Marx
describes the situation under capitalist production in similar terms
to set out in Part 1. In other words, just as for Robinson, a capitalist
society has to devote a portion of its time to producing means of
production as well as means of consumption, part of which is required
to reproduce workers, and part of which is appropriated as surplus
product consumed by non-producers.
The value of
this total national output is equal to C', the total
national commodity-capital. That comprises both those commodities
destined for consumption and those destined to reproduce the means of
production.
In other
words, for the national commodity-capital, it is no different than
for the commodity-capital of a firm. That we have seen is produced
as follows. M – C (L + MP) … P … C' – M'.
So, part of the value of C' is equal to the value of the
means of production – constant capital – that went to produce it. Part is equal to the wages paid to the workers, which they spend
buying commodities from society's consumption fund, and a part
comprises the surplus value created by the workers, which the
capitalists spend, also buying commodities from the consumption fund.
So, these
are the same three funds that existed for Robinson and Friday. The
Law of Value, which determines how much social labour-time is
required, for that production, by them, still determines how much is
required, under Capitalism. As Marx says in his letter to Kugelmann,
it simply assumes a different form, the form of commodity production
and exchange.
The
difference is the way the capitalist society goes about producing
those funds, and the consequences that then has for how these funds
are distributed.
Marx has
uncovered the specificity of capitalist production in Volume I.
The task now is to uncover the specifics of the distribution of
social capital. If the national output is nothing more than the
total commodity-capital, C', i.e. already incorporating
the surplus-value, then the starting point is the circuit of
commodity-capital itself. This is why Marx says that the Physiocrats
were correct, as against Adam Smith, in that they began their
analysis, of the exchange of the total social capital, not with this
year's production, but with last year's harvest.
C'
—
|
{
|
M
— C ... P... C'
|
m
— c
|
Here, as
Marx explains, M has to be seen not simply as money-capital, but more
accurately as the money equivalent of C. That is the money
equivalent of the value of the productive-capital consumed in the
productive-process. That is important, because the value of that
capital may have changed for reasons outside its self-expansion. For
example, suppose the capital produces yarn. It requires the purchase
of cotton. But, if the labour-time required for producing cotton
falls, after it has been bought, then the value of C (in the shape of the cotton in stock, being processed, and in yarn waiting to be sold) will fall. This fall in the value of the
cotton will then be reflected in the price of the yarn. The nominal
value of M will then fall, because M here is only the money
equivalent of C, but the real value of M is unchanged, for the same
reason. In other words, this lower value of M is able to exactly
reproduce C, the physical quantity of cotton consumed in production.
This illustrates another point made by Marx, which is that the circuit, M - C... P... C' - M', is only the circuit of newly invested money-capital. Here, M is neither the start nor end point of the circuit, but only a mere moment within the actual circuit. The value of M is determined by the value of C, because M is merely its monetary reflection. As Marx puts it, M here does not stand for an actual advance of money-capital, it is simply the current value of C expressed in money terms, for the purpose of calculation and comparison. Money here is money only as unit of account. However, the circuit, which begins with m, the money equivalent of the surplus value, does represent the commencement of a new circuit of money-capital, if it is invested productively. Unlike M, m is not determined by the value of C. Where, the nominal value of M, may have fallen, because the value of C has fallen, whilst its real value is unchanged, i.e. it buys/reproduces exactly the quantity of productive-capital previously consumed, this is not the case for m. The real value of m here has risen, because the value of C has fallen. In other words, if m is used productively, accumulated to buy more cotton for processing, it will buy proportionately more than it would have done previously. This is why, as Marx describes, when the value of productive-capital falls, the rate of profit rises.
Consumption
necessarily plays a part in this, for the reasons set out previously.
In other words, at various points in this circuit, new circuits of
commodities are established. For example, at P, both the workers
spend their wages, on commodities (necessities), and the sellers of
means of production spend their receipts, from the sale of commodities, on commodities themselves, including labour-power, replacement
materials, as well as articles of personal consumption. And at M'(M
+ m), this individual capitalist not only spends M on buying C
(Productive Capital) but also spends m on articles of personal
consumption, c, given that this is only simple reproduction. Under
expanded reproduction, a portion of m would also be spent on
commodities in the form of additional productive capital.
So, the
analysis, of this circuit of commodity-capital, at a social level,
necessarily involves, also, an analysis of the circulation of
money and commodities, for both productive and unproductive
consumption.
No comments:
Post a Comment