore energy, man could nevertheless work with the laws to direct available energy by means of his will and for his use (Smith, 1998: 240).

344

Chapter Twenty Two

Many regions of the world have “experienced two hundred years of colonising growth”, as they believe that growth is necessary for survival (Odum, 1973: 222). Analytical studies have also shown that economic growth strongly parallels energy utilisation (Rosa et al., 1988: 158). During the capitalist epoch, one major environmental catastrophe is global warming, and subsequent climate change–consequences of the type of world that capitalism and the Industrial Revolution spawned, a world that relies on colossal quantities of energy for its accumulation logic. Earth has become both a “free-for-all”, in terms of the daily destruction of the natural environment, and a waste-dump for all of capitalism’s harmful wastes. Waste heat, as a result of capitalism’s need and greed for unlimited energy, is leading and will lead to more warming of planet earth. The capitalist mode of production, through its dependence on huge quantities of energy and its subsequent generation of waste-heat, is a major contributor to increased global temperature, which in turn influences the climate. Since the Industrial Revolution, world energy use has increased twenty-fold and fossil fuel has risen more than 150-fold (Holdren, 2008 cited in Brown et al., 2011: 21). Climate change negotiations commenced in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, under the auspices of the United Nations. With continuing increases in energy use, even though countries are signatories to the Convention, negotiations are still ongoing into the 21st century, under the banner of the Conference of Parties (Mckibben and Wilcoxen, 2002: 121). It is now 2016, and negotiations are still ongoing! The constant postponement of a legally binding agreement on curbing fossil energy use reveals the staying power of capitalism. Many environmental and social disasters plaguing the world have been linked to climate change. In recent times, natural disasters tend to be more frequent and even more devastating. The line distorting the inextricable link between nature and society is fast dissipating under capitalism, and nowhere is this more evident than in the arena of climate change. The laws of energy bear down on both nature and man. Whether it is the greening of capitalism, or sustainable development, or renewable energy; once nature’s consumption is informed by the logic of capitalism, then nature will depreciate. It does not matter if the economy is termed brown or green; if the nature of capitalism is accumulation, then nature will depreciate. If the world economy experiences an average growth of 7% per annum, the law of conservation of energy “pronounces” that nature loses on average 7% of her “subjects” to economic growth per annum. The growth of the capitalist economy far outpaces the growth of nature. The two growths are incompatible with each other. Capitalism has grown in gigantic proportions since it first gained traction and snowballed through

Conclusion

345

history. In the age of climate change, there is erroneously much focus on nuclear energy and renewable energy. However, in order to harness such energy, extensive technological development is necessary, and this itself requires huge loads of energy. The dominant narrative regarding the causes of global warming and subsequent climate change is one pertaining to the supply of energy sources. The problem with capitalism, however, is not necessarily the supply of energy, but rather capitalism’s infinite demand for energy. The type of energy is not the issue. As to whether the energy is of a renewable or non-renewable type, this is also not the issue or the problem. What is renewable by the laws of nature becomes nonrenewable under the laws of capitalism. If capitalism foregoes depth for energy feedstock, then it will devour surface area in order to capture socalled renewable energy such as wind and solar. When renewable energy, within a capitalist paradigm, is perceived to be the solution, society will encounter a major negative impact of one sort or another. For as long as capitalism is the economic system by which we choose to live our lives, it will not be satisfied–even if it has “sucked the sun” out of the universe to feed its energy appetite. Mainstream climate science states that the greenhouse effect is due to the trapped energy of the sun’s rays as a result of CO2 build-up in the atmosphere. It is time for climate scientists to look at the heat produced and trapped in the atmosphere as a result of the world’s consumption of huge volumes of energy. My focus in this book, thus far, has been on the first law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of energy conservation. Another important energy law is the second law of thermodynamics: “in a closed system, entropy, a measure of disorder and formlessness, will rise over time” (Kovel, 2011: 10). The second law of thermodynamics is instrumental for understanding the conversion of energy into waste heat, and the latter’s subsequent contributing effect to increases in average global temperature. According to Brown et al. (2011: 22), increases in energy consumption and GDP also increase negative impacts on the natural environment, thereby reducing biodiversity and changing the climate. A thermodynamic perspective of the modes of production must be considered in economic science (Cleveland et al. 1984: 890; Eberhart, 2007: 11). The terms “entropy, thermodynamics, or first and second laws” were not used widely during Marx’s time. Hence, Marxism has tended to ignore the importance of thermodynamics in ecological economics (Burkett and Foster, 2006: 110). More energy utilisation equals more waste heat production; they are two sides of the same coin. Thomson introduced the concept of thermodynamics in 1849, and it initially referred to the laws of heat as a source of power (Burkett

346

Chapter Twenty Two

and Foster, 2006: 132). All types of energy eventually end up as unusable heat (Dixon, 1973: 147; Roegen, 1975: 351; Cleveland et al., 1984: 890; Neal, 1983: 4). During the Industrial Revolution, steam engines would emit large quantities of heat into the atmosphere. In contemporary society, tens of millions of cars emit colossal quantities of heat into the atmosphere. The industrial towers that dot the geographical landscape on planet earth are by the second, minute, hour and day emitting large quantities of heat into the atmosphere (Eberhart, 2007: 33). In the last 40 years, the oceans have been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system, thereby causing seawater to expand and the sea level to rise (Herbert, 2007: 7). For decades, the global commons, oceans and the atmosphere, have served as heat-sinks for capitalist production. These global commons are now reaching saturation levels as a result of heat build-up, and we are witnessing this perversion of nature in unusual weather patterns, and the many natural disasters occurring in many parts of the world. With climate change adversely affecting weather patterns, and threatening all forms of life, indefinite wars in the Middle East owing to its rich energy deposits, and a highly unequal world, a world “gone mad”, the economic, social and environmental sciences are compelled to understand, analyse and respond to the energy challenges of our historical time. Human-energy cannot be excluded from the energy landscape any longer. More specifically, this “life force” cannot be left to exist under the cover of “labour-power”. Society in general, and universities in particular, should shed the outdated concepts of “labour” and “labour-power”, and begin to decrypt the role of energy in general, and human-energy in particular, in the material economy. With the help of William Petty, Marx removed the mist, concealing the ever present existence of nature in a commodity: “labour is its father and the earth its mother.” In this insightful thought, we see that no production can occur without nature as a material participant. Man changes nature through the medium of his human-energy. Hence, the exploitation of nature is inextricably linked to the exploitation of the worker–they are not mutually exclusive processes. On the foundation of Marx’s thought, I have endeavoured to provide an energetics perspective of the exploitation of man. Man is nature. I believe that the science of exploitation of man and nature will be made much more transparent if physicists, physiologists, mathematicians, biokineticists, sociologists, economists, environmental scientists and historians, amongst others, collaborate to undertake a detailed exploration of the exploitation of man and nature. They could begin with Marx’s Capital, A Critique of Political Economy. Studying energy utilisation and waste heat production

Conclusion

347

is crucial, since the capitalist system largely influences the organisation of humans and nature, is expansionist in character, and is dependent on exorbitant and indefinite quantities of energy for its continued production and reproduction. With regards to the finiteness of energy informed by an economic logic of infiniteness, Debeir, Deléage and Hémery (1991: 235) state: Retrospectively, historians may see the last decade of the twentieth century as the time when we began to be aware that we live in a finite world, with finite resources. Energy is at the heart of this finitude, energy which has never before in our history been so abundantly consumed and so unequally shared out between people. The conflict between the tendency for human civilisations to expand indefinitely and the ineluctable boundaries of nature gives rise to the danger of anthropogenic alteration of the atmosphere through the greenhouse effect….there is no longer any doubt that human intervention in energy cycles is now definitely implicated in the future of world climate, global warming and the probable rising level of the oceans.

We recall Marx’s strongly held view that capitalism has to have an inbuilt tendency to overcome limits so as to have been able to reach its current historical formation. But Marx also held a strong view that capitalism would collapse under its own accumulation weight. For how long capitalism will continue to overcome limits–only time will tell, or more factually speaking, only an understanding of the limits of energy on a finite planet will tell. The question therefore is: can the logic of capitalist accumulation overcome the laws of energy? The superstition that the gods will save us from ourselves should be laid to rest. In fact such superstition seems to be a “source” of fear, terror, oppression and inequality, as well as mass killings and murders, in the 21st century world order, all in the name of God and religion. Humankind should also be aware of the delusional shroud of capitalist configured time, the belief that, on our current economic trajectory, the future will definitely be bright. The real future of society will not exist in terms of time, but in terms of energy. The illusion of the linear concept of time propagates the ideology that as the days, weeks, months, years “go by”, life will necessarily get better for the rest of humankind, who have not “done well” from capitalism–yet. Many hail the 21st century as progress on the 20th century, and the 20th century is believed to have been better than the 19th century. The 22nd century may be “superior” to the 21st century in so far as numbering of the centuries is concerned, but it will not be if energy use continues on its current trajectory. The course of time will follow the course of energy. “Judgement Day” will not be decided by time, but by the manner in which we use energy. For the hundreds of thousands of people of Japan,

348

Chapter Twenty Two

“Judgement Day”, as was decided by the political and military “judges” of the US at that time, occurred in 1945, when atomic energy was used to devastate a nation. Even if the 20th century is said to have been the progression of the 19th century, it was not for the millions of Jews that were killed as a result of the energy used for the gas chambers, motivated by the dangerous ideology of the “supreme race”. If progress is said to follow linear time, still it did not for the many millions of soldiers and civilians who were killed as a result of large quantities of energy directed to the two world wars of the 20th century. If the 21st century is said to be better than the previous centuries, still it is not for the millions of people who are killed by the military-industrial complexes of power-hungry nations; or through the economic sanctions imposed on countries that refuse to be goaded into submission by the strong and powerful. We have and will have all the time in the world, because time is unchanging and everlasting. What we do not have, and will not have, is the energy to continue living the way capitalism orders us to live: “the problematisation of time can be felt in a number of ways. The pervasive sense of stress, rush, and pressure on contemporary societies has become a subject of policy debates as well as of routine complaint” (Hoffman, 2009: 11). If science were to “explain away the flow of time”, worries about dying, the longing for the past and unrealistic expectations might cease to exist. Our irrational “sense of urgency” may also be done away with (Davies, 2012: 13). The future will be either sustainable or disastrous, not because the future is bright or the future looks gloomy, nor because countries need time to develop, but because of how society decides on the “fate” of energy: As our distant descendants approach time’s end, they will need to struggle for survival in an increasingly hostile universe, and their exertions will only hasten the inevitable. After all, we are not passive victims of time’s demise, we are perpetrators. As we live, we convert energy to waste heat and contribute to the degeneration of the universe. Time must die that we may live (Musser, 2012: 111).

The rate and growth of energy use cannot continue in the unsustainable manner in which it has for the last 300 years. Society has to engage robustly with the notion of economic development, which up to now has made the world believe that everlasting material growth is what is needed for humans to attain success: “economists have preached for too long that we should maximize our present gains.” It is time to “minimise regrets” (Georgescu-Roegen, 1977: 270), since “glorified development cannot continue at the expense of future generations” (Bellamy et al., 2010: 7).

Conclusion

349

The mad dash for areas rich in energy will not see us reach a sustainable future. We must “eject economic expansionism, stop growth, use available energies for cultural conversion to steady state, seek out the condition now that will come anyway” (Odum, 1973: 227). Only if there is a radical change in the way energy is used can the problem of climate change be met (Tanura and Fidler, 2010: 89). Marx himself envisioned a sustainable world beyond capitalism, where he believed that future society would decide, at some point, that “enough is enough” (Kerschner, 2010: 545). So as to slow down the anthropogenic causes of climate change, the laws of energy in general, and the laws of thermodynamics in particular, compel us to move toward a low-energy economy and, hence, towards a low-heat economy. Whereas Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776) saw the free market and capitalism as the progress of man, six years earlier, Oliver Goldsmith’s poem, The Deserted Village (1770) had spoken of the decay of man and nature with the ushering in of the capitalist epoch: Ev’n now the devastation is begun, And half the business of destruction done;… …Still let thy voice, prevailing over time, Redress the rigours of th’ inclement clime; Aid slighted truth, with thy persuasive strain Teach erring man to spurn the rage of gain; Teach him that states of native strength possest, Though very poor, may still be very blest; That trade’s proud empire hastes to swift decay, As ocean sweeps the labour’d mole away; While self-dependent power can time defy, As rocks resist the billows and the sky.

Marx’s Capital, A Critique of Political Economy has enhanced our understanding of the many worlds that we inhabit and have inhabited; from the world of work to the world in our homes and in our communities; from the worlds that our ancestors occupied in the past to the worlds we ourselves occupy at present; from the worlds that men, women and children occupied during the Industrial Revolution to the worlds that men, women and children currently occupy in strife- and war-torn countries. Energy allows us to see the interconnectedness of all these worlds. The question is: will current society work towards enabling human-energy to be free of any form of bondage, whether to another human or to the God of Profit? Will human-energy be freed from the shackles of time, and the chains of capitalism, so that children, women and men will have an ample supply of human-energy, as “nature intended”, to develop themselves materially, economically, naturally, culturally, socially, communally,

350

Chapter Twenty Two

individually, artistically, intellectually, musically, sportingly, spiritually, playfully, merrily, and happily? Capitalism has indeed spread throughout the world since Marx predicted it would in Capital (1867). In just under 300 years, energy has transformed the world in leaps and bounds away from the one that was inhabited by Karl Heinrich Marx–the “millennium’s greatest thinker”. In the 21stcentury, the accumulation of material wealth has also proven not to necessarily deliver happiness to capitalists themselves, I think! Besides WORKERS OF ALL LANDS UNITE, there is another inscription engraved on Karl Marx’s tomb in Highgate Cemetery in London: PHILOSOPHERS HAVE ONLY INTERPRETED THE WORLD. THE POINT, HOWEVER, IS TO CHANGE IT.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, W.J.H. (2012). "A Matter of Time", in Scientific American, Vol. 21 No. 1. Appleby, J. (2010). The Relentless Revolution – A History of Capitalism. W.W. Norton and Company. New York. Barrientos, S. (2011). Labour Chains: Analysing the Role of Labour Contractors in Global Production Networks. Brooks World Poverty Institute: The University of Manchester. Manchester. Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid Times – Living in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press. United Kingdom. Bellamy, J.F., Clark, B. and York, R. (2010). "Capitalism and the Curse of Energy Efficiency – The Return of the Jevons Paradox", in Monthly Review, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 1-12. Brewer, A. (1984). A Guide to Marx's Capital. Cambridge University Press. London. Brown, J.H., Burnside, W.R., Davidson, A.D., DeLong, J.P., Dunn, M.J., Mercado-Silva, N., Nekola, J.C., Okie, J.G., Woodruff, W.H. and Zuo, W. (2011). "Energetic Limits to Economic Growth", in Bioscience, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 19-26. Burkett, P. and Foster, J.B. (2006). "Metabolism, Energy, and Entropy in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: Beyond the Podolinsky Myth", in Theory and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 109-156. Callender, C. (2012). "A Matter of Time", in Scientific American, Vol. 21 No. 1. Clark, B. and York, R. (2005). "Carbon Metabolism: Global Capitalism, Climate Change, and the Biospheric Rift", in Theory and Society, Vol. 34, pp. 391-428. Cook, E.F. (1976). Man, Energy, Society. W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco. Coopersmith, J. (2010). Energy the Subtle Concept – The Discovery of Feynman’s Blocks from Leibniz to Einstein. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Cox, B. and Foreshaw, J. (2009). Why Does E=mc2? And Why Should We Care? Da Capo Press. Cambridge.

352

Bibliography

Cleveland, C.J., Costanza, R., Hall, C.A.S. and Kaufmann, R. (1984). "Energy and the U.S. Economy – A Biophysical Perspective", in Science, Vol. 225, pp. 890-897. Davies, P. (2012). "A Matter of Time", in Scientific American, Vol. 21 No. 1. Debeir, J.C., Deléage, J.P. and Hémery, D. (1991). In the Servitude of Power-Energy and Civilization through the Ages. Zed Books Ltd. London. Dillon, M. (2010). Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts, and Their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century. WileyBlackwell Publishers. United Kingdom. Dixon, B. (1973). What Is Science for? William Collins Sons & Co. London. Eberhart, M.E. (2007). Feeding the Fire – The Lost History and Uncertain Future of Mankind’s Energy Addiction. Harmony Books. New York. Ferguson, N. (2009). The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World. Penguin Books Ltd. London. Fine, B. (1989). Marx’s Capital. Macmillan. London. Foley, D.K. (1986). Understanding Capital – Marx’s Economic Theory. Harvard University Press. London. Fowler, J.M. (1975). Energy and the Environment. McGraw-Hill Inc. New York. Freese, B. (2006). Coal – A Human Story. Arrow Books. United Kingdom. Galbraith, J.K. (1975). Money – Whence It Came, Where It Went. André Deutsch Limited. London. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1977). "The Steady State and Ecological Salvation: A Thermodynamic Analysis", in Bioscience, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 266-270. Gray, H.G. (2006). Humanity Transformed – Cyborgs and Other Monsters, Hopeful and Otherwise. Sixteenth World Congress of Sociology: ICC. Durban. Goldsmith, O. (1770). The Deserted Village. [Online] Accessed 23 August 2014 from http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-deserted-village-apoem/ Hall, C.A.S. and Klitgaard, K.A. (2012). Energy and the Wealth of Nations – Understanding the Biophysical Economy. Springer. New York. Harvey, D. (2010). A Companion to Marx’s Capital. Verso. New York. Haverly, C. (1996). Learning About Technology: The Abet Trainer Series. Uswe. Cape Town.

Capital: An Energy Perspective

353

Hawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Dell Publishing Group. New York. Heilbroner, R.L. (1962). The Making of Economic Society. Prentice-Hall. New Jersey. Hendricks, F. and Ntsbeza, L. (2010). "Black Poverty and White Property in Rural SA", in Zuma’s Own Goal – Losing South Africa’s “War on Poverty". Edited by B. Maharaj, A. Desai and P. Bond. Africa World Press Inc. United States of America. Herbert, B. (2007). Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis. IPCC Secretariat. Switzerland. Hoffman. (2009). Time. Profile Books Ltd. London. International Labour Organisation. (2012). Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour (SAP-FL): Profits and Poverty – The Economics of Forced Labour. International Labour Organisation. Geneva. International Labour Organisation. (2015). World Employement Social Outlook. International Labour Organisation. Geneva. James, L. (2004). The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. Abacus. London. Kar, D. and Cartright-Smith, D. (2008). Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries. Global Financial Integrity. Washington. Kerschner, C. (2010). "Economic De-Growth vs. Steady-State Economy", in Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, pp. 544-551. Kidd, A. (2002). Manchester. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. Kishtainy, N., Abbot, G., Farndon, J., Kennedy, F., Meadway, J., Wallace, C. and Weeks, M. (2012). The Economics Book. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. Great Britain. Kocka, J. (2010). Writing the History of Capitalism. Delivered at the GHO Washington, 29 April. Bulletin of the GHI. Kovel, J. (2011). "On Marx and Ecology", in Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 4-17. Lande, D.S. (2000). "A Matter of Time", in Stix, G. (2012), in Scientific American, Vol. 21 No. 1. Lindsay, D. (1979). Europe and the World – 1870 to the Present Day. Oxford University Press. London. McKibbin, W.J. and Wilcoxen, P.J. (2002). "The Role of Economics in Climate Change Policy", in The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 107-129. McMurray, W.C. (1977). Essentials of Human Metabolism. Harper and Row Publishers Inc. United States of America.

354

Bibliography

Meltzer, M. (1993). Slavery – A World History. Da Capo Press. United States of America. Moore, S. and Aveling, E. (2011). Capital Vol1 – A Critique of Political Economy. Edited by F. Engels. Dover Publications Inc. New York. Musser, G. (2012). "Could Time End?", in Scientific American, Vol. 21 No. 1. Newell, P. and Peterson, M. (1998). "A Climate for Business: Global Warming, the State and Capital", in Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 679-703. Nikiforuk, A. (2012). The Energy of Slaves – Oil and the New Servitude. Greystone Books. Canada. Odum, H.T. (1973). "Energy, Ecology and Economics", in Energy in Society: A Special Issue, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 220-227. Oxfam International. (2015). Wealth – Having It All and Wanting More. Oxfam International. United Kingdom. Parsons, T. (1964). "Evolutionary Universals in Society", in From Modernization to Globalization – Perspectives on Development and Social Change. Edited by J.T. Roberts and A. Hite. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. United Kingdom. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cambridge. Pirenne, H. (1914). "The Stages in the Social History of Capitalism", in The American Historical Review, Vol. 19 No. 3. Ponting, C. (2007). A New Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilisations. Vintage Books. London. Posner, R.A. (2009). A Failure of Capitalism – The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Depression. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. Rabinbach, A. (1992). The Human Motor – Energy, Fatigue, and the Origins of Modernity. University of California Press. California. Rich, M. (2004). Energetic Anatomy – An Illustrated Guide to Understanding and Using the Human-energy System. Life Align. Dallas. Rist, G. (2011). The Delusions of Economics – The Misguided Certainties of a Hazard Science. Zed Books. London. Roegen, G.N. (1975). "Energy and Economic Myths", in Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 347-381. Roll, E. (1973). A History of Economic Thought. Faber and Faber Ltd. London. Rosa, E.A., Machlis, G.E. and Keating, K.M. (1988). "Energy and Society", in Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14, pp. 149-172.

Capital: An Energy Perspective

355

Russwurm, A.E. (1983). Joule, Energy: Past-Present-Future. Creda Press. Cape Town. Sengupta, S. and Lee, S.S. (1983). Waste Heat: Utilization and Management. Hemisphere Publishing. New York. Shakespeare, W. (n.d). The Merchant of Venice. s.l. s.n. Smelser, N.J., editor. (1973). Karl Marx on Society and Social Change. University of Chicago Press. United States of America. Smil, V. (2008). Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems. The MIT Press. London. Smith, A. (2003) [1776]. The Wealth of Nations. Bantam Dell. New York. Smith, C. (1998). The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Sørensen, B. (2012). A History of Energy: Northern Europe From the Stone Age to the Present Day. Earthscan. New York. Steinhart, C.E. and Steinhart, J.S. (1974). Energy: Sources, Use and Role in Human Affairs. Wadsworth Publishing Company Inc. California. Stix, G. (2012). "A Matter of Time", in Scientific American, Vol. 21 No. 1. Tanuro, D. and Fidler, R. (2010). "Marxism, Energy and Ecology: The Moment of Truth", in Capitalism Nature and Socialism, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 89-101. Terreblanche, S. (2005). A History of Inequality in South Africa. University of Natal Press. Pietermaritzburg. Thatcher, M. (1988). Speech to General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. [Online] Accessed 17 May 2014 from http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107246. The World Bank. (2014). Annual Report 2014. The World Bank. Washington. Vigna, P. and Casey, M.J. (2015). Crypto Currency – How Bitcoin and Digital Money are Challenging the Global Economic Order. The Bodley Head. Great Britain. Ward, B. and Dubos, R. (1972). Only One Earth, The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. W.W. Norton. New York. White, L.A. (1943). "Energy and the Evolution of Culture", in American Anthropologist, Vol. 45 No. 3 Part 1. Wilson, F. and Rampele, M. (1989). Uprooting Poverty – The South African Challenge. David Philip. Cape Town. Wilson, M. (1965). Energy. Time-Life International. Nederland. Winter, D.A. (2009). Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement. John Wiley Sons. New Jersey.

356

Bibliography

Wrigley, E.A. (2010). Energy and the English Industrial Revolution. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom.

INDEX 2008 financial crisis, 5, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 283, 308, 311, 327, 329 A Brief History of Time, 245 Aborigines, 319, 325, 334 Absolute surplus-value, 157, 161, 193 Abstract work, 31 Abstraction, 31, 43 Accumulate, 12, 81, 147, 164, 240, 274, 277, 281, 282, 283, 284, 292, 307, 311, 315, 316, 343 Adam Smith, 5, 8, 9, 28, 58, 66, 91, 104, 133, 176, 230, 244, 248, 280, 311, 312, 313, 335, 337, 339, 343 Adolf Hitler, 20 Africa, 17, 135, 227, 297, 303, 304, 308, 324, 325, 336 Agriculture, 110, 112, 171, 203, 209, 230, 231, 232, 238, 239, 296, 297, 306, 320, 323 Ahistorical, 241, 244, 338 Albert Einstein, 4, 136, 192, 245 Anarchist, 3 Ancient civilisation, 17, 110, 235 Animal-energy, 110, 130, 197, 198, 199 Anthropogenic, 347, 349 Anti-austerity measures, 329 Anxiety, 143, 245, 299 Appropriation, 93, 94, 113, 136, 190, 212, 238, 241, 271, 277, 278, 279, 333 Aristotle, 8, 47, 168 Babylonians, 136 Bartering, 47, 50, 51, 58, 67 Base-structure, 329

Ben Fine, 12 Benjamin Franklin, 8, 136 Berlin Wall, 339, 340 Bertrand Russel, 146 Bible, 74, 75, 77, 78, 91, 92, 110, 258 Biodiversity, 22, 240, 342, 345 Biofuels, 21, 135 Bipedal, 8 Bitcoin, 86 Bourgeois, 46, 62, 84, 186, 242, 247, 264, 304, 315 Brewer, 2, 12, 80, 259 British Museum, 2 Capacity for work, 16, 98, 216, 247 Capitalist development, 155, 183, 187, 188, 197, 226, 238, 298, 312, 323, 324, 325, 326 Capitalistic mode of production, 202, 214, 219, 238, 240, 253, 279, 282, 290, 291, 312, 313, 315, 342 Captain James Cook, 334 Centralisation, 291, 292, 293, 303, 308, 331, 332 Charles Darwin, 4, 5 Chemical energy, 15, 19, 22, 195 China, 2, 135, 171, 209, 286, 325 Christopher Columbus, 324 Class relations, 268, 279 Class struggle, 56, 137, 139, 140, 141, 148, 149, 151, 169, 194, 331 Class system, 3, 239 Climate change, 21, 300, 344, 345, 346, 349

358 Clock-time, 33, 34, 35, 43, 64, 99, 103, 114, 116, 117, 120, 122, 123, 131, 132, 142, 151, 153, 160, 167, 174, 178, 180, 181, 182, 212, 215, 216, 246, 248, 250, 251, 255, 256, 288, 320 Coal, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 100, 110, 116, 117, 118, 125, 135, 143, 145, 147, 167, 171, 190, 192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 205, 207, 214, 216, 217, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227, 267, 268, 292, 295, 300 Coercive law of competition, 163 Collective worker, 132, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 202, 235, 236 Collectivisation, 165, 167, 169, 171, 172, 181, 329 Colonial project, 241, 335 Common property, 31, 171, 314, 320, 332 Communal, 90, 166, 294, 310, 317, 318, 320 Communism, 2, 3, 4, 5, 165, 338, 339 Communist, 2, 3, 6, 339 Communist Manifesto, 6, 339 Compensation Theory, 224 Competition, 163, 182, 186, 193, 213, 222, 231, 255, 281, 282, 284, 291, 292, 295, 305, 327 Concrete work, 31 Consciousness, 3, 47, 94, 222, 317, 329 Conservative, 94 Constant capital, 123, 124, 127, 128, 130, 131, 144, 162, 182, 206, 207, 272, 280, 287, 289, 290, 293, 323 Consumerist society, 57 Consumption, 23, 29, 30, 74, 80, 98, 103, 104, 113, 115, 122, 127, 139, 140, 141, 147, 200, 207,

Index 217, 227, 229, 233, 260, 261, 262, 263, 268, 269, 273, 276, 281, 282, 296, 302, 303, 341, 344, 345 Contradiction, 79, 83, 84, 86, 95, 169, 188, 246, 248, 251, 290, 293, 333 Contradictions, 62, 76, 79, 86, 88, 95, 248, 308, 323, 329, 331, 338 Co-operation, 164, 165, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 176, 177, 181, 182, 186, 188, 200, 202, 205, 206, 219, 230, 294, 295, 323, 327, 334 Cottage factories, 230 Cotton, 16, 45, 93, 113, 116, 117, 118, 120, 122, 124, 145, 195, 223, 226, 228, 229, 253, 258, 272, 301, 302, 305, 330 Credit, 81, 82, 83, 84, 230, 262, 263, 282, 283, 291, 292, 305, 326, 327, 328, 329 David Brewer, 12 David Harvey, 4, 6, 12 David Ricardo, 244, 248, 337 Debt, 82, 265, 296, 325, 327, 328, 329 Democracy, 35, 104, 122, 169, 327, 339 Depreciation, 126, 160, 213, 341 Depression, 299, 305, 327, 328, 338 Deskilling, 175, 217 Detail worker, 180, 183 Dialectical, 4, 36, 113, 290 Division of movement, 173, 174, 175, 190 DNA, 147, 222, 274, 338 Dollar, 72, 84, 85, 86, 89, 278, 312 Domestic industries, 190, 203, 231 Drones, 233 Duchess of Sutherland, 319 E=mc2, 11, 26, 44, 46, 56, 57, 74, 128

Capital: An Energy Perspective Economic history, 18, 28, 315 Economic science, 6, 9, 29, 45, 54, 86, 95, 98, 133, 134, 237, 249, 252, 269, 276, 283, 293, 301, 311, 318, 326, 327, 335, 338, 339, 340, 341, 345 Ecosystems, 21, 109, 341 Efficiency, 17, 26, 41, 43, 72, 121, 156, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 180, 189, 199, 216, 217, 218, 239, 269, 285 Egypt, 17, 170, 171, 239, 240, 241 Egyptian pyramid, 24 Egyptian pyramids, 8, 170 Egyptians, 136, 170 Electrical energy, 15, 16, 20, 107, 187, 190, 193, 195, 205 Electricity, 116, 117, 174, 190, 197, 252, 253, 257, 304 Energetics, 346 Energy, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 92, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195,

359

196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307, 310, 311, 312, 314, 315, 316, 317, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 328, 329, 330, 332, 334, 335, 336, 337, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 Energy feedstock, 118, 192, 195, 204, 205, 219, 300, 345 Energy systems, 21, 193 Engine, 16, 17, 18, 143, 195, 196, 197, 199, 206, 209, 217, 223, 230 England, 6, 20, 22, 28, 35, 72, 136, 137, 145, 146, 148, 149, 169, 183, 191, 199, 203, 209, 212, 221, 226, 227, 228, 272, 273, 289, 300, 301, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 311, 316, 317, 320, 323, 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 335, 342 Environmental destruction, 299 Environmental science, 9, 342 Equilibrium, 68, 78, 79, 83 Euphrates, 239 European Union, 135, 320, 327, 329

360 Evolution, 8, 13, 46, 49, 58, 63, 67, 82, 85, 86, 164, 178, 180, 189, 194, 241, 264 Exchange, 7, 12, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 103, 104, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, 126, 127, 138, 139, 140, 141, 149, 166, 167, 184, 185, 211, 213, 215, 242, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 252, 253, 254, 263, 266, 268, 269, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 291, 306, 310, 315, 321, 330, 336 Exchange-value, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 59, 60, 62, 76, 84, 92, 94, 95, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, 126, 127, 166, 167, 213, 215, 253, 279, 281, 306, 310, 336 Exploitation, 3, 4, 28, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 137, 139, 149, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 169, 170, 188, 189, 190, 206, 210, 211, 217, 220, 221, 226, 230, 231, 235, 238, 239, 244, 250, 251, 255, 256, 257, 261, 263, 264, 269, 275, 277, 278, 279, 293, 294, 296, 297, 299, 307, 326, 330, 331, 332, 342, 346 Extensive, 84, 146, 149, 151, 165, 193, 206, 239, 257, 274, 298, 345 Factories, 19, 146, 169, 171, 183, 190, 198, 200, 203, 212, 215, 217, 218, 221, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 295, 303, 308, 310 Factory Act, 148 Factory inspectors, 136, 143, 159

Index Fetishism of commodities, 51, 54 Fiat money, 83, 312, 328 Financial crisis, 4, 5, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 126, 283, 291, 304, 305, 308, 311, 327, 328, 329, 340 Finite planet, 275, 337, 343, 347 First law of thermodynamics, 21, 83, 345 FORCE, 13 Fordist system, 20 Fort Knox, 72 Frederick Taylor, 174 Free market, 58, 59, 105, 107, 118, 123, 211, 245, 249, 251, 276, 286, 291, 298, 301, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 316, 326, 327, 332, 334, 337, 339, 340, 343, 349 Friedrich Engels, 1, 2, 5, 6 Future money, 81, 82 Geographies of specialisations, 229 Global warming, 300, 344, 345, 347 Globalisation, 20, 190, 229, 329, 331 Globalised, 4, 5, 36, 52, 64, 190, 191, 319, 329 God, 3, 85, 148, 166, 220, 294, 338, 347, 349 Gold, 8, 31, 36, 48, 49, 50, 51, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 96, 117, 118, 120, 151, 154, 162, 223, 260, 273, 288, 303, 304, 310, 325, 326, 328, 341 Great Recession, 304, 328 Greece, 327, 329 Greed, 86, 94, 142, 281, 303, 330, 341, 344 Gross Domestic Product, 24, 28, 270 Gross Domestic Social Capital, 288 Hand, 7, 8, 16, 18, 35, 37, 41, 43, 44, 55, 58, 62, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77,

Capital: An Energy Perspective 83, 90, 97, 101, 105, 109, 119, 121, 124, 128, 130, 138, 141, 159, 161, 163, 166, 171, 173, 176, 179, 180, 181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 195, 201, 202, 204, 206, 212, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 231, 232, 235, 236, 237, 240, 241, 242, 244, 247, 250, 252, 253, 266, 267, 277, 284, 287, 289, 294, 295, 304, 306, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 315, 320, 321, 322, 323, 327, 328, 332, 336, 337, 340 Heat, 16, 167, 284, 299, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349 Hegelianism, 47 Henry VII, 321 Henry VIII, 321 Highgate Cemetery, 3, 350 Homo sapiens sapiens, 16 Horse-power, 197, 198, 209, 250, 315 Human cells, 302 Human-energy market, 99, 133, 135, 210, 251, 286, 294, 306, 336 Hunter-gatherer, 81, 171, 233 Ideology, 6, 85, 118, 137, 146, 164, 210, 241, 259, 327, 333, 337, 347, 348 India, 117, 197, 209, 223, 229, 241, 286, 303, 326 Industrial Revolution, 20, 22, 40, 101, 102, 117, 145, 174, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 203, 207, 208, 212, 226, 227, 228, 265, 292, 300, 302, 308, 325, 328, 342, 344, 346, 349 Infinite growth, 275, 328 International Monetary Fund, 329 International Working Men’s Association, 2, 3 Isaac Newton, 4

361

Japan, 171, 218, 286, 347 Jobless accumulation, 293 John Locke, 248, 337 Joules, 42, 46, 86, 103, 138, 160, 162, 179, 205, 246, 248, 251, 254 Karl Marx, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 29, 106, 248 Kinetic energy, 10, 18, 22, 107, 125, 193 Labour brokering, 307 Labour-power, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 44, 46, 55, 88, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 114, 115, 119, 121, 122, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 140, 144, 145, 147, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 169, 171, 179, 188, 195, 198, 209, 210, 211, 215, 216, 218, 220, 221, 222, 231, 232, 243, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 275, 276, 278, 280, 282, 287, 288, 289, 290, 296, 297, 298, 311, 312, 313, 322, 346 Law of accumulation, 283, 301 Law of equivalents, 95 Law of exchange, 31, 68, 95, 114, 141, 247, 251, 254, 277, 279 Laws of energy, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 21, 100, 268, 270, 337, 343, 344, 347, 349 Laws of entropy, 100 London School of Economics, 340 Luddites, 221 Machine, 16, 19, 99, 113, 124, 125, 126, 143, 180, 182, 184, 187, 189, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196,

362 197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 233, 249, 267, 269, 277, 281, 284, 299, 305, 334 Machinery, 6, 12, 22, 34, 125, 129, 146, 147, 164, 180, 182, 183, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 331, 266, 268, 269, 272, 280, 287, 292, 293, 297, 298, 300, 304, 306, 323, 325, 334, 342 Mainstream economic science, 6, 29, 45, 86, 95, 98, 237, 249, 252, 269, 283, 335, 340, 341 Manchester, 300, 301 Manufacture, 100, 145, 162, 165, 166, 169, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 189, 190, 194, 195, 196, 200, 201, 202, 205, 206, 213, 218, 219, 220, 222, 225, 230, 231, 232, 297, 310, 315, 323 Margaret Thatcher, 88, 89 Marikana Massacre, 336 Marikana mines in South Africa, 304 Mass, 9, 10, 20, 26, 27, 31, 34, 44, 45, 46, 47, 56, 57, 63, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 86, 87, 112, 124, 128, 129, 153, 154, 155, 174, 193, 216, 218, 221, 227, 239, 241, 274, 275, 284, 287, 289, 290, 298, 306, 322, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 335, 342, 347 May Day, 149

Index Measure of value, 67, 70, 71, 73, 82, 83, 84, 87, 90, 94, 249 Measurement, 10, 32, 70, 116, 118, 144, 151, 198, 250, 251, 253, 254, 258, 288 Mechanical energy, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 38, 39, 100, 107, 116, 130, 139, 175, 177, 180, 187, 190, 193, 195, 197, 204, 247, 287 Mechanical man, 178 Mechanics of movement, 77 Mechanisation of human-energy, 234 Medium of circulation, 73, 80, 82, 87, 90, 94 Mesopotamia, 17, 239 Metabolic functioning, 302 Metabolic relationship, 232 Metamorphosis, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 95, 127, 175 Middle Ages, 171, 238, 310, 324, 327 Milton Friedman, 339 Modern, 12, 23, 52, 56, 58, 72, 78, 83, 90, 91, 108, 110, 133, 144, 156, 171, 173, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 237, 238, 254, 256, 258, 270, 292, 295, 296, 297, 310, 313, 319, 320, 325, 326, 330, 336, 339, 342 Modern capitalism, 90, 192, 219, 326, 336, 339 Modes of production, 41, 156, 185, 203, 204, 276, 282, 333, 335, 345 Monetary crisis, 83, 84 Money, 6, 29, 31, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,

Capital: An Energy Perspective 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 109, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 126, 131, 132, 136, 138, 140, 145, 146, 150, 153, 154, 155, 157, 163, 168, 170, 174, 179, 202, 211, 212, 215, 222, 238, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 271, 272, 273, 276, 278, 280, 283, 286, 289, 292, 303, 304, 305, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 317, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 334, 338, 339, 343 Motion, 9, 10, 11, 22, 46, 79, 100, 107, 108, 112, 116, 125, 140, 155, 173, 176, 179, 196, 197, 198, 199, 203, 212, 219, 232, 243, 246, 289, 293 Motive force, 125, 197 Movement, 15, 18, 19, 21, 38, 39, 43, 60, 73, 77, 93, 94, 104, 105, 112, 116, 142, 144, 146, 149, 150, 151, 157, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 187, 189, 190, 195, 200, 201, 202, 203, 206, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 228, 233, 235, 236, 246, 260, 288, 293, 313, 315, 320, 321, 343 Nanny State, 327 Natural environment, 9, 16, 18, 39, 51, 57, 139, 173, 184, 185, 186, 239, 240, 306, 312, 331, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345 Nature, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,

363

45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 72, 76, 78, 81, 85, 86, 92, 95, 98, 99, 100, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 120, 121, 123, 126, 127, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150, 156, 159, 165, 166, 168, 169, 171, 173, 178, 181, 184, 186, 187, 188, 191, 193, 198, 199, 200, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 212, 214, 215, 217, 220, 222, 225, 227, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 245, 250, 252, 253, 259, 261, 263, 265, 266, 270, 272, 274, 275, 277, 278, 279, 284, 286, 287, 290, 292, 292, 293, 295, 296, 297, 300, 303, 305, 306, 311, 313, 315, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 325, 326, 330, 333, 336, 338, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 349 Navvies, 228 Nelson Mandela, 223 Neo-liberal, 98, 166 Newtonian physics, 285 Nikola Tesla, 1 Nuclear energy, 22, 135, 193, 195, 197, 295, 345 Oliver Goldsmith, 28, 306 Paradigm, 5, 194, 333, 345 Pauperism, 296, 298, 301, 306, 317 Peasant, 55, 142, 171, 231, 232, 263, 264, 286, 316, 323 Peasants, 17, 172, 264, 306, 315, 316, 318, 323 Physics, 5, 9, 10, 21, 27, 285 Physiology, 15, 21, 184 Planned economy, 169, 185, 186 Platinum, 223, 304 Political animal, 8, 61

364 Political economist, 280, 333, 335 Political economy, 1, 4, 6, 19, 25, 27, 38, 59, 81, 95, 98, 104, 133, 164, 194, 221, 242, 248, 249, 250, 252, 259, 264, 269, 271, 273, 276, 279, 280, 283, 284, 285, 294, 295, 301, 309, 311, 313, 314, 330, 333, 337, 338, 339, 341, 343, 346, 349 Potential energy, 10, 18, 22, 107, 125, 193, 199, 258, 289, 298 Pound, 31, 69, 70, 72, 86, 87, 89, 120, 122, 127, 258, 272, 278 Povertisation, 297 Poverty, 2, 27, 66, 88, 89, 90, 102, 133, 286, 296, 298, 299, 301, 311, 313, 315, 318, 320, 334, 338, 340, 341, 342 Power, 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 55, 58, 59, 64, 70, 88, 89, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, 122, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 144, 145, 147, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 178, 179, 188, 189, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 203, 205, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 230, 231, 232, 243, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 275, 276, 278, 280, 282, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 301, 303, 306, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315, 317, 322, 325,

Index 333, 334, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349 Power-looms, 34, 35, 225 Price, 11, 20, 36, 47, 48, 51, 58, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 81, 82, 87, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 115, 120, 139, 140, 141, 153, 162, 182, 194, 208. 210, 211, 222, 224, 225, 242, 243, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 263, 270, 276, 288, 290, 291, 293, 294, 317, 326 Private property, 27, 75, 98, 99, 141, 171, 177, 209, 211, 271, 278, 279, 290, 293, 310, 314, 317, 318, 319, 320, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 336 Production, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 64, 71, 75, 81, 82, 90, 91, 92, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 137, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 240, 242, 243, 245, 247,

Capital: An Energy Perspective 248, 249, 253, 254, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 318, 322, 323, 324, 325, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347 Productivity, 35, 43, 137, 142, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 168, 172, 174, 175, 190, 209, 230, 239, 257, 290 Profit, 7, 11, 12, 29, 56, 59, 77, 90, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 104, 105, 114, 115, 116, 118, 123, 124, 126, 129, 134, 137, 138, 139, 141, 143, 149, 150, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 167, 173, 175, 177, 179, 186, 193, 194, 195, 200, 201, 213, 214, 215, 218, 219, 220, 221, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 242, 244, 251, 254, 259, 260, 261, 262, 268, 270, 273, 283, 304, 311, 317, 324, 341, 349 Proletariat, 288, 289, 296, 297, 298, 301, 317, 320, 321 Psychology, 9 Qualitative nature, 29, 30, 42, 43, 48, 92, 121, 253 Quantitative nature, 29, 31, 42, 43, 48, 92, 121, 253 Quantitative society, 121, 261 Queen Elizabeth I, 318, 321, 340 Radical, 94, 204, 230, 319, 349 Rate, 9, 19, 35, 38, 61, 63, 130, 131, 133, 139, 153, 154, 155, 158, 163, 166, 171, 174, 187, 193,

365

198, 203, 214, 227, 245, 246, 254, 255, 263, 272, 282, 296, 308, 317, 342, 343, 348 Relative surplus-value, 151, 157, 158, 161, 163, 164, 166, 172, 177, 178, 181, 189, 190, 192, 215 Renewable energy, 21, 199, 205, 295, 344, 345 Reproduction, 9, 100, 101, 103, 110, 112, 127, 137, 147, 153, 161, 162, 163, 189, 194, 205, 213, 220, 235, 251, 252, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 288, 289, 290, 297, 347 Revolution, 1, 2, 13, 20, 22, 40, 62, 101, 102, 117, 145, 164, 166, 174, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 203, 207, 208, 209, 212, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 239, 265, 292, 300, 302, 308, 311, 323, 325, 328, 342, 344, 346, 349 Rio Earth Summit, 344 Roman Empire, 183, 187 Say’s Law, 78 Scarcity, 9, 36, 66, 239 Schizophrenic, 104, 186, 257 Scientific management, 174 Self-earned property, 75, 76, 310, 314, 316, 317, 320, 334 Simple reproduction, 259, 265, 266, 267, 273, 274, 275, 289 Slave society, 233, 239, 315 Slavery, 47, 61, 66, 98, 133, 149, 150, 171, 208, 214, 226, 258, 264, 282, 296, 300, 301, 307, 323, 324, 330, 332 Slaves, 17, 62, 66, 83, 109, 130, 134, 170, 187, 208, 209, 211, 212, 226, 306, 315, 325, 330

366 Social animal, 61, 168 Social power, 89, 94 Social production, 100, 190, 232, 242, 261, 264, 270, 311 Socialism, 2, 165, 338, 340 Socialist, 2 Sociology, 4, 9 Soviet Union, 4, 339 Specialised movement, 178, 180 Species being, 146, 187, 219 Speed, 19, 34, 73, 80, 81, 135, 142, 202, 203, 204, 212, 214, 216, 217, 228, 243, 306, 341, 342, 343 Standard of price, 70, 71, 73, 82, 87, 90, 94 Starvation, 222, 223, 231, 301, 302 Suicide, 299, 308 Superstructure, 238, 318, 329 Surplus-value, 7, 12, 21, 23, 24, 29, 38, 59, 77, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 103, 104, 105, 106, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 143, 144, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 172, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 200, 202, 206, 209, 210, 213, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 227, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 241, 242, 243, 244, 247, 248, 251, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 277, 278, 280, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 291, 299, 308, 310, 312, 313, 317, 324, 330, 336, 341, 343 Sustainability, 193, 223

Index Technical composition, 287, 290, 291 Technology, 23, 34, 64, 67, 74, 117, 192, 193, 195, 205, 213, 214, 224, 233, 284, 287, 289, 292 Temporal space, 33, 34, 134, 137, 141, 151, 179, 212, 246 The Deserted Village, 28, 306, 307, 349 The Great Depression, 305, 327, 328 The Tragedy of the Commons, 319 The Tulip Financial Crisis, 328 The Wealth of Nations, 9, 28, 58, 91, 133, 272, 280, 337, 343 Thomas Malthus, 102 Tigris, 239 Time is money, 136, 145, 146, 215, 246, 258 Tool-making animal, 8 Trans-disciplinary paradigm, 5 Transformation, 9, 21, 23, 24, 37, 47, 48, 57, 76, 77, 78, 81, 86, 88, 91, 107, 109, 112, 116, 128, 151, 157, 166, 180, 183, 209, 230, 231, 232, 253, 261, 264, 271, 275, 291, 317, 320, 321, 325, 330, 331, 332, 334 Unintended consequences, 86 Unproductive, 144, 179 Uranium, 22, 23 Use-value, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 48, 52, 59, 60, 61, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 84, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 114, 115, 116, 119, 120, 121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 132, 138, 143, 146, 151, 156, 161, 166, 205, 222, 235, 237, 245, 249, 253 Usury, 238, 265, 310 Utopia, 338 Valorisation process, 214, 215

Capital: An Energy Perspective Value, 7, 12, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 172, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 200, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 227, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 299, 300, 305, 306, 308, 310, 312, 313, 317, 322, 323, 324, 330, 336, 341, 342, 343 Value-composition, 287 Value-meter, 67, 69 Variable capital, 124, 128, 129, 130, 131, 154, 155, 206, 262, 264, 265, 280, 287, 289, 323 Velocity, 76, 80, 81, 179, 203, 207

367

Vital force, 15, 16, 97, 116, 138, 146 Wages, 24, 29, 34, 35, 118, 132, 136, 146, 153, 163, 169, 194, 213, 221, 230, 245, 246, 247, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 262, 263, 264, 272, 274, 275, 280, 287, 289, 296, 297, 306, 307, 322, 323 Wage-work, 245, 263, 324, 330, 333, 334 Waste production, 284 Wealth, 9, 11, 27, 28, 30, 39, 43, 53, 58, 62, 66, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 106, 111, 113, 129, 130, 133, 140, 176, 189, 204, 215, 227, 232, 233, 267, 270, 271, 272, 276, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 295, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 303, 306, 307, 308, 309, 311, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 323, 326, 327, 329, 332, 334, 337, 341, 343, 349, 350 Western Europe, 226, 283, 307, 320, 321, 333 William Petty, 106, 259, 337, 341, 346 Wind energy, 16, 199, 205 Working class, 3, 89, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 148, 149, 156, 159, 169, 186, 192, 215, 222, 223, 236, 243, 259, 261, 262, 263, 268, 269, 274, 275, 276, 277, 282, 283, 286, 287, 289, 295, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 309, 321, 322, 332, 335 Workplace design, 156 World Bank, 301, 327, 329 World Wide Web, 56, 64, 67, 81