[CHAPTER VIII] Herr Rodbertus. New Theory of Rent. (Digression)
[1. Excess Surplus-Value in Agriculture. Agriculture Develops Slower Than Industry under Conditions of Capitalism]
In this chapter, Marx examines the theory of rent presented by Rodbertus. He begins with a short restatement of the basis of surplus value. A producer requires the expenditure of a certain amount of labour-time to produce the products required for the reproduction of their labour-power. That is the value of their labour-power. But, the value of the product of their labour is equal to the total amount of labour-time they expend. The difference between this total labour-time expended and the value of their labour-power is the amount of surplus value produced.
Where the producer is producing commodities rather than just products for their own consumption, this situation continues, but appears in a different form. The necessary labour undertaken by the producer now appears as a quantity of commodities which they exchange for the commodities required for their own consumption, or for an amount of money, the general commodity, which can be used to buy these commodities.
Under these conditions, it is then not just the productivity of the individual producer, which determines how much labour-time constitutes necessary labour, and how much surplus labour, but social productivity. If general social productivity rises, so that less labour-time is required to produce the commodities required to reproduce labour-power, the producer will have to exchange fewer of their own commodities to obtain them, leaving a greater proportion of their labour-time available as surplus labour-time and surplus value.
“Herr Rodbertus first investigates the situation in a country where there is no separation between land ownership and owner-ship of capital. And here he comes to the important conclusion that rent (by which he means the entire surplus-value) is simply equal to the unpaid labour or the quantity of products which it represents.” (p 15-16)
Rodbertus only takes account of the growth of this relative surplus-value, as rising social productivity reduces the value of labour-power. Marx makes the point also made previously in Capital III, that all surplus value is relative, in the sense that it requires social productivity to have risen to a level where the worker does not need to spend all their time simply reproducing their labour-power.
Higher rates of profit, therefore, generally go along with higher levels of social productivity, which reduce the value of labour-power, and raise relative surplus value. Higher rates of profit usually only accompany lower levels of productivity under specific and unusual conditions.
“The relative productivity of labour necessary before a profit-monger, a parasite, can come, into being is very small. If we find a high rate of profit though labour is as yet very unproductive, and machinery, division of labour etc., are not used, then this is the case only under the following circumstances; either as in India, partly because the requirements of the worker are extremely small and he is depressed even below his modest needs, but partly also because low productivity of labour is identical with a relatively small fixed capital in proportion to the share of capital which is spent on wages or, and this comes to the same thing, with a relatively high proportion of capital laid out in wages in relation to the total capital; or finally, because labour-time is excessively long.” (p 16)
Even here, this higher rate of profit is only possible in so far as the prices of commodities remain locally, rather than globally determined. Alongside the small fixed capital goes the low level of productivity, which gives rise to the large quantity of labour, and high proportion of wages. Where this relates, for example, to textile production, in India, by small handicraft producers, and the market value is determined only in India, then a high rate of profit may result, especially as the high level of nominal wages, as a proportion of the total cost, may still represent a low level of real wages. But, as soon as these Indian textiles have to compete in the market against mass produced textiles from Britain, produced by very productive workers, using large amounts of fixed capital, the value of the Indian textiles itself collapses, and along with it the surplus value and rate of profit.
“The latter is the case in countries (such as Austria etc.) where the capitalist mode of production is already in existence but which have to compete with far more developed countries. Wages can be low here partly because the requirements of the worker are less developed, partly because agricultural products are cheaper or—this amounts to the same thing as far as the capitalist is concerned—because they have less value in terms of money. Hence the quantity of the product of, say, 10 hours’ labour, which must go to the worker as necessary wages, is small. If, however, he works 17 hours instead of 12 then this can make up (for the low productivity of labour].” (p 16)
In Capital I, Marx makes precisely this point that wages in Austria, Belgium and other parts of Europe were 50% below those in Britain, and working conditions were similarly poorer, Yet, these countries still could not compete with British industrial production, due to its higher level of productivity.
No comments:
Post a Comment