Constant Capital And Variable Capital
The Labour
Process involves both Means of Production and Labour Power. The
latter creates new value as a consequence of the expenditure of
additional labour, the value of the former is transferred to the new
product.
“..the
values of the means of production used up in the process are
preserved, and present themselves afresh as constituent parts of the
value of the product; the values of the cotton and the spindle, for
instance, re-appear again in the value of the yarn.” (p 193)
Labour
itself preserves the value of the means of production by converting
them into the new product, and by adding his own new value. The
two-fold result of his labour – preserving the value of means of
production and adding new value – is explained by the two-fold
nature of his labour. It is the particular nature of the Labour as
Use Value, which transfers the Value of the means of production, to
the new product. It is only the labour of the spinner which can
transfer the value of the cotton, and of the spindle to the yarn.
The labour of a joiner, for example, cannot do that!
“Hence,
the labourer preserves the values of the consumed means of
production, or transfers them as portions of its value to the
product, not by virtue of his additional labour, abstractedly
considered, but by virtue of the particular useful character of that
labour, by virtue of its special productive form. In so far then as
labour is such specific productive activity, in so far as it is
spinning, weaving, or forging, it raises, by mere contact, the means
of production from the dead, makes them living factors of the
labour-process, and combines with them to form the new products.”
(p 194)
It is only
the second aspect of Labour as Abstract Labour, Value creating
substance, which enables it to add new value as opposed to preserving
old value. It is the time it spends, engaged in this labour, which
then determines how much new value is added – with all the provisos
previously made about complex labour, socially necessary and so on.
These two
aspects are clearly different and opposite.
“On the
one hand, then, it is by virtue of its general character, as being
expenditure of human labour-power in the abstract, that spinning adds
new value to the values of the cotton and the spindle; and on the
other hand, it is by virtue of its special character, as being a
concrete, useful process, that the same labour of spinning both
transfers the values of the means of production to the product, and
preserves them in the product. Hence at one and the same time there
is produced a two-fold result.
By the simple addition of a certain quantity of
labour, new value is added, and by the quality of this added labour,
the original values of the means of production are preserved in the
product. This two-fold effect, resulting from the two-fold character
of labour, may be traced in various phenomena.
Let us assume, that some invention enables the
spinner to spin as much cotton in 6 hours as he was able to spin
before in 36 hours. His labour is now six times as effective as it
was, for the purposes of useful production. The product of 6 hours’
work has increased six-fold, from 6 lbs. to 36 lbs. But now the 36
lbs. of cotton absorb only the same amount of labour as formerly did
the 6 lbs. One-sixth as much new labour is absorbed by each pound of
cotton, and consequently, the value added by the labour to each pound
is only one-sixth of what it formerly was. On the other hand, in the
product, in the 36 lbs. of yarn, the value transferred from the
cotton is six times as great as before. By the 6 hours’ spinning,
the value of the raw material preserved and transferred to the
product is six times as great as before, although the new value added
by the labour of the spinner to each pound of the very same raw
material is one-sixth what it was formerly. This shows that the two
properties of labour, by virtue of which it is enabled in one case to
preserve value, and in the other to create value, are essentially
different. On the one hand, the longer the time necessary to spin a
given weight of cotton into yarn, the greater is the new value added
to the material; on the other hand, the greater the weight of the
cotton spun in a given time, the greater is the value preserved, by
being transferred from it to the product.” (p 195)
In other words, the
more productivity rises, the less labour-time is taken to process a
given amount of material, so, in a given period, more material is
processed, more wear and tear on machines occurs, more ancillary
materials are consumed, and so more of the value is transferred into
the new product. But, by the same token, the higher productivity
means that, in this given period of time, only the same amount of new
value is created, because it is its duration that counts. Because
this new value is now spread over a much larger quantity of the new
product, the amount of new value contained in the new product has
fallen proportionately.
If 6 lbs of cotton are
spun in 6 hours, and a pound of cotton equals £1, and 1 hour of
labour equals 25p: then, in the yarn, we have £6 + £1.50 = £7.50.
The new value comprises 20%. If, however, 6 lbs is spun in 3 hours,
then in 6 hours: 12lbs cotton is consumed = £12, plus £1.50 of new
value = £13.50. Now, the new value equals just 11%.
Suppose that the
productivity of this labour remains the same as it was, but the
Exchange Value of the cotton changes. So:-
6 lbs Cotton @ £1 = £6
+ 6 hours labour = £1.50. Yarn = £7.50, new value = 20%.
6 lbs Cotton @ £2 =
£12 + 6 hours labour = £1.50. Yarn = £13.50, new value = 11%.
6 lbs Cotton @ £0.50 =
£3 + 6 hours labour = £1.50. Yarn = £4.50, new value = 33.3%
The same is true if
there are changes in the Exchange Value of the other means of
production such as the machines, buildings or ancillary materials.
By the same token, if
everything remains constant, the worker transfers twice as much value
in two weeks as he does in one week, just as he creates twice as much
new value in two weeks as in one week.
Although it is
labour-time that gives products their value, value only resides in
Use Values, articles of utility. If an article loses its utility it
also loses its Value. But, when a use value is consumed in
production, they only lose the form of their Use Value, assuming a
new form in the product. Marx makes this point, in Theories of
Surplus Value, against Colonel Torrens. Marx shows that 100 quarters
of corn when planted does not magically become transformed into 120
quarters of corn. A Use Value of 1 does not magically become a Use
Value of 1.2! The additional Use Value already exists in the soil,
in the water absorbed by the growing plants, in the sunlight which
provides energy for the plants, in the fertiliser absorbed by the
original seed corn in the production (growing) process. All of these
additional Use Values merely change their form in order to become a
part of the end product (Use Value) of 120 quarters of corn.
“120 quarters of corn are most certainly more
than 100 quarters. But—if one merely considers the use-value and
the process it goes through, that is, in reality, the vegetative or
physiological ||787| process, as is the case here—it would be wrong
to say, not indeed, with regard to the 20 quarters, but with regard
to the elements which go to make them up, that they do not enter into
the production process. If this were so, they could never emerge from
it. In addition to the 100 quarters of corn—the seeds—various
chemical ingredients supplied by the manure, salts contained in the
soil, water, air, light, are all involved in the process which
transforms 100 quarters of corn into 120. The transformation and
absorption of the elements, the ingredients, the conditions—the
expenditure of nature, which transforms 100 quarters into 120—takes
place in the production process itself and the elements of these 20
quarters enter into this process itself as physiological
“expenditure”, the result of which is the transformation of 100
quarters into 120.
Regarded merely from the standpoint of
use-value, these 20 quarters are not mere profit. The inorganic
components have been merely assimilated by the organic components and
transformed into organic material. Without the addition of matter—and
this is the physiological expenditure—the 100 qrs. would never
become 120. Thus it can in fact be said even from the point of view
of mere use-value, that is, regarding corn as corn—what enters into
corn in inorganic form, as expenditure, appears in organic form, as
the actual result, the 20 quarters, i.e., as the surplus of the corn
harvested over the corn sown.”
In the process of
transferring their Use Value to the product, the means of production
also transfer their Exchange Value. That is not changed by the fact
that this takes various forms.
“The coal burnt under the boiler vanishes
without leaving a trace; so, too, the tallow with which the axles of
wheels are greased. Dye stuffs and other auxiliary substances also
vanish but re-appear as properties of the product. Raw material forms
the substance of the product, but only after it has changed its form.
Hence raw material and auxiliary substances lose the characteristic
form with which they are clothed on entering the labour-process.”
(p 196-7)
But, tools and machines
although subject to wear and tear, have to basically keep their
original shape, in order to continue fulfilling their function.
“The corpses of machines, tools, workshops,
&c., are always separate and distinct from the product they
helped to turn out.” (p 197)
Its clear that the lifetime of a tool or machine
is a function of its use. The more it is used, the quicker it is
worn out, the quicker it transfers its value to the end product,
though by the same token, the amount transferred to each unit of
production remains the same.
If we know the average usage of a machine, then we
can calculate how long, on average it will last. If, on this basis,
we calculate that it will last 100 days, then each day it will lose
1% of its value to the product. If it is used at twice the average
rate – producing 2000 widgets a day instead of 1000 – it will
give up 2% per day, the amount per widget remaining constant. If it
is used to produce only 500 widgets a day, it will lose only 0.5% of
its value per day, and so on. This transfer of Use Value and
Exchange Value arising from usage and wear and tear is not the same
as depreciation, which is a function of time itself, or Moral
Depreciation arising from changes in the way it is produced or the
development of some new replacement. I set that out in “Chapter 7
Part 2”.
“It is thus strikingly clear, that means of
production never transfer more value to the product than they
themselves lose during the labour-process by the destruction of their
own use-value. If such an instrument has no value to lose, if, in
other words, it is not the product of human labour, it transfers no
value to the product. It helps to create use-value without
contributing to the formation of exchange-value. In this class are
included all means of production supplied by Nature without human
assistance, such as land, wind, water, metals in situ, and timber in
virgin forests.” (p 197)
Moreover, as Marx made clear earlier, if a Use
Value loses its utility (which it does bit by bit through
depreciation) it also loses its Value, but this process occurs not as
part of the labour-process, but outside it. The more a piece of
Constant Capital – be it a machine, a building, a piece of material
etc. – suffers depreciation, the less value it has to transfer to
the product. A machine that is worth £1,000 transfers 10% of its
value each year to the widgets it produces i.e. £100. If as a
result of moral depreciation its value falls to £500, it does not
transfer this £500 reduction to the product. That occurs outside
the labour process. In fact, now it only transfers 10% of its new
value to the widgets i.e. £50 per year.
By contrast, the whole of the Exchange Value of
some products may be transferred to the product whilst a portion of
their Use Value is destroyed. Such is the case of all those products
where a certain amount of waste is unavoidable, and where that waste
cannot itself be utilised. The Exchange Value of all these means of
production which can be transferred to the new product is then
limited by their own Exchange Value.
“In the labour-process it only serves as a
mere use-value, a thing with useful properties, and could not,
therefore, transfer any value to the product, unless it possessed
such value previously.” (p 199)
“The property therefore which labour-power in
action, living labour, possesses of preserving value, at the same
time that it adds it, is a gift of Nature which costs the labourer
nothing, but which is very advantageous to the capitalist inasmuch as
it preserves the existing value of his capital. So long as trade is
good, the capitalist is too much absorbed in money-grubbing to take
notice of this gratuitous gift of labour. A violent interruption of
the labour-process by a crisis, makes him sensitively aware of it.”
(p 200)
Marx quotes an article in the Times, which
shows the consequences of not having workers employed.
“In The Times of
26th November, 1862, a manufacturer, whose mill employed
800 hands, and consumed, on the average, 150 bales of East Indian, or
130 bales of American cotton, complains, in doleful manner, of the
standing expenses of his factory when not working. He estimates them
at £6,000 a year. Among them are a number of items that do not
concern us here, such as rent, rates, and taxes, insurance, salaries
of the manager, book-keeper, engineer, and others. Then he reckons
£150 for coal used to heat the mill occasionally, and run the engine
now and then. Besides this, he includes the wages of the people
employed at odd times to keep the machinery in working order. Lastly,
he puts down £1,200 for depreciation of machinery, because “the
weather and the natural principle of decay do not suspend their
operations because the steam-engine ceases to revolve.” He says,
emphatically, he does not estimate his depreciation at more than the
small sum of £1,200, because his machinery is already nearly worn
out.” (Note 2, p 200)
No comments:
Post a Comment