Nathan wrote:
> I'm in the process of listening through volume one of > capital. I've come to this part and want some input: ... Before reproducing this paragraph, I'd like to give a little context, which also explains Marx's approach to analyzing the technology of his time. The most important part of a machine at Marx's time was the "working machine" which at that time was still recognizable as a mechanism holding many tools similar to the hand tools used by human laborers. Machines, therefore, were mechanisms overcoming the limitations of humans who had only two arms and could not use many tools at the same time. One or more of these working machines were driven by a "prime mover", typically a steam engine, and typically the motive power was transferred to the working machines through a complex transmission mechanism with leather belts, geared wheels, pulleys, flywheels etc. Such a machine is not a static thing but has the need for development inscribed into it: (1) with the multiplication of the working machines, the prime mover must become stronger and more reliable. Switch from hydro, wind and animal power to fossil fuel powered steam engines. (2) a stronger prime mover is able to drive not only one machine but an entire system of several machines working together. Often this is similar to the division of labor in the manufactories, in the sense that the object of labor is passed through several machines. But, Marx says, there are also important differences between the division of the production process among several machines and the division of labor in the traditional manufactories. This is where the passage quoted by Nathan comes in: > 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. To say it again: division of labor in the manufactories had to hack up each production process into human-size pieces each of which could be handled by one or a few workers. Marx calls this the "subjective principle." This constraint falls away in the machine system. How, then, does the division of labor between several machines split up the production process? > 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. Machines decompose the production process into its objective constituent parts. Marx writes elsewhere in this chapter: > It is only after considerable development of the science > of mechanics, and accumulated practical experience, that > the form of a machine becomes settled entirely in > accordance with mechanical principles, and emancipated > from the traditional form of the tool that gave rise to > it. I hope this answers most of Nathan's questions. Does it make sence to read Marx's machinery chapter nowadays? I think Marx overlooks the importance of cheap fossil fuels for the Industrial Revolution, and I would recommend reading Marx together with the following book: *Energy and the English Industrial Revolution* by E A Wrigley, Cambridge University Press 2010, which is available as an e-book here http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/nlebk_337687_AN I also think that some recent literature about technology uses an approach which is fairly similar to Marx. Here is a difficult but I think worth while book trying to analyze the modern process of innovations which I would consider a continuation of Marx's approach using the modern status of science (and yes, this book has formulas): *The Economic Growth Engine: How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity*, by Robert U. Ayres and Benjamin Warr, Edward Elgar Publishing 2009, http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Growth-Engine-Material-Prosperity/dp/1848441827 BTW, due to a reorganization of the University of Utah web site, my Annotations to Marx's Capital are now at the new url http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~ehrbar/akmc.htm The most complete discussion of volume one of Capital, on which I based this email, is http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~ehrbar/akmc.pdf This is last year's version, I will upload a current version (with many improvements) within the next few weeks, since I am going to teach my on-line class reading *Capital* again in the Fall Semester. If anybody is interested in being an observer in this class, let me know. Hans Hans G Ehrbar Associate Professor Department of Economics University of Utah _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
