The exchange
of Department 1 (v+s) with Department 2 (c) has been explained, but
within this there is the exchange of 1(s) with 2a and b.
Department 1(v) will only have been exchanged with Department 2a necessities. But, in the same way, the portion of value comprising
1(s) within 2(c), can be divided 60:40 in the same way as with
Department 2(s).
Our model is:
Department I - c 4000 + v 1000 + s 1000 = 6000
Department II - c 2000 + v 500 + s 500 = 3000
So, the Department 2 constant capital was 2000. The constant capital value itself forms part of the total value of Department 2 production. Workers in Department 1 only buy necessities and so their £1000 is used to buy commodities from 2a to that amount. Capitalists from 2a use this to buy £1000 of constant capital from Department 1 capitalists. The wages paid by Department 1 capitalists have then returned to them in money form, available to buy labour-power once more.
The more detailed model is then:
Department I - c 4000 + v 1000 + s 1000 = 6000
Department IIa (Necessities) c 1600 + v 400 + s 400 = 2400
Department IIb (Luxuries) c 400 + v 100 + s 100 = 600
Department I - c 4000 + v 1000 + s 1000 = 6000
Department II - c 2000 + v 500 + s 500 = 3000
So, the Department 2 constant capital was 2000. The constant capital value itself forms part of the total value of Department 2 production. Workers in Department 1 only buy necessities and so their £1000 is used to buy commodities from 2a to that amount. Capitalists from 2a use this to buy £1000 of constant capital from Department 1 capitalists. The wages paid by Department 1 capitalists have then returned to them in money form, available to buy labour-power once more.
The more detailed model is then:
Department I - c 4000 + v 1000 + s 1000 = 6000
Department IIa (Necessities) c 1600 + v 400 + s 400 = 2400
Department IIb (Luxuries) c 400 + v 100 + s 100 = 600
Department 1
capitalists allocate their surplus value 60:40. They spend £600 on
necessities with 2a. 2a capitalists use this to buy £600 of
constant capital. Department 1 capitalists then have £600 returned
to them, of the £1,000 they have thrown into circulation, to cover
personal consumption. They also spend £400 buying luxuries, from 2b
capitalists, who use it to buy constant capital. Department 1
capitalists then now have all of the £1,000 thrown into circulation
to cover personal consumption returned to them, which is now
available for them to spend again in the next cycle.
“What is arbitrary here is the ratio of the variable to the constant capital of both I and II and so is the identity of this ratio for I and II and their sub-divisions. As for this identity, it has been assumed here merely for the sake of simplification, and it would not alter in any way the conditions of the problem and its solution if we were to assume different proportions.” (p 411)
Marx
draws 2 conclusions.
- The new value, created in Department 1, in a year, i.e. v+s, in the form of means of production, is equal to the means of production, consumed by Department 2, and thereby transferred to the value of its product.
“If it were smaller than IIc, it would be impossible for II to replace its constant capital entirely; if it were greater, a surplus would remain unused. In either case, the assumption of simple reproduction would be violated.” (p 411)
- Workers producing luxuries in Department 2a can only transform their wages into necessities to the extent that capitalists producing necessities use an equal amount of their surplus value to buy luxuries. That proportion must be smaller than 2a surplus value.
These proportions, though variable are determinant, because the above has demonstrated that output from one department, or subdivision of one department, can only be fully exchanged if the output from the other department or subdivision is in the corresponding proportion.
No comments:
Post a Comment