The Factory, ADX


The beginning of the chapter of Capital 15: The Development of Machinery saw for Marx that not the factory is a system organised from the nucleus of machinery but also the basis of adding a second prerequisite for women and children in the labour process, managing the number of individuals in the creation of material for “capitalist exploitation”, disposing the whole workman’s time in the commodity process in a totality of extending the workman’s hours of labour for anarchy purposes while the body of the factory pushing towards an increasing of production in smaller increments of time; for the overall goal of squeezing labour-power. The factory over its development takes account for the collectivist structure, as Marx divulges from Andrew Ure automated factory that the social body of labour is the “dominant subject” of the mechanical automated factory, while acknowledging that automation is a clear subject with workers being the true conscious of the organs of the factory while the cycle of automation is the “unconscious organs of the automation”; diametrically from the central organ of the factory machine. The machine, however transfers the workmans skills towards itself, as the tools governing the machine from the central machine’s autocratic nature emancipate its own restraints, as it becomes “inseparable from human labour-power”. The factory, or intern the factory owners realise that indeed manufacturing doesn’t require a division of labour quality to it; internally it becomes according to Marx a distant concept in the process. Thereby, the controllers of the machine has a sense of control in dictating the amount of work for a workmen in either equalising and reducing work; while understanding the “natural differences of the age and sex”. Insofar, the division of labour, in a technical form, comes into play in the factory structure; in the factory structure assigning workmen amongst the machinery’s specific workload; while the workmen who aren’t into this assigning come into play in “various departments of the factory” e.g. segments of support of the specific workload. Referring back to Marx’s specific workload of workmen, it comes into a detailed plan of a relationship between the workmen with the highest prestige and the assistants surrounding them. The division of the labourers gets broken down into the following for Marx: workmen who are specialised to control and take care of the machine, the attendants of the workmen (the first phase of attendants being the suppliers of the material) and finally the described ‘unimportant class’; which is an incremental part in the repairing and maintenance of the machine e.g. engineers, mechanics, joiners, operators etc. This unimportant class however doesn’t for Marx be seen as a useless entity; rather the most educated of all the conscious organs in the machines; in that they are “scientifically educated, others brought up to a trade; it is distinct from the factory operative class”, therefore can be considered a sophisticated position of workmen. Insofar, the premise in Marx’s analysis of Andrew Ure’s automated factory line is the teaching of the workman from the age of children; for the goal of understanding the motion and direction of the automation. Overtime, the machinery in the factory structure develops into various sects, while unifying its movement together at the same time; therefore the factory owner must distribute the workforce in the factory to operate. The distribution however doesn’t come into play in necessity for the factory in the relationship of the employment of workmen in the circumstance for Marx “after the manner of Manufacture”, thus not needing anymore a specific man to operate a specific function of machinery. It is important to note though that the motion of the system doesn’t start from the workmen but rather in Marx’s investigation from the machinery itself as the machinery can allow a change of personnel without a stoppage of the work in practice. However, we could identify that machinery becomes overtime a generalised feature in particular modes of industry. However from this generalisation, the produce of its original social value will eventually drop to its individual value. Adding onto this phenomenon, the law the governs surplus-value will not become about from labour-power that is overtime being replaced by machinery; which in Grundrisse would be the rise of automation in the vitro and mimicking of our productive actions. Even so, the labour-power in the actual working progress of the machinery will again, assert itself; creating the evolutionary underbelly of its realisation. Interestingly from this, one must recognise the contradiction of the immanence in squeezing out; let us say for instance two surplus values out of 24 labourers. Applying machinery to the mechanism of Surplus-Value creates a blockage which is a natural factor from it, as the pre-planned required capital and the rate of surplus-value towards the labourer cannot be incrementally increased, only through the reduction of the worker or reducing capital. One can identify this naturalness of this contradiction from, the general implementation of machinery. For example, the value of the machine-crafted commodity structures and crystallises the value of others commodities in the same belt, of the same sort. Nevertheless, this reality will drive the capitalist, even if he is conscious of this contradictory factor, to the point of extending the length of the workday, while removing the amount of exploited labourers, from both a relative and absolute surplus-labour.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Next Post

The Guignol in History, Amadeo Bordiga

In this 1953 article from the “Thread of Time” series, Amadeo Bordiga addresses the role of the great man or “man of destiny” in history, whose modern representatives he calls “Guignols” (grotesque puppets)—devoid of individuality, vacuous, two-dimensional receptacles for the cult of personality—from Napoleon to Eisenhower, and situates this phenomenon […]