“The
prolongation of the working-day beyond the point at which the
labourer would have produced just an equivalent for the value of his
labour-power, and the appropriation of that surplus-labour by
capital, this is production of absolute surplus-value. It forms the
general groundwork of the capitalist system, and the starting-point
for the production of relative surplus-value. The latter presupposes
that the working-day is already divided into two parts, necessary
labour, and surplus-labour. In order to prolong the surplus-labour,
the necessary labour is shortened by methods whereby the equivalent
for the wages is produced in less time. The production of absolute
surplus-value turns exclusively upon the length of the working-day;
the production of relative surplus-value, revolutionises out and out
the technical processes of labour, and the composition of society. It
therefore presupposes a specific mode, the capitalist mode of
production, a mode which, along with its methods, means, and
conditions, arises and develops itself spontaneously on the
foundation afforded by the formal subjection of labour to capital. In
the course of this development, the formal subjection is replaced by
the real subjection of labour to capital.” (p 477-8)
Marx
refers to intermediate forms of production, where capital has not yet
subordinated labour to it, but where a surplus product is still
extracted from the producers.
“By
the side of independent producers who carry on their handicrafts and
agriculture in the traditional old-fashioned way, there stands the
usurer or the merchant, with his usurer’s capital or merchant’s
capital, feeding on them like a parasite. The predominance, in a
society, of this form of exploitation excludes the capitalist mode of
production; to which mode, however, this form may serve as a
transition, as it did towards the close of the Middle Ages.” (p
478)
Marx
points out that although these modes of production, where Merchants'
and Usurers' capital predominate, exclude the possibility of
capitalism, after capitalism has developed, these older forms can
still arise alongside it. That is the case with domestic industry,
for example, but is probably even more striking in the case of
slavery. But, as Marx points out, in these cases, “their
physiognomy is totally changed.” (p 478)
Formal
subjection of labour, whereby the previously
independent
producer became a wage labourer is sufficient for the production of
absolute surplus value. But, it is when this becomes a real
subjection of labour to capital i.e. when the worker can only sell
their labour-power as factory labour, that it coincides with the
extraction of relative surplus value.
This
begins on an individual basis, as a means of extracting relative
surplus value by individual capitalists, who do so by reducing the
Value of their commodity below its social value i.e. below its
Exchange Value. But, this feature of capitalism ends when this
method has become generalised across all the major branches of
production. This then becomes the predominant form of production,
and means of extracting relative surplus value. Then relative
surplus value in its previous specific sense can only arise where
capital seizes upon areas of production not previously subject to
capitalist production, or by further revolutionising the methods of
production.
“Once
the capitalist mode of production is established and become general,
the difference between absolute and relative surplus-value makes
itself felt, whenever there is a question of raising the rate of
surplus-value. Assuming that labour-power is paid for at its value,
we are confronted by this alternative: given the productiveness of
labour and its normal intensity, the rate of surplus-value can be
raised only by the actual prolongation of the working-day; on the
other hand, given the length of the working-day, that rise can be
effected only by a change in the relative magnitudes of the
components of the working-day, viz., necessary labour and
surplus-labour; a change which, if the wages are not to fall below
the value of labour-power, presupposes a change either in the
productiveness or in the intensity of the labour.” (p 479)
Given
that we have seen previously the process by which the duration of a
normal working day becomes fixed, it is clear that any rise in the
rate of exploitation can now only be secured through the extraction
of relative surplus value. The intensity of labour can be raised,
but this implies a reduction in the number of hours worked, if it is
to be permanent, and vice versa.
However,
in periods of high unemployment, or where capital may be able to
access new reserves of labour, through immigration etc. it may for a
time be able to still combine an increase in intensity with an
increase in the length of the working day, because it can simply wear
out the labour faster, and replace it from the reserve. The
extension of the day can be achieved openly, or by encouraging
workers to take work home, to work on the train in to work and so on.
It can also be achieved by raising the retirement age thereby
increasing the working life, rather than working day.
No comments:
Post a Comment