Capital, Volume I - Wikipedia
Release date. 12 February () (Berlinale); 2 March ( ) (Germany). Running time. minutes. Country, France Germany Belgium. Language, German · English · French. The Young Karl Marx (Le jeune Karl Marx) is a historical drama film about Karl Marx He meets Friedrich Engels, a young man whose wealthy father owns. Capital. Volume I: The Process of Production of Capital is an economics book by German After Marx's death, Friedrich Engels compiled and expanded his friend's notes into volumes II . The general value-form, which represents all products of labour, shows that it is the social resume of the world of commodities. Resumen | Índice | Plano | Texto | Bibliografía | Nota al final | Ilustraciones | Cita | Autor 5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, This moment, however, is not an empirical date in the future but lies hidden in .
This makes us present in vital and existential ways to what might be happening at great distance, but it also brings with it the possibility of a disconnect with what is happening around us, or near us, if they happen not to be online. This is especially true of things and people that drop out, or are forced to drop out of the network, or are in any way compelled not to be present online.
This foreshortening and occasionally magnification of distances and compression of time compels us to think in a more nuanced way about attention. Attention is no longer a simple function of things that are available for the regard of our senses.
With everything that comes to our attention we have to now ask - 'what obstacles did it have to cross to traverse the threshold of our considerations' - and while asking this we have to understand that obstacles to attention are no longer a function of distance.
The Internet also alters our perception of duration. Sometimes, when working on an obstinately analog process such as the actual fabrication of an object, the internalized shadow of fleeting Internet time in our consciousness makes us perceive how the inevitable delays inherent in the fashioning of things in all their messy 'thingness' ground us into appreciating the rhythms of the real world.
In this way, the Internet's pervasive co-presence with real world processes, ends up reminding us of the fact that our experience of duration is now a layered thing. We now have more than one clock, running in more than one direction, at more than one speeds. The simultaneous availability of different registers of time made manifest by the Internet also creates a continuous archive of our online presences and inscriptions. A message is archived as soon as it is sent. The everyday generation of an internal archive of our work, and the public archive of our utterances on online discussion lists and on facebook mean that nothing not even a throwaway observation is a throwaway observation anymore.
We are all accountable to, and for, the things we have written in emails or posted on online fora. We are yet to get a full sense of what this actually implies in the longer term. The automatic generation of a chronicle and a history colours the destiny of all statements. Nothing can be consigned to amnesia, even though it may appear to be insignificant. Conversely, no matter how important a statement may have appeared when it was first uttered, its significance is compromised by the fact that it is ultimately filed away as just another datum, a pebble, in a growing mountain range.
Whosoever maintains an archive of their practice online is aware of the fact that they alter the terms of their visibility. Earlier, one assumed invisibility to be the default mode of life and practice. Today, visibility is the default mode, and one has to make a special effort to withhold any aspect of one's practice from visibility. This changes the way we think about the relationship between the private memory and public presence of a practice.
It is not a matter of whether this leads to a loss of privacy or an erosion of spaces for intimacy, it is just that issues such as privacy, intimacy, publicity, inclusion and seclusion are now inflected very differently. Finally, the Internet changes the way we think about information. The fact that we do not know something that exists in the extant expansive commons of human knowledge can no longer intimidate us into reticence.
If we do not know something, someone else does, and there are enough ways around the commons of the Internet that enable us to get to sources of the known. The unknown is no longer that which is unavailable, because whatever is present is available on the network and so can be known, at least nominally if not substantively.
A bearer of knowledge is no longer armed with secret weapons. We have always been auto-didacts, and knowing that we can touch what we do not yet know and make it our own, makes working with knowledge immensely playful and pleasurable. Sometimes, a surprise is only a click away.
Karl Marx - Wikipedia
Marx states that they "call a tool a simple machine and a machine a complex tool. He points out that a plowwhich is powered by an animal, would be considered to be a machine and Claussen's circular loomwhich is able to weave at a tremendous speed, is in fact powered by one worker and therefore considered to be a tool. Marx gives a precise definition of the machine when he says "The machine, therefore, is a mechanism that, after being set in motion, performs with its tools the same operation as the worker formerly did with similar tools.
Whether the motive power is derived from man, or in turn from a machine, makes no difference here. The motor mechanism powers the mechanism. Be it a steam enginewater wheel or a person's caloric engine. The transmitting mechanism, wheelsscrewsand ramps and pulleys. These are the moving parts of the machine. The working machine uses itself to sculpt whatever it was built to do. Marx believes the working machine is the most important part of developed machinery.
It is in fact what began the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century and even today it continues to turn craft into industry. The machine is able to replace a worker, who works at one specific job with one tool, with a mechanism that accomplishes the same task, but with many similar tools and at a much faster rate. One machine doing one specific task soon turns into a fleet of co-operating machines accomplishing the entire process of production.
This aspect of automation enables the capitalist to replace large numbers of human workers with machines which creates a large pool of available workers that the capitalist can choose from to form his human workforce.
The worker no longer needs to be skilled in a particular trade because their job has been reduced to oversight and maintenance of their mechanical successors. The development of machinery is an interesting cycle where inventors started inventing machines to complete necessary tasks.
The machine making industry grew larger and worker's efforts started focusing toward creating these machines, the objects which steal work from its own creator. With so many machines being developed, the need for new machines to create old machines increased.
For example, the spinning machine started a need for printing and dyeingand the designing of the cotton gin. Along with the press, came the mechanical lathe and an iron cutting machine. Labor assumes a material mode of existence which necessitates the replacement of human force by natural forces. The Value Transferred by Machinery to the Product As seen in the previous section, the machine does not replace the tool, which is powered by man.
The tool multiplies and expands into the working machine that is created by man. Workers now go to work not to handle the tools of production but to work with the machine, which handles the tools.
It is clear that large-scale industry increase the productivity of labor to an extraordinary degree by incorporating its fast paced efficiency within the process of production. What is not as clear is that this new increase in productivity does not require an equal increase in expended labor by the worker. Machinery creates no new value. The machine accumulates value from the labor, which went into producing it, and it merely transfers its value into the product it's producing until its value is used up.
Only labor power, which is bought by capitalists, can create new value. Machinery transfers its value into the product at a rate, which is dependent upon how much the total value of the machinery is. Otherwise, the machinery would not be effective in raising surplus value and instead depreciate it. This is why some machinery is not chosen to replace actual human workers because it would not be cost effective.
The Proximate Effects of Machinery on the Workman Section Three examines some of the effects of the industrial revolution on the individual worker. It is divided into three subsections, the first of which discusses how the use of industrial equipment enables capitalists to appropriate supplementary labor. Marx notes that, since machinery can reduce the reliance upon a worker's physical strength, it enables the employment of women and children to carry out work that could previously only be done by men.
It thus depreciates an individual's labour-power by introducing many more potential workers into the exploitable pool of laborers. The second subsection describes how mechanisation, by increasing labor productivity, can effectively shorten the working-time needed to produce an individual commodity item.
However, because of the need to recoup the capital outlay required to introduce a given machine, it must be productively operated for as long as possible every day.Friedrich Engels: El origen de la familia, la propiedad privada y el Estado
In the third subsection, Marx discusses how mechanization influences the intensification of labor. Although the introduction of the Factory Acts limited the allowable length of the work day, it did nothing to halt the drive for more efficiency.
Control over workers' tools is transferred to the machine, which prevents them from setting their own work pace and rhythm. As the machines are continuously adapted and streamlined, the effect is an ever-increasing intensification of the laborer's work activity. The Factory Marx begins this section with two descriptions of the factory as a whole. In the first description, the workers, or collective labor power, are viewed as separate entities from the machine.
In the second description, the machine is the dominant force, with the collective labor acting as mere appendages of the self operating machine. Marx uses the latter description to display the characteristics of the modern factory system under capitalism.
In the factory, the tools of the worker disappear, and the worker's skill is passed on to the machine.
The division of labor and specialization of skills re-appear in the factory, only now as a more exploitative form of capitalist production work is still organized into co-operative groups. Work in the factory usually consists of two groups, people who are employed on the machines and those who attend to the machines. The third group, outside of the factory, is a superior class of workers, trained in the maintenance and repair of the machines.
Factory work begins at childhood to ensure that a person may adapt to the systematic movements of the automated machine, therefore increasing productivity for the capitalist. Marx describes this work as being extremely exhausting to the nervous system and void of intellectual activity. Factory work robs workers of basic working conditions like clean airlightspaceand protection. The Struggle between Worker and Machine This section opens with a historical summary of workers' revolts against the imposition of mechanical instruments of production, such as ribbon weaving.