[4. Rodbertus’s Error Regarding the Relation Between Value and Surplus-Value When the Costs of Production Rise]
Rodbertus is wrong, Marx says, in arguing that the amount of surplus value contained in different commodities is greater the more expensive the commodity. That is not just because different commodities contain different proportions of constant and variable capital.
If we ignore the value of constant capital, or as Marx does, in Capital I, set that value to zero, this can be seen. Suppose we take corn. Assume that in one year (300 days), the year's labour produces 300,000 kilos of corn. The rate of surplus value is 100 per cent. The value of a kilo of corn is equal to one day's labour, and contains within it 0.5 days of unpaid labour. In the following year, there is a better harvest and 600,000 kilos of grain is produced. The value of grain, therefore falls, so that a kilo has a value of 0.5 days, and contains 0.25 days of unpaid labour. The rate of surplus value remains 100%, and so the proportion of paid and unpaid labour in each kilo remains the same. Its true that in each kilo now only half as much unpaid labour exists, but only half as much paid labour exists. Moreover, although only half as much surplus value exists in this kilo, twice as many kilos in total exist, so the total amount of surplus value remains the same.
If we take the total production of grain, then grain is cheaper (half the price) in the second year, per kilo, as in the first year. But twice as much grain is produced, so that in terms of value the 600,000 kilos has only the same value as the 300,000 kilos, in the previous year. Despite the fact that grain is cheaper, the amount of surplus value remains the same. Marx makes the point that the same is true if production in the same year is considered from the standpoint of production on two pieces of land, one of which is twice as productive as the other. Its true, Marx says, that 600,000 kilos could be produced on the less productive land, and then this grain would contain twice as much surplus value, but that would only be because in order to produce the 600,000 kilos, twice as much labour needs to be employed.
“… if just as much commodity were to be produced under the unproductive conditions as under “more productive, the commodity would contain more labour and so also more surplus-labour. But then, proportionately, a greater capital would also have to be laid out. In order to produce 3x, three times as much capital would have to he laid out (in wages) as is required to produce 1x.” (p 128)
So, although its true that manufacture can only process the volume of raw material that agriculture provides to it, this does not lead to the conclusion that Rodbertus draws from it. If productivity in wool spinning trebles, so that one day's spinning labour produces 30 kilos of yarn, whereas previously it produced 10 kilos, then discounting the constant capital, this 30 kilos of yarn will have the same value (one day) as previously was possessed by 10 kilos. If productivity in agriculture remains constant, then in order to meet the demands of the spinners 30 kilos of wool will have to be produced rather than 10 kilos. The value of wool remains the same per kilo, but the total amount of surplus value in wool production trebles, because now three times as much wool is produced. But, that is only the case, because with constant productivity in wool production, three times as much labour is employed. The amount of paid and unpaid labour per kilo remains the same.
“The same spinning labour would have the same value as before and contain the same surplus-value. The wool-producing labour would have a trebled surplus-value but the labour embodied in it, or the capital advanced in wages, would accordingly have trebled as well. The three times greater surplus-value would thus be calculated on a three times greater capital.” (p 128)
So, Marx says a distinction must be made here. Where fertility or productivity is greater, the same labour and constant capital produce a greater output, and so the price of each individual product is cheaper, but the total value remains the same, because more products are produced. The opposite applies where fertility or productivity is lower.
“Furthermore, the ratio between paid and unpaid labour in each individual product in the two categories is not affected by this, for though the individual product contains less unpaid labour, according to the assumption, it also contains less paid labour in the same proportion. For it has been assumed here that there is no change in the proportions of the organic component parts of capital—of variable and constant capital. It is assumed that the same amount of variable and constant capital supplies varying, greater or smaller, quantities of product under varying conditions.” (p 129)
Rodbertus confuses this and assumes that because the price of the individual product rises, this is also equivalent to a rise in the mass of surplus value. If productivity falls – assuming no further consequences for the value of labour power, and so rate of surplus value – then the price of the individual product rises, and the amount of value and surplus value it contains thereby rises. But fewer products are produced so that the total value and surplus value remains unchanged.
“As to the rate, this is wrong even according to the assumption. As to the total, however, it is only right if more capital is advanced in one case than in the other, that means if as much is produced now of the dearer product as previously of the cheaper or if the increased quantity of the cheaper product (as above with spinning) presupposes a correspondingly increased quantity of the dearer product.” (p 129).
No comments:
Post a Comment