^^^^ CB; In Marx's theory, increases in productivity of labor through innovations in instruments of labor( means of production) only give temporary profiting advantages to the capitalists who institute them first. The other capitalists soon catch up and there is no profit advantage from the "revolutionizing" of the instruments of production. The capitalists are constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production to try to get this advantage, but it doesn't add much to profit overall.
^^^^^^^^
In the
> middle ages, surplus value created by labor was extracted by feudal lords
> and either consumed or passed along to lord's offspring. Hence the
> productivity of labor in the middle ages did not change that much and the
> only way to increase surplus was by increasing labor input (more people
> working on more land). Capitalism separated investment capital from
> patrimony, and labor productivity started to improve rather quickly.
> Unlike feudal lords, who were a purely parasitic element of the medieval
> economy, capitalists actually perform labor that produce value inasmuch as
> their labor increases the productivity of all labor. From that pov,
> capitalist is a hybrid of a feudal lord inasmuch as he engages in
> conspicuous consumption and a worker inasmuch as he invests capital to
> improve the productivity of labor. The balance of these two roles of the
> capitalists - parasitic drones engaged in conspicuous consumption and
> worker bee producing surplus value for others - varied among different
> socio-political settings. I'd say that most of the US capitalist class is
> of the mostly parasitic variety, whereas in Asia and parts of Europe it is
> more of the worker bee kind.
>
> *****************
>
> There is no "fallacy" or "reductionism" on Marx's part.
>
> The capitalist may or may not participate in the production process--as a worker, a supervisor or manager. But his or her profits
> have nothing to do with his or her "labor" These functions could just as easily be performed for a salary, and are. Profits accrue to the capitalist in virtue of the fact that s/he is the owner of capital, and nothing else. Productivity does not require investment. It is a function
> of the instruments, techniques and natural conditions under which work is performed. The fact that these things take the form of capital, and are bought and sold under capitalism, has nothing to do with their inherent, productivity-enhancing qualities.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk