The rise in the value of commodities, in general consumption, resulting from this rise in raw material prices, may have other consequences, if the consumption of these commodities is not reduced. The importance of Marx's analysis, in Capital III, and later in this chapter, in respect of the heterogeneous nature of consumers is illustrated here. In other words, consumers are not just workers and capitalists, they also comprise landlords and rentiers, whose revenues may be relatively fixed.
If the price of bread rises, workers who need to consume a quantity of bread, see the value of their labour-power, and consequently wages, rise. They continue to consume all of the required use values as before. Profits fall, as a result and the capitalist may curtail their own personal consumption, or their accumulation of additional capital. But, bread is also consumed by landlords and rentiers, whose rent and interest may be unchanged. If they continue to consume the same amount of bread, at the higher price, they must then consume less of some other commodity.
“and consequently prevent their reconversion into money at their value, thus disturbing the other aspect of their reproduction— not the reconversion of money into productive capital but the reconversion of commodities into money. In any case, the volume of profits and the volume of wages is reduced in this branch of production thereby reducing a part of the necessary returns from the sale of commodities from other branches of production.” (p 516)
As described previously, the supply and value of raw material may be unchanged, but the process is upset, either by a disproportionate accumulation of surplus value into fixed capital, or a revolution in technology that brings about the same effect.
“This therefore arises from the disproportionate conversion of additional capital into its various elements. It is a case of over-production of fixed capital and gives rise to exactly the same phenomena as occur in the first case.” (p 516-7)
“Or they [the crises] are due to an over-production of fixed capital and therefore a relative under-production of circulating capital.
Since fixed capital, like circulating, consists of commodities, it is quite ridiculous that the same economists who admit the over-production of fixed capital, deny the over-production of commodities.” (p 517)
For example, when spinning machines were invented, they required far more cotton than when cotton was spun by hand, and, at the same time, threw a great deal more yarn on to the market than had previously been the case. The crises of the first form then arise, because the circuit of capital is disrupted. Either the commodity-capital value cannot be realised by sale, or else it is realised, but a rise in the value of the commodities that comprise the productive-capital prevent this money-capital itself being metamorphosed into productive-capital, at least on the previous scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment