“If demand and supply
balance, the oscillation of prices ceases, all other conditions
remaining the same. But then demand and supply also cease to explain
anything. The price of labour, at the moment when demand and supply
are in equilibrium, is its natural price, determined independently of
the relation of demand and supply. And how this price is determined
is just the question. Or a larger period of oscillations in the
market-price is taken, e.g., a year, and they are found to cancel one
the other, leaving a mean average quantity, a relatively constant
magnitude. This had naturally to be determined otherwise than by its
own compensating variations. This price which always finally
predominates over the accidental market-prices of labour and
regulates them, this “necessary price” (Physiocrats) or “natural
price” of labour (Adam Smith) can, as with all other commodities,
be nothing else than its value expressed in money.” (p 503-4)
But, the value, as with
other commodities is the labour-time required for production.
Production of what? Of the labourer who provides the labour.
Classical Political Economy then wrapped itself in knots trying to
identify the value of labour on this basis, whilst avoiding the
inevitable contradiction described earlier, that, on this basis,
there could be no surplus value. It was only Marx that recognised
that,
“What economists
therefore call value of labour, is in fact the value of labour-power,
as it exists in the personality of the labourer, which is as
different from its function, labour, as a machine is from the work it
performs. Occupied with the difference between the market-price of
labour and its so-called value, with the relation of this value to
the rate of profit, and to the values of the commodities produced by
means of labour, &c., they never discovered that the course of
the analysis had led not only from the market-prices of labour to its
presumed value, but had led to the resolution of this value of labour
itself into the value of labour-power. Classical economy never
arrived at a consciousness of the results of its own analysis; it
accepted uncritically the categories “value of labour,” “natural
price of labour,” &c.,. as final and as adequate expressions
for the value-relation under consideration, and was thus led, as will
be seen later, into inextricable confusion and contradiction, while
it offered to the vulgar economists a secure basis of operations for
their shallowness, which on principle worships appearances only.”
(p 504)
It was on this latter basis
that the Neo-Classical School of economics, which forms the basis of
orthodox economics today, was developed.
Where workers have to work
extended hours, or more intensively, this raises the value of labour
power for two reasons. Firstly, the worker will require more food
etc. to cover their additional exertion, and wear and tear – today
it might also involve additional medical care to cover treatment for
the physical and mental stress caused. But, secondly, beyond a
certain level, it will shorten the workers' life, thereby increasing
the cost of production, because more labour-Power will need to be
produced, to replace that worn out prematurely.
But, this change in the
value of labour power does not at all change the value of the product
of the labour, which would have to be the case were what was being
determined the price or value of labour itself. Rather, the value of
the product remains the same, determined by the labour-time required
for its production, whilst the reduction in workers' lifespan raises
the value of labour-Power, and thereby reduces surplus value.
“As the value of labour
is only an irrational expression for the value of labour-power, it
follows, of course, that the value of labour must always be less than
the value it produces, for the capitalist always makes labour-power
work longer than is necessary for the reproduction of its own value.
In the above example, the value of the labour-power that functions
through 12 hours is 3s., a value for the reproduction of which 6
hours are required. The value which the labour-power produces is, on
the other hand, 6s., because it, in fact, functions during 12 hours,
and the value it produces depends, not on its own value, but on the
length of time it is in action.” (p 505)
It appears, however, that
the price of labour (the wage) is the price of that labour for the
whole time it is in action – which further encouraged by the fact
that wages may be proportional to the hours worked, for example, for
part-time work, or else workers may receive additional wages for
overtime etc.
“The wage form thus
extinguishes every trace of the division of the working-day into
necessary labour and surplus-labour, into paid and unpaid labour. All
labour appears as paid labour. In the corvée, the labour of the
worker for himself, and his compulsory labour for his lord, differ in
space and time in the clearest possible way. In slave labour, even
that part of the working-day in which the slave is only replacing the
value of his own means of existence, in which, therefore, in fact, he
works for himself alone, appears as labour for his master. All the
slave’s labour appears as unpaid labour. In wage labour, on the
contrary, even surplus-labour, or unpaid labour, appears as paid.
There the property-relation conceals the labour of the slave for
himself; here the money-relation conceals the unrequited labour of
the wage labourer.” (p 505)
It is on the basis of this
illusion, that wages are the price of labour, rather than of
labour-Power, that, therefore, all labour is paid labour, that the
ideological and juridical relations, and ideas of workers and
capitalists rest. The importance of that for capital is obvious.
What is presented at first
appearance is an exchange, the same as the exchange of any other
commodity for money. Money (Exchange Value) is given in exchange for
a commodity (Use Value). Commodity fetishism, as described in
previous chapters, gives the impression that the value of the
commodity is intrinsic to it, that it is the specific nature of the
commodity as a Use Value, which gives it its value, rather than that
it is itself an embodiment of value i.e. of a certain quantity of
labour-time. It appears that Exchange Value (money) is being given
in exchange not for an equal amount of labour-time, but for an amount
of Use Value, and thereby two incommensurate things are being
equated.
“Furthermore,
exchange-value and use-value, being intrinsically incommensurable
magnitudes, the expressions 'value of labour,' 'price of labour,' do
not seem more irrational than the expressions 'value of cotton,'
'price of cotton.'” (p 506)
The illusion is strengthened
by other factors. Firstly, the worker is paid for his labour-Power
only after it has been supplied. Secondly, the worker does not
supply labour-Power as abstract labour to the capitalist, but sells a
specific, concrete labour – tailoring, spinning etc. The fact that
this concrete labour is at the same time reducible to abstract
labour, which is the substance of value, is not at first glance, or
easily, discernible.
The worker, who works for
ten hours a day, might see their wages rise from £10 to £12, or
fall to £8, for this day, depending on the supply and demand for
labour. It appears to him, therefore, that these changes in market
price are a result in changes in its value, even if that value
(determined by the labour-time required for its production) remains
constant.
Seen from the perspective of
the capitalist, his approach to labour is as with any other commodity
– he seeks to get as much as possible for as little as possible.
He sees his profit coming from his own ability to buy low and sell
high, rather than from the fact that his workers provide unpaid
labour. So he does not know he paid the worker the value of their
labour-Power, and still made a profit. He simply believes he paid
less than it was worth.
Marx also deals with the
other two main cases, which give the appearance that wages are the
price of labour rather than the value of labour-Power.
“1.) Change of wages
with the changing length of the working-day. One might as well
conclude that not the value of a machine is paid, but that of its
working, because it costs more to hire a machine for a week than for
a day. 2.) The individual difference in the wages of different
labourers who do the same kind of work. We find this individual
difference, but are not deceived by it, in the system of slavery,
where, frankly and openly, without any circumlocution, labour-power
itself is sold. Only, in the slave system, the advantage of a
labour-power above the average, and the disadvantage of a
labour-power below the average, affects the slave-owner; in the
wage-labour system, it affects the labourer himself, because his
labour-power is, in the one case, sold by himself, in the other, by a
third person.” (p 507)
Back To Part 1
Forward To Chapter 20
Back To Index
Back To Part 1
Forward To Chapter 20
Back To Index
No comments:
Post a Comment