# Class 14 Capital Unpublished Chapter 6: Results of the Immediate Production Process

## Метаданные

- **Канал:** YaleCourses
- **YouTube:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmervFlZ1Mg
- **Источник:** https://ekstraktznaniy.ru/video/24375

## Транскрипт

### Segment 1 (00:00 - 05:00) []

(soft music) - We are in the phase of full on capital all the time fully developed. In developed, the main capitalist lever, the main way to get more surplus value is through relative surplus value. Absolute surplus value, as you know, comes back in as a kind of subsidiary. That is, if you increase productivity and you put machinery on the floor to do that, you can then employ tons more workers and extend your absolute surplus value as well. But the real lever is relative surplus value that is moving from B2B prime. And then after that, other things become possible, like you need to run your machines all the time. So you take over the night, etcetera. Once intensity and extension, the length of the day and the amount of work you can do in any unit of time, are fixed, the only option is to increase productivity. I'm just reminding you where we got to. Now this produces the value trap where increasing productivity does not increase value because no more labor is, no more socially necessary labor time is going into them. So the only way this affects surplus value by increasing it or also by decreasing it, is for increased productivity to have an effect on necessary labor time. The cost of labor power. This we know. The first part of the day has to be reduced. If we're talking about it in the terms of extension. Later, we're gonna talk about it in terms of intensity where the day could be shortened. This is the end of chapter 15, I believe. You get a little glimpse of a socialist working world in which value doesn't go away, but free time comes back in abundance. Marx is, he is not really sanguine about these things in this book. He's trying to map out the prison, but he does see ways in which you could get certain kinds of freedom strongly back if you made little adjustments and that's worth thinking about. So we are left with the question, what kinds of things can capitalists do to increase productivity? One, we talked about earlier, that is machinery and the other we started to talk about yesterday, that is subsumption. Okay, just letting you know where we are in the map of this class. To recap from last class, subsumption seems to have three objects that it works on. One is the subsumption of nature under capital, the other is the subception of the labor process, or the subsumption of laboring into a process. And the other would be, the third would be the subsumption of laborers into the labor process. I'm gonna give you a little window into that with some actual pictures today. So those are the three objects of subsumption. Obviously, the third object really belongs to the second object. The subsumption of laborers into the process belongs to the subsumption of labor as a process, but I'm calling them three for now. There are two kinds of subsumption, formal and real that Marx deals with, formal subsumption we'll talk about a little more. And we talked about real subsumption is quite extreme, is a kind of dream that you could get to, where, let's say, all labor is subsumed into process and all process is subsumed to capitals ends completely, with nothing sticking out. But actually there's four kinds of subsumption You would start with ideal subsumption. This would be the Hegelian version. In case you were interested, for your future critiques of capital from a Hegelian perspective, you would start with ideal subsumption, in which someone had the thought, hey, we could put all this stuff to work for capital. That would be ideal, merely ideal. Someone had the thought that work could stop being the skilled manipulation of materials to make products and start becoming the material to be manipulated by owners, right? But if it remains at the level of ideality, nobody's actually doing this. Someone is just sitting around with a good idea without very much to eat. The next movement of this thought would be to formal subsumption, in which owners and the managers they hire, discipline workers, control their movements in an explicit way through timings, through rules, signs. People set up on the work floor to direct workers by an external force

### Segment 2 (05:00 - 10:00) [5:00]

to bring them into the mode of production to make sure that they're producing value. That's formal subsumption. The next stage of this would be real subsumption, in which all of those control functions are subsumed as well. Usually subsumed into the workers as much as into the capitalists. That's just to say in real subsumption, labor is completely within the valorization process and workers are self disciplining, or even their desires are directing them. I want to go to work. I wanna be productive. I wanna win the next prize. I wanna get to the next rank. All of those internal motivations reduce the friction between labor and capital. And then there's a fourth step, which I can't even tell you what it is, which in Hegel's view would be total subsumption in which there was absolutely no distinction between your life and the life of capital, between the processes and capital's processes. Marx doesn't even talk about total subsumption, but you can see that the tendency is towards something like total subsumption. I think someone should found a department of subsumption studies, 'cause I think that's where we're at. Subception has three effects. First, it brings things, processes, and people under the capitalist control. It takes on. This is under the capitalist purpose valorization, that again is formal subsumption. That's one effect. These things come into and become reorganized to fulfill this purpose. The second effect is to make natural parameters into the parameters of capital, subsume capital. This is where, for example, what seemed like natural parameters, like free time or just life, gets called time off, vacation, weekend. You see that the definition is reversed and you're now looking purely from the perspective of capital. This is the way the real subsumption affects the parameters that have, that they have other determinations. Life, let's say has its own determinations, but under capital they start to become capital's, determinations and be named according to capital. And this leads to the third effect of subsumption. It makes the source of everything seem to be capital itself. The source of all the goods in your life, the source of your free time, your pleasures, they seem to be produced by capital, not by nature. Total subsumption would be the total assumption of nature under capital. So in terms of the productive forces of labor, what happens here is you go in with all these productive forces and what gets produced, this is what Marx is talking about in 14 and particularly in the results of the immediate production process. As a result of you going into a capitalist workshop, everything you do looks like it was initiated by capital, controlled by capital, and produced by capital. That's why people think capitalists do the work and workers are just lazy and hanging out, because the production is inverted. The process is inverted. Capital initiates it and it brings things in not only to fulfill the purposes, but to change their very names. Does that make sense? We're understanding the force of subsumption. It's very important. And all of that produces more relative surplus value. You could say that the system is forced to subsume because it's the only way left to increase the production of relative surplus value. You read some excerpts from the unpublished chapter six called "The Results of the Immediate Production Process. " This is a slightly confusing name, immediate production process. What is being produced here? Value. Every bit of mediation in work, like making a product, has to be reduced to the immediate production of value. Value has to be conserved and produced at every stage. Once the work system is turned from producing products to producing value completely, the capital system is the result of that. what comes out. Every time someone goes into the, this is a very important Marxian thought and it's hard to understand.

### Segment 3 (10:00 - 15:00) [10:00]

Every time you go into the factory to produce value, you are reproducing the capital system as that which brought you there to begin with. That is to say, it only exists insofar as people are doing this, but it gets deeper and deeper entrenched, because with every successful production of value, you have the deeper entrenchment of the capital system. The more workers become dependent on the capital system for their very means of subsistence, which is a subsidiary and ancillary goal of the capital system to reproduce the worker, the more they're dependent on capital to do that, the more it seems like capital is in charge. And what everyone wants to do is produce capital. So, for example, you read in the results of the immediate production process that here it seems like the means of production employ the worker. If you open up that document which I sent around as a PDF, you go in and they, and this more so in a machine factory, you go in and the machine is like you stand there and here's what I'm going to do to use you to make myself more able to produce the products. This is the machine speaking. Marx doesn't have a machine speak in "Capital," but you could very well do it. He also says, what labor looks like now is dead labor absorbing living labor. So you have the means of production that have to, whose value has to be conserved and it sucks out of you the living labor, right? You have no agency in this. All labor becomes wage labor under this schema. But he makes a distinction and it's important for us to hold onto, especially if you want to be a Marxist. 'Cause there's a lot of controversy around this. All labor is wage labor, but not all wage labor is, what he calls, productive labor. Did you read the sections on productive and non-productive labor? We have translated that in the new volume as production and non-production labor, because it's not the case that labor outside of the factory is, doesn't produce anything, is not facund. It doesn't give us goods for our life. What Marx means there is it's not producing commodities, directly producing commodities, but of course, labor in the home and all sorts of other labor, service labor, that's all helping the production of commodities and we couldn't have an economy without it. But he wants to make this distinction clear. There's non-production labor when a laborer works for themselves or directly for a user. So if you make something for your friend or if you have a garden and you're feeding your family, that is non-production labor. It doesn't enter into the system and it doesn't produce any value. That doesn't mean it has no worth for you or for society. It may well. Like domestic labor has huge worth for the whole system. But he wants to make an analytic distinction between production labor and non-production labor. He does not have a good theory of domestic labor, put it that way, but he certainly has a place for it and knows how crucial it is for reproduction. Production labor produces commodities for exchange. That is the, that's the source both of value and of capitalism. The rest become ancillary to that. Then he talks in these sections about labor becoming alienated and I wanna point this out to you, 'cause alienation is a favorite concept among critics of capital and critics of contemporary society. Just to say that alienation has a technical sense for Marx, does anyone know what that is? Technical sense of alienation? It's from the Latin term venditare, which means to sell. It is the way a product is taken away from the producer and transferred to someone else. Under capital, products are taken away from the producer and given, not to the user, but to the capitalist. And this is the special nature of alienation. It isn't an existential or psychological category for Marx, alienation. It's certainly not in late Marx. There's some tinges of that in the 1840s when he uses the term. So one mode of alienation under formal subsumption is that the products of labor are taken away. They become the property of the capitalist and they stand over against the laborer. You come in and this thing is telling you, make me so that I can go on my way. Another way to say this is the workers particularly unfree under formal assumption because they're subject to the means of labor.

### Segment 4 (15:00 - 20:00) [15:00]

This is what Marx says here. You get in this chapter, which is about a hundred pages, a much bigger picture of the unfreedom of workers under capital, which is why I assigned it. But it's not just the means of labor that subjugates the laborer to itself, right? You're not a free, conscious individual with a will that comes in and says, I'm gonna bend this natural product to my needs. The thing says, you're gonna do what I need to become valorized to you. I'm gonna suck as much living labor out of you as I possibly can. Does this make sense? The second mode of alienation under formal subsumption is that the process of labor is taken away as well. So previously in pre capitalists, in paracapitalists and in early capitalist labor, the process of labor belonged to the worker. Was something they dominated, they owned, and this was why they had a lot of bargaining power. They could say, well I know how to do this and you don't. This is the core of Hegel's master-slave dialectic. In high capitalism, under formal and then real subsumption, there is no dialectic left. The slave does not know more than the master. The master has learned how to separate mental and manual labor and take the mental labor on themselves. This is the cleverness of the capital system. So in this second mode of alienation, the labor process is taken away. It stands against the laborer and the worker gets subsumed into the process. We've talked about this. You go into work and if you look at these videos, which I don't think we'll have time to show today, of Amazon warehouse workers, there's a whole like set of steps by which they conform to this very rigid process that they cannot deviate from by 10 seconds. They have eight minutes to go to the bathroom. Everything is timed. They have to scan and a code every so often to keep their rate up. They get disciplined if they don't. This is somewhere between formal and real subsumption. The subsumption studies department that you're gonna found will tell us. What we know when the process stands against the worker is that their intelligent engagement in the work process is taken away from them. The process which was thought out by someone else, replaces them, stands against them, and they have to fit themselves in it. This is why subsumption is the right category. And again, this is reiterating a little bit, but I wanna make it clear. This is another way Marx says in those pages, capital stands against workers under formal subsumption, leading towards real subsumption. It seems as though capital is calling all the shots and here's how Marx puts this, I think, in a very important philosophical innovation. What was once a premise, is now the results. The premise was I go in and do work. Now this premise is the results of the process. The work has been done. The premise is, I need to valorize this thing, the valorization happens, and the results now confirm the system. In other words, under real subsumption, capital has become the new nature. Forget the laws of nature. In fact, technology allows you often physically to forget the laws of nature, to overcome them, whether it's flying or teleporting with social media. Okay, cool. Questions about that? I know it's bleak, but it's fun too. It's good to know where you are. No? Or at least imagine for a minute what it would be like if this were the explanation of our social economic situation. - I'm curious about the four different types of subsumption, closed, real, formal or ideal, formal, real, and total subsumption. And kind of this process. Like what are the drivers that are necessarily getting this from regular follow the real and then like real to total. - Real to total, God forbid. - Sure. - Or Marx forbid, or something like that. Let's talk, let's do a show. Let's get subsumed in technology.

### Segment 5 (20:00 - 25:00) [20:00]

This is less about the subsumption of the labor process than it is about the subsumption of laborers into the process, but it gives you an idea of how it works. So under formal subsumption of laborers into the labor process, we can understand what Marx is saying. In this section of the unpublished chapter six, "The worker comes under the command, the direction, and the overall supervision of the capitalist, only in relation to his labor, which belongs to capital," of course. "The labor is actually alienated from their own labor which belongs to capital. " And this was exemplified 20 years after Marx died by Taylorism, which was an attempt to do this in pretty extreme terms. This is from Taylor. There's nothing worse than reading directly off of a PowerPoint, so I'll do it, first to point out through a series of simple illustrations, the great loss, which the whole country is suffering through inefficiency in almost all our daily acts. Now, this seems like an ideological statement or a conceptual social statement, but really the pressure is to increase relative surplus value, whether he admits it or not. Why would you even need to? Why is the country suffering through inefficiency? Because the capitalists need to produce relative surplus value. Second, to try and convince the reader that the remedy for this inefficiency lies in systematic management, rather than in searching for some unusual or extraordinary man, that is, a worker who could be more efficient. Now, already Marx had seen this coming from a long time before. This is the scientification of formal subsumption, in which you'd get a set of rules and protocols for it. Third, to prove this is the principles of scientific management, to prove that the best management is a true science resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles as a foundation. So bringing labor into subsumed labor process is itself a problem. Laborers can, they may not be able to resist going to work, but they certainly can resist being efficient and this is the next stage of subsumption. The name for the discipline that helps find the procedures to force workers into line is industrial organizational psychology. The main topic there that we'll be interested when we get to, there's two topics really. One is management of efficiency or the production of efficiency on the workflow. And the second is job satisfaction. The first corresponds to formal subsumption, the second corresponds to real subsumption. Industrial organizational psychology developed between 1890 and 1930. It built on the ideas of Taylor who was himself a worker who worked as a machinist in a steel shop who made cast and forged steel parts for navy artillery, for steam turbines and also pressurized vessels for chemical plants, who then became a foreman on the factory floor. And on his way through the factory, he noticed that work was what he called, and here is formalizing into a system, inefficient. So he developed techniques for maximizing productivity, which he called process management. You can see how Marx envisions this. He could see it coming. For example, one thing that would increase efficiency through process management was not just setting out a process and making the process the only thing that the worker could fit into, but the timing of the process had to come under management. So Taylor invented a figure who stood on the factory floor called the speed boss, who timed every movement of workers doing different tasks and could restrain them and control them in minute quantities. The idea was to fill time more symmetrically and more fully with the process. And this involved a huge apparatus of control. Obviously, you have to hire a speed boss and that is cutting your profits, cutting into your profits. It is true that Taylor invented the work break, but that was so that you didn't have to take a longer break later or you didn't have to end your day earlier. He put in all of these pseudo beneficial steps, really beneficial you could say, but only beneficial if the day was tightly controlled in all of its intervals to produce more relative surplus value.

### Segment 6 (25:00 - 30:00) [25:00]

He was even interested in the way people work. He introduced the term soldiering into social descriptions of workers. Maybe you feel this way sometime when you're studying, you're just kind of marching along, because that was not efficient. You had to have some passion for your work, so that you would push for more efficiency. Soldiering was not good enough. He tried to come up with many treatments for soldiering, for example, tying pay to productivity. Mostly though, it was through direct control of managers and floor bosses. And, of course, they can't do much for psychology. And because of that, the field of industrial psychology pushed towards an internal boss, a psychological boss, which could get in the heads of people and this is really a step towards real subsumption of labor into the labor process. Here's Münsterberg, a German who made it his project to work on psychological inefficiencies, ways in which the attitudes, habits, ways of thinking and feeling, could get in the way of higher productivity, where you could be helped to unfold your best energies and then secure your greatest personal satisfaction. This was Münsterberg. He wanted to invent a science of it and almost immediately a psychologist, American, Robert Hoppock or maybe Scottish. In any case, he took an aspect of this and in 1935 he argued that being dissatisfied with your work was highly inefficient. So not only did you have to get rid of, you know, gaps and laziness in your thinking about work, not soldier, but you also, if you had a desire to work, this would be much more efficient for producing relative surplus value. Here's a quote from him. "Whether or not one finds his employment sufficiently satisfactory to continue in it either permanently or until he has prepared himself for greater responsibilities, is a matter of the first importance to the employer and the employee. " To the state, the problem is no less significant. Subject any group of normal persons to intolerable working conditions and revolt is inevitable. First in strike, if they fail, in riots. Finally, if necessary in political or social revolution. So you can see exactly what they're thinking here, that if you could overcome these psychological inefficiencies towards desiring to work, towards getting a payback from work of satisfaction, you not only increased efficiency, but you avoided political upheaval. Psychology is an instrument of political control. So he invented the job satisfaction survey, which asks, on a whole range of questions in which you could see that the meaning of work is being subtly shifted and workers will now understand that what it means to go to work is partially to find a job you like or love. It also, so psychology is the henchman of employers here who can train employers to produce a workplace and a work process that subsumes you, subsumes your desire as well. This ends up in the whole discourse about loving your work, which I won't go into, except to point out how Steve Jobs, really telling name, how Steve Jobs reimagined his career at a certain point, purely on the basis of love. What I should have after this is a picture of a Foxconn factory, where they produce Apple's products. But, and this is an interesting point in this part of IO that has to do with producing satisfaction. Well, they don't seek full satisfaction, because that would leave workers uninterested in working. They'd just be like, ah, like that. So you have to have an optimum balance between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Enough satisfaction, so you think your desires are gonna be fulfilled, and little enough satisfaction that you keep going back. It is in the words of a great philosopher, sick. Okay, just to show you the difference between a 19th century work floor, this was the cover of another edition of "Capital," which I won't mention. The Great painting by Adolph Menzel, the "Iron Rolling Mill" "Das Eisenwalzwerk. " And if you could compare that to, for example, Google, in which the aim to capture your desires and bring them into work enough that you get satisfied enough

### Segment 7 (30:00 - 35:00) [30:00]

that you love your work and are subsumed into the process, is clear in the architecture. I can show you very briefly if you want. - I'm a relative. - This little clip just for fun, have you seen this one? This is where the worker themselves realized that it's their own desire. They can't stop their desires from doing more. I'm sure you've all seen this, but it's worth a laugh. Is that working? (loud bell) - Section five. (machine whirring) (upbeat playful music) - So you can see here that he, this is formal subsumption. The machine is dictating all his movements. He is trying to keep up. (upbeat playful music) There's the speed boss, clearly. (upbeat playful music) Crazy with real subsumption. To point it that way. That his desires have now coincided completely with the machine and he is willing to sacrifice his own life to keep. You really wanna see the end of it? How many of you have not seen this before? Oh my gosh. (upbeat playful music) In a sense, you get to the point where his job satisfaction is so high they have to stop the machine. (upbeat playful music) I don't think we need to see this next moment. (students laughing) Okay, let's go back to Marx. It's a lot less funny. Subsumption goes beyond labor in the 20th century, to consumption, in which the whole consumption side is subsumed or tries to be subsumed into capital's aims to valorize. Whole areas of products are made, which no one could have imagined would've been useful to anyone. And those uses come after you buy them. Your desires to consume become subsumed as well. Subsumption is a very big and important topic. It belongs for Marx into what? In the stage in his thinking, how capitalists produce more relative surplus value. We now have to look at 15, which is technical. The relation between the price of labor power and the magnitude of surplus value. We have 10 minutes to do this. You ready? Back to the technical. Okay, before we talked about this in terms of the length of the working day. End of the day, people go home and collapse. The idea is to move B2B prime, right? To make that area of relative surplus value. While there's actually three variables. You're looking at chapter 15 here, the price of labor power and the magnitude of surplus value increase and decrease. Is it the most boring chapter in the book? Maybe. We need to understand certain things though. For example, what are the variables? The extensive magnitude of actual labor? That is the duration of work, which is labor over time.

### Segment 8 (35:00 - 40:00) [35:00]

The intensive magnitude, which is time over labor, and productivity, output over snult. Keeping in mind that the only way to increase surplus value directly is to increase the extension or increase the intention. The intensivity of work. Once these are fixed, they reach their limits. You have to increase productivity, but the value stays the same. So you have to, what capitalism, capitalism in its full form is just figuring out how to combine these things. That's it. So it's a boring, but it's a powerful center of the book. Something like close to the very center. These have reciprocal inter activities in capital where the productivity might go up. So you might be able to shorten the working day, which might give you higher intensity of work because people are less tired. That's one balance. They come into a certain balance and their capitalist aims to push it towards producing more surplus value. So in the first section here, he will give you the ways this works if extension and intention are constant. So if these two are constant and productivity goes up, just remembering, the value overall does not change. So if you are making 100 widgets in a day and your productivity doubles, you're making then 200 widgets in a day. If these are worth $1, these are worth 50 cents, 'cause no extra labor has gone into it. Does that make sense? It doesn't help the overall ingress of relative surplus value, except insofar as this affects the cost of labor power and it moves this incrementally that way. We've talked about this, but here are the real levers that push people and technologies around. So with variable productive power and fixed extension and intensity, you have three possibilities. Marx says you have three laws. All of these laws, by the way were understood by Ricardo, he says, but he made the error of not understanding the difference between relative and absolute surplus value and that makes them not so useful for the critique of "Capital. " So the first law is this, productive power increases, but the overall value for the day stays the same. So the value of each product drops. This is very good for people who are buying the product, but it will also drive wages down. Another law here is this, if productive power goes up, the value of labor power goes down and surplus value goes up, right? That's just the same, saying the same as that. The law is that these two values cannot rise at the same time or fall at the same time. This has important consequences. If labor power cost goes up, surplus value, ingress goes down. If labor power cost goes down, surplus value goes up. They can never be going up at the same time. This means it's either the capitalists or the workers, always. Samuel. - There's this overarching kind of disdain for efficiency as a. - Disdain? - Well, I guess not disdain. It seems like there's a general criticism of the push towards efficiency, perhaps because there is an effect of subsumption. But now we know that there's a very limited amount of resources, like we have a limited number of natural resources and resources in general, and shouldn't we want to be more efficient?

### Segment 9 (40:00 - 45:00) [40:00]

Is that not desirable period? As a general objective? - That's a good question. I would, so the question is, in an age of environmental catastrophe in which there are other costs beyond the capital, the costs to capital if we waste things, shouldn't we want to be efficient? I would only say it might be that you wanna call that efficiency, and it might be that now we reclaim efficiency for saving the environment, but efficiency was born within capital in order to make time, a lever that capitalists can use. And so I would tend to not call that efficiency, I would call it, you know, not wasting. But even though capital is efficient, it's efficient for the production of value and it's highly wasteful of nature. So what you want is a system that is not wasteful of nature and also doesn't need to use up all your time. Especially the interest is where you could be, I don't know, breathing, peeing, having a thought, listening to music, the kinds of things that make it really worth keeping going. Diego, did you have a point? Someone raised their hand, which I missed. Oh yeah, sorry. - Why does the cost of labor power go down and productive power goes up? - Only if it is reducing the cost of the means of subsistence. So if you imagine a big pool of people who are buying the things that are being made, in general, what's made in the economy is for everyone's subsistence. And so if productivity increase will lower the cost of subsistence. - So that doesn't happen if there's productivity increase through just like one factory. - Well, it could, if the factory is making, I don't know, what does everybody eat? Marshmallows? Let's say marshmallows, the most nutritious thing, everyone's eating marshmallows. If the marshmallow factory, you know, gets more efficient and marshmallows are half as expensive, you know, we're much cheaper when they have to pay us the next week. - Yeah. - I had follow up on that. - Could it be in case that the value of labor power also could, in a certain factory, suddenly more like productivity increases, could also be, could drop because now less labor powers is expended in producing something. So for instance, it took me two hours to make a shoe or like, but now with the machine it kicks me, I can make many more shoes in the same amount of times. - Yeah. - So you're producing more commodities and the types of commodities or like the valuation of the commodity is also decreasing because now you have a lot more, is that? - Yep. So is that the same? - That's the same mechanism, yep. What we need to survive is cheaper. Our survival is cheaper. Wages get pressed down towards subsistence levels. That's how you make more surplus value. This is Marx's argument and it shows that all increases in surplus value and increases in profit and growth are on the backs of laborers existence, AJ. - Sorry, I think just seeking a third part of this turning ball, like I understand the kind of direct proportionality between productive power and surplus value, that's kind of intuitive science. And I'm a little more confused about the kind of proportionality of labor power in surplus value. I see how increasing productive power also just. - This is just the cost of labor power. - Okay, - That's what it costs. - Okay. - And again, the third law. - That makes sense. Yeah, yeah. - The third law, so it's not labor power as a capacity to do work. Labor power is not That's determined on the factory floor. Labor power is the commodity, the fictitious commodity. I sell promising to do a certain amount of work where when I get there it's three times as much, but it's hard to find a good vocabulary without confusions, as you will know from reading this book. One other thing I just wanna say is that the third law is that the causality always goes this way. Just so you know, you can't find another way to make surplus value go up. So that would then somehow drive labor power down or surplus value. If you cut the amount of surplus value you're making by some other means, it does not make the cost of labor power rise. If we cut the workday artificially, at a certain point, there's less surplus value. You're not gonna make more money. It only works in this direction. These are important parts of the levers at the center of the capital system. I will see you Monday. We have a little more technical stuff to do from this chapter and then we'll move on to wages.

### Segment 10 (45:00 - 45:00) [45:00]

(soft music)