This text contains segments that were left out of the video for time and pacing reasons.
Superman, defender of private property, defender of capital. In this film we see him in his common role of defending the banking class from threats to their institution of usury.
Again the theme of machines taking over. [It's a dystopian theme directly bound up in our experience of capitalism. Constant innovations in machinery are ever revolutionizing our experience of space and time, propelling us into a dizzying world of mechanization seemingly out of our control.] Why is this theme so prevalent in fiction? Because our experience of capitalism is one in which machines are constantly replacing human labor in an effort to make labor more productive. Machines are constantly taking on more and more of the tasks that people used to do. And so our own productive labor is objectified outside of ourselves as evil machines that threaten to dominate and destroy us. The catch is that without human labor an economy can produce no value.
[Most obviously, capitalism needs to sell us more and more stuff. Because capitalists are in business to constantly be making a profit they need to be constantly turning over and selling new products. Thus is capital tied up in the construction of social wants and needs. And much of this means the development of ever new gadgets to sell to us.]
[Most important is the role of robots in increasing labor productivity. By replacing humans with machines capitalists create more value per worker. It also eliminates jobs, drives down wages and degrades work. But this also creates some problems for capitalism.. as we'll see. Because human labor is the sole source of real value in an economy, the replacement of humans with machines also threatens to undermine capitalist profit as a whole.]
Our archetypal tale starts with a basic violation- the violation of the holy sanctum of private property. The capitalist’s worst nightmare. And who is this invisible hand behind the machine? What is this mysterious force threatening accumulation? This sinister shadow?
[Of course we aren't meant to question whether the wealth of banks is a type of stealing even though banks make their profits through usury. Stealing is probably the simplest way of getting rich, but also a method which threatens other forms of capitalist accumulation. The mechanical monster here is robbing a bank. The banking class accumulates wealth through usury- in effect skimming money off of the value created by productive workers elsewhere in the economy.]
Just as a shadow is an inverted image of a real thing, we discover the monster is a robot in the image of a man. Indeed that’s what robot’s are here to do- replace man. Capitalists introduce robots into the work process to replace humans thereby increasing the output per remaining worker. This increases the rate of exploitation.
Here the puzzle is that, instead of this robot doing productive labor for a capitalist he is stealing from other capitalists out there in the economy who are actually creating real values. Values that have been stored in a bank. Why?
Well we discover that this capitalist has completely mechanized his work force. He only has robots. In his drive to increase productivity through mechanization he eventually rid himself of workers altogether. The problem is, once we eliminate labor from a task, that task ceases to have economic value. This is the source of capitalist crisis. Without a source of profit in production this capitalist-gone-wrong has turned to theft. refer to example
[The thefts involve the theft of capital in its money and commodity form. In its monetary form capital isn't capable of creating more value. Value can only be created in the production process by living labor. As money, capital can only circulate values through equal exchange.]
The mechanical monster shows us here how easy it is to replace human labor. He is really a type of superhuman here that can do anything a human can do better- much like superman. This threatens the worker directly because it destroys jobs and lowers wages. Managers meticulously micromanage work until it is routinized enough to be given to a robot. Then the robots are taught the exact motions of the worker. That’s why the monster is so scary. It can be human way better than us. That’s the source of its invincibility.
This is great because now we have a double theft. The theft of private property is also a theft of female purity, of virginity. But I think we should take this one step further. This also an attack on the woman as a representation of the motherland. Defense of capital is often bound up in defense of country, family, womanhood. This is the basis of fascism.
Of course the Clark Kent/ superman duality illustrates the way man has to suppress his true greatness in order to participate in bourgeois society. Work here is shown as essentially emasculating. The phone booth is the proverbial closet that clark kent is in.
With Louis in belly of the robot we the ultimate fascist parable: a robot manned by this mad foreign scientist is violating the motherland. At the same time the defense of capitalist private property is conflated with defense of the motherland.
Here’s our first encounter between the superman and the super robot man. It looks strangely like sex. When superman pulls open the robot there is this strange mid-air birth with Lois and the money spilling out of the robot. And for some reason this temporarily depletes superman’s libido. I’ll leave that one for Zizek to figure out.
Now the wealth of the banking class has been directly turned into the motherland itself. And it’s here that the bad guy really starts displaying his classic foreigner facial ticks.
This motif- of being in the bad guys lair, the only human, surrounded by evil machines seems to be a universal nightmare. We always have to sneak into the castle or the hideout or the compound and then be discovered and then saved at the last minute. Again, I’ll leave that one for Zizek.
This I love. It reminds me of some Alex Jones movie where we find out that some corporate leader is actually a satanist who engages in baby-eating rituals. Here, the capitalist-gone-bad, underneath his robot factory, has a satanic cave with cauldrons of molten metal. His lust for the accumulation of wealth seems to be underscored by a subconscious fascination with the occult, witchcraft- general old school evil motifs. This puts capitalist greed outside the sphere of accepted social motivations- it is the evil force lurking below the surface of society.
This is a great scene. Why is the bad guy wearing a tux by the way? We are suppose he has just come from some sort of foreigner dinner party?
The robots “coming to life” is erie because they look like humans. Here man comes face to face with his own productive powers that have been totally objectified in an external machine. The robot is merely man’s intellectual ingenuity and mans capacity to do work totally alienated from man.
We get then a classic John Henry scene of man versus machine. Of course, ordinary workers can never out do a machine so we always need these parables of super men like John Henry, or Neo or superman so we can fantasize about beating the machine.
This is so fantastic. It actually looks like an assembly line in which what is being hammered on, what is being produced is man himself.
Where in John Henry we have this ironic tragedy that the machines can be beat but at the cost of the super hero dying, in Superman we have this less complex fantasy of an unbeatable man.
The numbers on the machines add a nice touch- making them the embodiment of cold, calculating rational forces.
Superman becomes a super-luddite, smashing the machines to bits. It seems the only way to save capitalism from itself is to devalue capital.
And now we are in the world of the subconscious again, with Lois hanging over a void. This time superman makes up for his earlier impotence by saving her from the giant cauldron/vagina. The foreigner runs like a wimp- he is the ultimate intellectual, only able to fight with his inventions- not able to put up a real physical fight. There is a lot of anti-intellectualism in superman, and this is typical of fascist/reactionary ideology.
And we end with this reminder of modern man’s emasculation as a wage laborer.
Superman = Übermensch. Great video, thanks.
My question: the capitalist that “employs” only robots is his own proletariat?
Comment by truestefq — May 12, 2008 @ 9:07 pm |
I’m not quite sure what you mean by that… This video is sort of a teaser for future videos about the falling rate of profit. The idea of mechanization undermining profit needs a lot more fleshing out in order to be convincing than I gave it in this video. It’s seems odd- we assume a commodity is a commodity and has a value whether it was made by a machine or a person. But really, when tasks become wholly mechanized they loose their value. 100 percent mechanization is a sci-fi fiction! capitalism goes in to a crisis of overaccumulation long before the rate of profit ever falls to zero (total mechanization).
To answer your question more directly, no- a capitalist does not create value merely by owning robots. A capitalist doesn’t create value as a capitalist. Now- if a capitalist does work then he can create value.
Comment by kapitalism101 — May 13, 2008 @ 3:54 am |
Yes, what I meant of course was that the capitalist (like in your video) would use them to create value, in a way be programmer, engineer and maintenance clerk as well as chief accountant and CEO at the same time: I figured this would be in a way the sublation of the capital/labour contradiction in this case: he would become somekind of “self-made” men (somehow much more impressive than Superman with his magical powers that he got without doing anything, no?).
But this touches more what you wrote about in your essay “in defence of teleology”, I guess: the permanent scientific/technological revolution permanently revolutionizes demands labour.
Comment by truestefq — September 27, 2008 @ 5:19 pm |
I have a question. Why machines cannot create value? Does the work of a slave (which is a human being, treated as a machine) create value?
Comment by GokuEn — January 7, 2009 @ 3:59 pm |
Think about the tasks that computers do: duplicating, calculating, etc. Those tasks no longer have any exchange value. You cannot make money duplicating documents like you could in the days of a printing press when printing documents required a very involved type-setting process.
When machines make labor more efficient the prices of those commodities drop because less labor is going into each commodity produced. Take the falling price of electronics… the race to make them more efficiently causes a fall in prices.
Only labor can create value. This is because the point of value is to apportion labor via commodity exchange.
Comment by kapitalism101 — January 7, 2009 @ 5:24 pm |
You define a machine as an instrument that multiplies the efficiency of a laborer. In a sense, a slave is the same. He is just an instrument which is bought and sould by free men which use them for free to increase the productivity of their enterprizes. The question remains: do their labor create value?
Comment by GokuEn — January 7, 2009 @ 5:58 pm |
The difference between a slave and a wage laborer is the way in which the worker is “reproduced”. The cost of reproducing the labor force is the cost of whatever commodities are necessary to feed, clothe, shelter, etc, the worker under the prevailing standard of living in a certain time and place. The capitalist pays a worker wages with which the worker then buys his own means of subsistence. The slaveowner must buy those means of subsistence for his slaves. Either way, profit is the difference between the value created by those workers/slaves and the money spent on their reproduction.
Of course, slavery has existed in many modes of production and has served different social functions. Even in American capitalism slaves did not always perform productive labor- their work did not always produce an exchange value for a capitalist (I’m thinking of house servants in particular.)
But I reject the idea that a slave is analogous to a machine because it makes labor more productive. A slave does labor and this labor can be more or less productive depending on the conditions of that labor. But slaves aren’t introduced into the work process to make wage laborers more productive.
Comment by kapitalism101 — January 8, 2009 @ 1:37 pm |
I fail to see why the productive output of a slave is different than the labor output of a machine. Let me explain my reasoning:
Suppose that I have a plantation which might be cultivated either by me or by free workers I hired.
Case 1: I Buy a machine which means an initial investment and then I have to periodically add fuel, grease, maintenance and reparation of it all of them representing additional investments. This machine will increase the productive output of my farm.
Case 2: I buy a couple of slaves which is an initial investment. Then I have to provide food and clothing which are additional investments. The slaves will increase the productive output of my farm. Although slaves have sentience, that just does not matter as they just follow orders: they have effectivelly become machines of flesh and blood.
How would the value of my output be different?
Comment by GokuEn — January 8, 2009 @ 3:21 pm |
Here is how the value would be different.
1. In case one, the machine is introduced to replace some of the tasks executed by people in order to make the remaining workers more productive. This increases the physical output per worker, but not the value output. This obviously is a contradiction- the point of the production is for the capitalist to get more surplus value, but their drive to increase productivity causes them to actually decrease the amount of value produced. This contradiction lies at the heart of the arguments Marx was trying to make about crisis in a capitalist society: that there is an antagonism at the heart of the wage relation and that this antagonism drives capitalists to act in ways that are destabilizing to the entire system. The reason a capitalist does this is that their goal is to produce at slightly less than the socially necessary labor time so that they can out produce/undersell their competitors. When just one capitalist does this he is able to take advantage of the difference between the social average of labor productivity and his own more-efficient productivity. But when competition causes all capitalists to constantly seek to make labor more efficient then the socially necessary labor time of a tasks gets lower and lower. If it gets replaced by machines altogether it looses value. Again I give my previous example of computers which have rendered the tasks of duplication and calculation valueless. The ability of computers to replace human labor in this way is a historical development of enormous significance which has drastic consequences for much of capital. Many industries like print media and entertainment are experiencing major fall-out. This is indeed a vindication of the ideas Marx was grappling with when he wrote about machines and the labor process.
2. Introducing slaves into the labor process could mean very different things at different periods in history. The law of value applies only to capitalist societies and capitalist societies are founded upon, among other things, wage labor. However, the American experience was definitely one in which a slave mode of production existed within a larger capitalist mode of production so the question still remains: what of the labor power of the slave in this context? As opposed to the above example where the addition of a machine increases physical output but not value output, the addition of slave labor would increase both physical and value output. But the value of that labor power would be set by the general value of labor in society, a social average set by the general intensity of labor across free and slave sectors. A society of just slave labor could not exist for long as a capitalist economy. In fact the end of slave-labor in the American south was a necessary development to the full capitalist development of American agriculture. Wage labor is a much more efficient form of exploitation and it creates a stronger imperative for technological innovation and efficiency.
Your question is a good one and one that I haven’t thought much about.
Comment by kapitalism101 — January 8, 2009 @ 6:28 pm |
If slave work keeps “proportionality” between physical output and value, would not that imply that slave-made commodities could be sold at prices below their value?
Think about two farms that use slave work as the sole way of producing food and then sell them in a market. Because the labour of the slave is free (except for the purchase and the costs of food and clothing)the two competing farms could sell their products at a price that would not reflect the amount of value created by their slave’s work and still make a profit.
I have no formal training in economics (in fact I am still in highschool) but from what I understand of Marx’s theory is that products are always sold at their values. Am I correct?
Comment by GokuEn — January 8, 2009 @ 8:17 pm |
The slave labor costs the whatever it takes to reproduce that worker. The same goes for a wage laborer. Now wage workers often have more power to bargain up their wages, but if they are competing in the same market with slave labor they would be forced to lower their wage demands. In many ways wage labor has actually been cheaper than slave labor.
Either way the cost of the product is not fixed by just the cost of reproducing the worker. There must be surplus value made on top of that to create a profit. So the slave/worker laborers part of the day creating enough value to pay back their own means of reproduction. The rest of the working day is spent creating value for the capitalist.
In regards to products always exchanging at values… Value is a social average established through the free exchange of commodities. Money prices can and do diverge from values. But it is the social average that prevails and that is important to social theory. Also, imperfections in exchange causes prices to diverge from values like in the case of monopoly pricing. There is also the matter of the “prices of production”, which I discuss in my “what transformation problem?” video. Here, the more detailed analysis of the way surplus value is redistributed amongst capitalists in exchange leads to the more specific fact that commodities trade at their prices of production not their values. Prices of production are a function of value, but not directly equal to value. The difference between prices of production and values allows us to understand many things about the destabilizing effects of capitalist competition upon profit rates.
Sometimes, especially in Capital vol.1 Marx makes the simplifying assumption that commodities trade at their values. This is simplification he justifies because he is not dealing with questions of distribution yet at that theoretical stage of the argument. And for some purposes its not important to make the distinction unless one is specifically dealing with questions of the distribution of surplus value between capitalists. So you will often hear people say “price equals value” when, technically actually price=prices of production.
However in the theory of the prices of production marx holds three aggregate equalities: 1. total money prices equal total value. 2. total surplus value equal total profits. 3. value profit rate equals money profit rate. So at this macro-level, yes price equals value. Sometimes when people talk about the equivalence of price and value this is what they are referring to.
Comment by kapitalism101 — January 10, 2009 @ 5:58 pm |