b) Generalised Commodity Production
The reason Bradby makes her argument about Money is to undermine one definition of Generalised Commodity Production i.e. an economy in which exchange is mediated by the use of Money.
She then turns to another definition, that of an economy in which, the majority of economic activity is based upon production for the purpose of Exchange. But, the problem with this definition, she claims, is that, in all modern societies, the biggest two employers are the State and Domestic Labour. This opens some interesting questions.Before coming on to that let me just add that, of course, there is another definition of GCP, which is essentially that I have outlined above. That is, that, at a certain point in history, quantity changes into quality. At a certain level of trade it becomes possible, and even necessary, to evaluate commodities one with another. At the point, historically, this occurs we can say that there is Generalised Commodity Production.
That does not, of course, mean that at this point there is Capitalism, nor even that Exchange Value has assumed a mature form. Capitalism is a system based on GCP, which is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. However, it does signify that at this point, because it has become possible to assign an Exchange Value to commodities that same Exchange Value is impressed upon Use Values that were not produced as commodities. The importance of that is considerable. A peasant whose land has a rich coal deposit on it will not have exploited the coal, because he can only consume a certain quantity of it. His economic activity will have been determined by Use Value. But, when a sizeable market for coal develops, and he becomes aware of the Exchange Value of coal as compared to say the potatoes he currently spends his time, and uses his land, to produce, for his own consumption, he may well see that spending the same amount of time producing coal, will render him sufficient Exchange Value so as to be able to buy far more potatoes than he is currently able to produce in that same time.The Use Value “clean laundry” might be produced purely as a Use Value, by domestic Labour, but it is unlikely that the Exchange Value of “clean laundry” produced as a commodity will not be considered.
That, after all, is why commercial Laundries arose, and why washing machines became commonplace, because workers measured the Exchange Value of those items in relation to the time spent on producing “clean laundry”, and related it to the Exchange Value that could be earned from wage labour as opposed to domestic labour during that same time.The same is true in relation to the State. But, there are nuances. Firstly, it is clear that State production is determined by Exchange Value – for one thing nationalised industries were once required to set their prices equal to their Marginal Costs. Capital did not nationalise or socialise production and distribution out of some desire to meet society's needs removed from its own need to maximise profits. Nor does it conversely seek then to privatise what it once nationalised purely out of ideological conviction. Capital is quite happy to nationalise where it is in its interests to do so. It seeks to privatise where it believes it will reduce its costs by doing so. Moreover, the goods and services produced by the State are themselves commodities. Certainly, the Labour-Power purchased by the State capitalist is sold as wage-labour, as a commodity. The goods and services produced by the State Capitalist and sold to workers collectively under conditions of State Monopoly Capitalism, are commodities. The fact that they are sold to the working-class collectively – though consumed individually – does not change that fact. Nor does the fact that they are sold under conditions of Monopoly. The existence of that Monopoly might mean that workers overpay for those goods and services, but that is merely a function of Monopoly, not of State production.
Consider, the following. There is a small island close to the mainland. Most workers live on the island, but the majority of factories are on the mainland. Capital needs to get the workers to the factories. Workers might build their own little boats, and row to the mainland.
For Capital this is an inefficient solution. The workers need recompense in their wages for the cost of building their boats. It forms part of the Value of Labour Power. Moreover, by exerting themselves in rowing, they arrive at work with part of their Labour-Power already depleted. It is in Capital's interest to find a more efficient solution. If a capitalist comes along and proposes to build a bridge to the island, they may agree to produce this commodity on condition that they can sell it to the workers on the island collectively. The workers on the island get together, and agree that it would be in their collective interest, and so agree to buy this commodity collectively, in return for the ability to use the bridge free of charge as and when they need to get to the mainland. The bridge was built as a commodity and sold as a commodity even though it was bought collectively and is consumed individually. The question of who the Capitalist is who built the bridge is irrelevant, it could have been a Capitalist State producer.But, this is essentially the case with things such as Healthcare and Education produced by the Capitalist State. Capital requires a continual supply of wage workers, and in a modern economy requires them to be reasonably healthy so as not to be away from work, and so that the investment in education and training given to them is not wasted by early death.
It also requires that they be educated to a given standard, or to a range of standards appropriate for jobs of varying degrees of skill and intelligence. In this instance, Health and Education are no different from the bridge. The advantage for Capital is that the workers themselves pay for the bridge that is necessary to get them to work efficiently. The only relevant question for capital here is who can produce the Bridge most efficiently, and is the most efficient solution one based on a once off price, or on the application of tolls. In fact, its in that light that State provision ought really to be understand as the sale not of Health or Education and so on, but in terms of the sale of insurance to workers. But, that insurance is a commodity too. And like any insurance company, once it has sold the cover it is keen not to pay out if possible – which is why it changes the rules on Pensions for instance. But, where it does pay out, it wants to minimise what it pays for a given quality of provision. In Europe, for example, socialised healthcare works primarily on the basis of a State run insurance scheme, which all workers are expected to contribute to, because it has been found that such single payer schemes are far more efficient in collecting premiums and negotiating with suppliers than multiple private insurers as in the US, but the State then purchases the healthcare from private producers. It is like a car insurance where the insurer decides whether to do repairs themselves or to have them done by the most competitive specialist. Most of these European schemes are not only much more efficient than the NHS, but the level of healthcare provided is generally higher too. That is one reason that Capital in the UK has been trying to move in a similar direction. By comparison, the US system of multiple insurers, selling Health insurance either individually, or collectively has huge administrative costs, and the near monopoly of some insurers in particular areas has meant that the costs to US Capital have soared, which is why those sections of Big Capital in the US that provide such insurance to their employees, have been trying to shift this burden from their own books on to that of the State. The advantage for Capital of compulsory State schemes is that it ensures that workers are given no choice over the proportion of their wage devoted to things such as Health and Education, so that Capital obtains some control over the reproduction of Labour Power itself in order to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
To suggest that production, provision or distribution by the Capitalist State of these items is NOT a production, provision or distribution of commodities, and, therefore, governed by Exchange Value, which is inherent in Bradby's argument is to argue that this production, provision, or distribution is in some sense at least “post-capitalist”, if not socialist. It is not. State capitalism as Engels argued is a more, perhaps the, most mature form of Capitalism, but it is still Capitalism. And for that reason it remains governed by Exchange Value not Use Value.
In the next part. I will look more closely at Bradby's arguments in relation to domestic Labour, and the connections with the question of Productive and Unproductive Labour.
Forward To Part 4
Back To Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment