Theories of Surplus Value, Part II, Chapter 8 - Part 42

If the total value of the product, which forms the consumption fund, is £90, this is also the value of revenues (v + s). Marx says, assume these revenues divide into £30 wages, £30 profit, and £30 rent. In that case, the owners of these revenues would be able to draw products from the consumption fund accordingly. If this product consists of two-thirds agricultural labour and one-third manufacturing labour, it would then seem to follow that agriculturists would obtain two-thirds of the consumption fund, and manufacturers one-third.

Moreover, according to Rodbertus, the surplus value is also distributed on the same basis as the proportion of agricultural to manufacturing labour. However, on the basis of Rodbertus' assumption of rent as simply an addition to the agricultural profit, as agricultural profit rose, so would rent. But, Marx points out that this cannot be right.

“Because a part of the value which consists of agricultural labour forms the revenue of the manufacturers of that fixed capital etc., which replaces the fixed capital worn out in agriculture. Thus the ratio between agricultural labour and manufacturing labour in the component parts of value of those products which constitute the revenue, in no way indicates the ratio in which the value of this mass of products or this mass of products itself is distributed between the manufacturers and the farmers, neither does it indicate the ratio in which manufacture and agriculture participate in total production.” (p 84-5)

In other words, the consumption fund consists only of the value of newly added labour during the year, but the consumption fund is only a part of the total value of output during the year. The division between agricultural and manufacturing labour, reflected in the product that constitutes the consumption fund will not be the same as the division between agricultural and manufacturing labour in the total product. 

If the revenue is divided £30 wages, £30 profit, £30 rent, this tells us nothing, therefore, about how the recipients of these revenues will allocate their spending in the purchase of commodities from the consumption fund.

Rodbertus says,

““But again it is only the productivity of labour in primary production or manufacture, which determines the relative level of the value of the primary product and manufactured product or their respective shares in the value of the total product. The value of the primary product will be the higher, the lower the productivity of labour in primary production and vice versa. In the same way, the value of the manufactured product will be the higher, the lower the productivity in manufacture and vice versa. Since a high value of the raw product effects a high ground-rent and low capital gain, and a high value of the manufactured product effects a high capital gain and low ground-rent, if the level of rent in general is given, the level of ground-rent and of capital gain must not only bear an inverse relationship to one another, but also to the productivity of their respective labour, that in primary production and that in manufacture” (p. 123).” (p 85) 

There are a number of errors here. Marx deals only with the error concerning productivity. Its impossible, as Marx says, to claim that productivity is higher in sphere A than sphere B simply on the basis that a given amount of labour-time produces a greater quantity of A use values rather than B use values.

“... it is wrong to say that because the labour-time required for the production of an ounce of gold equals three and that for a ton of iron also equals three, gold production is “less productive” than iron production.” (p 85) 

It is only possible to compare productivity between two spheres on the basis of relative changes.

“It would be entirely wrong to say that manufacture is three times as productive as agriculture if the value of the raw product is to that of the manufactured product as 3:1. Only if the ratio changes say to 4:1 or 3:2 or 2:1, i.e., when it rises or falls, could one say that the relative productivity in the two branches has altered.” (p 85) 

Similarly, it's possible, as Marx sets out in Capital I, to say that machine B is more productive than machine A, if the former produces more of a given use value, in a certain time than does the latter.

Its impossible to make the comparison that Rodbertus is trying to make because it depends on the nature of the use values being compared. For example, suppose it takes 100 hours to produce 10 tons of steel pins. Then ten times the weight of steel pins are required to buy a ton of potatoes. But it may require 1 million hours of labour, using the most up to day equipment to produce just one battleship.

The other error made by Rodbertus that Marx does not deal with here is the idea that because of a high value of the agricultural product, this would mean “a high ground-rent and low capital-gain”. By capital-gain, Rodbertus means profit.

In fact, if high agricultural values are due to low fertility, and an absence of surplus profits, then rents will be low, and rent in economic terms may be impossible.

Back To Part 41

Forward To Part 43