Theories of Surplus Value, Part II, Chapter 8 - Part 21

If we take something like mining or fishing, Marx says, there is no use of raw material, other than as auxiliary material for machines. The capital expended is only for the machines and labour-power. But, there is no reason that a capital advanced on these things should produce a different rate of profit than capital advanced for raw material used as constant capital.

If a different rate of profit does exist, it is because of differences in the organic composition of capital, whereby larger proportions of labour-power produce larger proportions of surplus value leading to a higher rate of profit, but it is precisely in those conditions that capital then flows towards such spheres, increasing supply, lowering market prices and thereby equalising the rate of profit.

Within any sphere, say spinning, the amount of surplus value produced depends on the amount of capital employed, assuming the rate of surplus value to be constant. For example, a capital of £1,000 that employs 100 workers will produce twice as much surplus value as a capital of £500 that employs only 50 workers. But, this does not apply across spheres.

In pottery production, for example, a capital of £500 might employ 100 workers, and so produce as much surplus value as £1,000 employed in spinning. The difference would be that less of the capital needs be tied up in machines, or materials in pottery production, so more labour-power can be employed.

But, the amount of profit in each sphere can be proportional to the size of the capital provided that the rate of profit in each sphere is equalised.

Marx makes a distinction between agriculture, where the product of the industry, for example seed, is used directly as raw material, and mining where it is not. The exception there is with coal, which is used to power steam engines in the coal mine. Marx's point here is that when it comes to taking into consideration raw material used in production, the producer, where they are not an agricultural producer, does in any case, buy these materials, so Rodbertus' argument fails.

The owner of a tin mine, for example, would buy the coal used to power the steam engines used in the mine; they would buy the timber used for pit props, and so on. Yet, the mine owner would still pay rent to the landowner. Although the coal producer would use their own coal to power steam engines, the fact that they did not actually buy it would not mean that such a capitalist producer would not record the value of the coal they had used themselves in production, as opposed to having sold to other customers.

“Thus just here, where in fact no raw material figures in expenditure, capitalist accounting must prevail from the outset, making the illusion of the peasant impossible.” (p 48)

Back To Part 20

Forward To Part 22