- 16 Jul 2015 23:41
#14583170
I have been reading Das Kapital, an Arabic translation by Dr. Rashed El-Barrawy, and I am almost done with Volume 1.
I have a question about the theory of surplus-value: why does Marx distinguish between machines and humans when it comes to surplus-labour and surplus-value?
According to Marx, a machine contributes to the value of a commodity only by the amount of wearing that occurs to the machine while producing the commodity. In this sense, a machine never produces any "surplus-value" and never does any "surplus labour."
But when it comes to humans, a human contributes to the value of a commodity more than the amount of "wearing" that occurs to him/her. For example, if the rate of surplus-value is 50%, half of the worker's contribution to the value of the commodity comes from work that is necessary for the survival and reproduction of the worker, while the other half is surplus, and is done for the capitalist for free.
Why can't we say the same thing about the machine? Following the same line of thinking, one can say that a machine is also set to do more work than necessary to produce its parts that wear out during the production of a commodity, and in this case the machine's contribution to the value of the commodity is not restricted to the value of those parts that wear out. Right?
I have a question about the theory of surplus-value: why does Marx distinguish between machines and humans when it comes to surplus-labour and surplus-value?
According to Marx, a machine contributes to the value of a commodity only by the amount of wearing that occurs to the machine while producing the commodity. In this sense, a machine never produces any "surplus-value" and never does any "surplus labour."
But when it comes to humans, a human contributes to the value of a commodity more than the amount of "wearing" that occurs to him/her. For example, if the rate of surplus-value is 50%, half of the worker's contribution to the value of the commodity comes from work that is necessary for the survival and reproduction of the worker, while the other half is surplus, and is done for the capitalist for free.
Why can't we say the same thing about the machine? Following the same line of thinking, one can say that a machine is also set to do more work than necessary to produce its parts that wear out during the production of a commodity, and in this case the machine's contribution to the value of the commodity is not restricted to the value of those parts that wear out. Right?