<


https://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu/msg07169.html


1991 , 95 By Charles Brown <


THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION AND THE SIZE AND TERRITORIAL DISPERSAL OF THE POINTS OF PRODUCTION: 1/441 PLANTCLOSINGS, OUTSOURCING, SMALLER PLANTS<


This is an effort to add to the Marxist theoretical definition of the socalled scientific and technological revolution (STR). The STR is a standard term in current M literature ( the concept takes on added interest because one general criticism of the Soviet Union and the socialist countries is that they have failed to integrate the STR into their economies contributing significantly to their current economic crises). Yet I have not seen what I would call a cogent Mólitical economic definition of The STR seems usually to be only a loose label to describe the fact that we have, in approximately the last 40 years, many new and more efficient means of production, which refers to the pul:! nore eficient technologient aspect. <


? But new machines, raw materials and other technologies have been coming about for many more years than the last forty. Fundamentally, M and E in the Communist Manifesto argued donstant aacter sting the bout east, they are Even since the initial introduction of widespread use of machines into production in the Industrial Revolution (for which M gave a theoretical explanation in Capital ), and prior to the last forty years, there have been great leaps in the productivity of whole ranges of means of production. Certainly, there have been many qualitative advances in science applied to technology over that whole time period. For example, the widespread use of electricity in production came after the Industrial Revolution, but well before the last forty years.<


+ The same is true of gas and oil as fuels. Surely, both of these and many others gave big jolts forward to productivity. Yet, these qualitative changes in productivity are not usually considered part of the STR. (I am defining the Scientifc and Technological Revolution in Marxist sense which must involve a qualitative change or a quantitative leap. This is a dialectical approach) There have been a number of qualitative changes in productivity in technological terms since the Industrial Revolution. So that qualitative change in productivity must not be the only or key characteristic for defining the. STR. A number of scholars have pointed to the fact that the current leap in productivity marks science becoming fully a direct force of production (in fulfillment of a prediction or trend noted by E and M) • (quote) ge Swo barh th.bin


I do not disagree with this. And it very well may have important implications for political economy and social psychology (Borbely. et al.) other than and related to those I hypothesize below. For example, the increase in machines controlling machines, especially by the use of computers to do Perio ?<


emballé et expédié mental functions of Ploduction. This seems to have dopinitelectin increased the proportion of workers who do predominantly mental labor and decreased the proportion of workers in manufacturing overall relative to the number of workers in non-material production. This essay seeks to provide a theoretical explanation for another development. fosinite lender PL et sog A Marxist theoretical explanation/ looks at change in terms of a developing internal contradiction: In this case I am proposing the contradiction in between two original aspects of the capitalist technological mode of production as analyzed by Marx in Capital , cooperation and mechanization. are isolated by Marx as the bases for the manufacturing and industrial stages, respectively, of capitalist advances in organization of production. These are the two moments, in the bourgeoisie's constant revolutionizing of the means of production, which marked the historical point when the bourgeois mode came to prevail. Kapn phe Eagels As history went on these two aspects can be seen as in di Petrin contradiction. Originally both increased productivity as Marx explains. But eventually, mechanization and, especially its extension as automation and cybernation, have increased productivity to an extent that it has negated or made secondary the productive advantage of cooperation, i.e. large numbers of workers working close together in space and time, graphically the giant factory and industrial urban centers and regions. (increased productivity, greater efficiency of production, the goal of the constantly "revolutionizing the means of production that the bourgeoisie does are, afterall, the same amount of value produced with a smaller amount of human labor time other words machines that allow fewer people to produce the same amount. Marx explainsdextensively how this is aimed at increasing / 303 surplus value for the capitalist as follows...) hen mine a my te machines and the means o transport and communication has reached the point where the capitalists are not hindered achieving productivity increases by smaller factories and a more scattered territorial configuration i.e. the antithesis of the form of the original cooperation. Perhaps, more precisely it should be said that in terms of achieving the highest productivity the capitalist can choose either a scattered or concentrated territorial configuration. The capitalists have an inclination to choose a widespread arrangement, and more frequent shifting of locations, because these practices tend to undermine and disrupt worker solidarity, collectivity,etc. I propose as a critical defining change of the STR, because it has important implications for the class struggle and some of its rudimentary logistics and tactics. Maybe an impression of what I mean can be had when one considers the big factory as the key scene for classical communist work. The point 8Inctions of production. This seems to have definitelenti creased the proportion of workers who do predominantly mental -and the nrodortion of workers in manufacturing of production remains the key scene for communist work, but that scattered more. point (the big factory) can be broken into smaller pieces and (Rouge Plant example. Other statistical evidence ?) Furthermore, the capitalist has a motivation to scatter the points of production through outsourcing near and far so as to breakup the traditional industrial centers which facilitate solidarity and unity among ther largest numbers of industrial workers. In other words, the STR allows the capitalists to breakup labor strongholds without loss of productivity for technological reasons. The capitalists "suffered" the sideeffect consequences of cooperation - solidarity and growth of class consciousness among workers due to the suggestion of the strength of their massive numbers from huge numbers working in single factories, etc. Marx's day and for many years after because of the productivity advantage. Now the capitalist can disperse production without loss of the old form of cooperation's productivity benefit. Not only at the point of production, but home neighborhoods are more scattered. The workers from a particular plant or industry are less ghettoized. This is also in part the result of the revolution in the means of transportation and communication. the industrial workers' direct, day to day contact in a plant is by and large with a smaller groups of workers. So, this key dynamic in formation of collective and class consciousness is changed. In fact, one can speculate that manufacturing workers will have to rely more on the revolutionized means of transportation and communication for that collective and class contact. The wholé technological revolution - machinery, transport, communication, et al. - has resulted in "cooperation" of workers in the manufacturing process on a higher level, i.e. a negation of the negation. Overall, in line with Marx and Engels long term observation, the STR creates a greater socialization of production or increase in the division of labor. This is familiarly referred to at this stage of history as the internationalization or globalization of the capitalist economies. As suggested above, this broadening of the area of common "workplaces" or cooperation has the potential for more direct social and political connections between broader groups of workers. The scattering of workplaces gives the capitalists a temporary advantage (see discussion of Tarpinian's article below). Yet, it carries with it the potential and tendency for the workers of all different regions and "all countries" to unite on a qualitatively higher level than ever before, e.g. 2Inctions of production. This seems to have definitelenti creased the proportion of workers who do predominantly mental -and the nrodortion of workers in manufacturing of production remains the key scene for communist work, but that scattered more. point (the big factory) can be broken into smaller pieces and (Rouge Plant example. Other statistical evidence ?) Furthermore, the capitalist has a motivation to scatter the points of production through outsourcing near and far so as to breakup the traditional industrial centers which facilitate solidarity and unity among ther largest numbers of industrial workers. In other words, the STR allows the capitalists to breakup labor strongholds without loss of productivity for technological reasons. The capitalists "suffered" the sideeffect consequences of cooperation - solidarity and growth of class consciousness among workers due to the suggestion of the strength of their massive numbers from huge numbers working in single factories, etc. Marx's day and for many years after because of the productivity advantage. Now the capitalist can disperse production without loss of the old form of cooperation's productivity benefit. Not only at the point of production, but home neighborhoods are more scattered. The workers from a particular plant or industry are less ghettoized. This is also in part the result of the revolution in the means of transportation and communication. the industrial workers' direct, day to day contact in a plant is by and large with a smaller groups of workers. So, this key dynamic in formation of collective and class consciousness is changed. In fact, one can speculate that manufacturing workers will have to rely more on the revolutionized means of transportation and communication for that collective and class contact. The wholé technological revolution - machinery, transport, communication, et al. - has resulted in "cooperation" of workers in the manufacturing process on a higher level, i.e. a negation of the negation. Overall, in line with Marx and Engels long term observation, the STR creates a greater socialization of production or increase in the division of labor. This is familiarly referred to at this stage of history as the internationalization or globalization of the capitalist economies. As suggested above, this broadening of the area of common "workplaces" or cooperation has the potential for more direct social and political connections between broader groups of workers. The scattering of workplaces gives the capitalists a temporary advantage (see discussion of Tarpinian's article below). Yet, it carries with it the potential and tendency for the workers of all different regions and "all countries" to unite on a qualitatively higher level than ever before, e.g.Proletarianization is over a much wider territorial and geographical area, less in relatively small pockets. But it takes a while for broader network to "congeal". And we are in that lag time now where the labor movement is weakened, the bourgeois is able to take advantage of the rearrangement made possible by the STR. somethi oppositt 3) 40* is the accumalation accumalation of qua hange ?When was the hology? How is this trial revolution? article "Specific Pe and Technological Tachenko (10 The seiel al Effects and Prospec restions are given. In thal qualitative and qu and technological revo. with the development of feature may be c st scientific and a coincidence in t There have been si however, was the ependence inherent and technology Notes 1. Rudy Fichtenbaum explains this constant revolutionizing of the means of production as follows: The development of the productive forces under capitalism takes place as a result of competition between capitals. Under capitalism, private ownership of the means of production results not only in the contradiction between the working class and the capitalist class but also in contradictions within each class as well. Within the capitalist class there is an antagonistic contradiction between capitalists which expresses itself in the anarchy of production and gives rise to competition between capitals. Itois this competition between capitals which drives each capitalist to try and maximize profits because failure to stay ahead of the competition can result in ruin. This basic fact forces each capitalist, and hence the capitalist class as a whole, continually to introduce new technology into the process of production. "Did Marx Have a Theory of the Business Cycle?"