Could workers become an
exploiting class? The surprising answer is yes. Several years ago,
I wrote a blog -
Labour-Power v Horse Power
- raising various questions that arise from Marx's theory of value.
The questions surrounded Marx's analysis, which shows that slaves
cannot produce surplus value, any more than can animals, or machines.
Slaves, like these other categories constitute only the equivalent
of “constant capital”. I
was thinking about this again, the other day, and wondered, if it was
possible for workers themselves to become an exploiting, ruling
class. The answer is yes, despite everything that Marxists have
previously believed. I'll explain why below.
The
other conclusion Marx comes to is that surplus value cannot arise
from an exchange of capital with capital, or revenue with revenue.
The latter fact, is fairly well known. A capitalist that spends
money as revenue, like a worker spends their wages, in other words
not to buy productive-capital, but only to buy articles for personal
consumption, clearly creates no new value as a result. A capitalist
who employs a driver to drive taxis, thereby creates surplus value.
If he employs the same driver as his personal chauffeur, he doesn't.
This is an exchange of revenue with revenue, not capital with
revenue.
The
former is not quite so obvious. But, its just as true that an
exchange of capital with capital produces no surplus value. The
easiest way to understand that is to think about producers who own
the means of production. A peasant producer who produces commodity
X, which takes them 20 hours to produce, exchanges it with the
producer of commodity Y, which also takes 20 hours to produce. Both
exchange their products at their value. But, suppose both producers
only need to work for 10 hours to produce the commodities they need
to live? In that case, both have produced a surplus product equal to
10 hours, but neither have produced a surplus value. The producer of
X “sells” it to the producer of Y, for 20 hours. But, it has
cost the producer of X 20 hours to produce it. They can have made no
surplus value, if their cost is the same as their income. The same
is true for the producer of Y.
But,
this is exactly the position that Capital is in. Capital exchanges
with capital but produces no surplus value as a result. Capital can
only produce surplus value, where it exchanges with revenue i.e.
where it exchanges with wage labour. That is why, as Marx says,
slaves do not produce surplus value, though they do produce a surplus
product, just as does an animal used as productive-capital, or as
does a machine. The reason wage workers produce a surplus value, and
slaves do not, is that the wage worker, besides producing a surplus
product, also appears in the market as a 'free' seller of their
labour-power, and a free buyer of commodities. Why is this
important?
The
peasant producer will only buy commodities at their value, because
they have the option of producing those goods themselves, or buying
them from someone else. Marx demonstrates at length in Volume I, of
Capital that surplus value cannot arise for the system as a whole by
selling commodities above their value. But, the peasant likewise
sells those commodities at their value. But, that value is what they
have had to expend themselves in labour-time to produce.
The
capitalist also sells commodities at their value, or at least we
don't have to assume they don't to explain surplus value. They
obtain surplus value, because the worker produces a new commodity
with a value greater than the capitalist has paid for. The worker
say works for 10 hours, but gets paid only the equivalent of 5 hours.
It is still not a breach of the exchange of commodities at their
value, because the worker's commodity, their labour-power, only has a
value of 5 hours, enough to produce that commodity.
So how
come then that this creates a surplus value, whereas employing a
slave in the same way doesn't? It all comes down then to who buys
what has been produced. A slave never buys commodities. They are
bought for them by the slave owner, just as the owner of a pack
animal, or a machine buys the things necessary to keep them
functioning and producing. But, for that reason the slave owner will
only exchange commodities at their value i.e. the labour-time cost to
the slave owners.
Suppose
Commodity X requires 10 hours work by a slave to produce, and another
10 hours to produce the materials required. It might seem that the
cost in labour-time to produce X is 20 hours. But, for the slave
owners, and certainly for the slave owners as a class, it isn't. If
the slave only requires 5 hours to produce the necessities to live
on, that is all the slave owner has to give them. The labour-time
cost to the slave owner is only 15 hours. There is a surplus
product, equal to 5 hours, but it is NOT a surplus value. If all the
slave owners as a class are taken as the basis, they can appear in
the market and exchange these goods between themselves, just as
effectively with a price tag of 15 hours as with 20 hours. A price
tag of 20 hours would simply represent inflation, it would mean that
each slave owner cheated every other slave owner out of 5 hours, so
it all cancelled out!
The only
reason that wage labour produces a surplus value is that unlike the
slave, or the pack animal, or the machine, the wage worker appears in
the market as an independent buyer of commodities. Unlike an owner
of the means of production, the worker has to buy commodities at
their full value, whilst adding value for capital, only part of which
they get paid for. The peasant producer gets paid the full value of
the labour they perform in producing commodities. The capitalist
gets paid the full value of the labour-time expended on producing the
commodities they sell, but only pays a part of that cost.
Suppose,
there were only capitalists. That would mean that everything was
totally automated. Robots produce everything. The robots, like
workers, produce the materials and machines needed to replace those
that get worn out. They also produce what is needed to keep
themselves maintained, and functioning. On top of that they keep
working, and produce vast amounts available as a surplus to the
capitalists that own them. Such a society would clearly be capable
of creating a huge surplus product. But, it would produce no surplus
value!
The only
way the capitalists here could produce surplus value would be if
there were a class of people – i.e. workers – who were prepared
to pay more for these goods than they cost the capitalist to produce.
In other words, if they were prepared to buy these commodities by
doing more labour-time than they had cost the capitalist to produce.
The
capitalists here would be exactly the same as peasant producers.
They would exchange their products at their values, but those values
would only be equal to the value of the constant capital used in
production, and that would become an increasingly small amount the
more remote the time when any wage labour was involved in its
production. The robots would be equal to the position of a slave, or
indeed that of a machine today.
However,
its just as logical to consider the owners of the means of production
here to be workers. If things came close to such a pass, its
unlikely that workers would simply sit back and starve to death for
lack of the means to feed themselves. So, we could envisage a
society where it is workers that own the means of production, and
robots do all the work. But, what if the robots then became
sentient? On its own, this changes nothing. Slaves are sentient
after all, but create no surplus value.
But,
suppose then that workers set up a system, whereby the robots had to
buy the commodities they needed to maintain themselves and to produce
replacement robots? Then workers could sell these commodities to
the robots at their full value i.e. the time a robot has to spend
producing it, whilst paying the robot only the value required for
their own reproduction. In that way, the worker would employ robots
in the same way that today capital employs wage labour. Workers
would then be an exploiting class extracting surplus value, and
robots would be an exploited class, producing surplus value.
There
again, if you have ever seen 'Bicentennial Man' its hard to feel too
sorry for the robots!
A more likely outcome is that robots, as capital, will be owned by an elite, just as they are today.
ReplyDeleteWorkers (humans who don't own capital) would then move from being factors of production (i.e. labour / variable capital) to forms of consumption - i.e. the providers of personal services to the elite.
Yes, that's quite right David, and a point I made in my previous analysis. In fact, you can see that happening already. One of the biggest areas of job growth is indeed already in personal services.
ReplyDeleteThere is a large number of people now employed as nannies, domestic cleaners/housekeepers, and so on. Marx made a similar point about the effects of mechanisation in the 19th Century.
But, also the other point I made in the previous analysis in another blog entitled "Capital Consumes Itself" is that it leads to an increase in all forms of unproductive consumption by Capital, for example, arms production. That is not the same as the Permanent Arms Economy Thesis. There is no reason why it has to be arms, for instance.
There is an interesting question here though. For Marx the provision of those personal services does not constitute surplus value production. It is not productive labour, it is an exchange of revenue with revenue.
But, could it be here a means of Capital selling commodities above their value? That is the products produced by the robots would have little value, and no surplus value. But, if a cleaner needs 100 units of these commodities to live, which takes 1 hour to produce, but has to provide 10 hours of cleaning to obtain those 100 units, do we class this as a profit arising from unequal exchange? How exactly would this differ in practice from surplus value?
Its not such an esoteric discussion as it might seem. 3D printers are only the start. Nanotechnology is already on the foothills of a slope that leads to the kind of fabricators you get on Star Trek i.e. the fabricator takes atoms from the air, and builds up anything you like from an atomic level upwards.
With the pace of development in computing power fully automated factories are not too far away. I knew a comrade 20 years ago who worked for I_Cl, and even then was producing programmes that would produce the programmes that controlled CAD/CAM.