In fact, as Marx sets out, this very tendency of capitalism, also turns out to be one, if not the greatest of the gifts it provides to humanity, because it teaches it to use its resources effectively, and to husband those resources. The way capital seeks to maximise the production of surplus value is to minimise the cost of production, whether that is by raising the productivity of living labour, or by continually reducing the value of constant capital, or developing new ways that minimise the amount of constant capital required to produce a given quantity of output.
“It is the constant aim of capitalist production to produce a maximum of surplus-value or surplus-product with the minimum capital outlay; and to the extent that this result is not achieved by overworking the workers, it is a tendency of capital to seek to produce a given product with the least possible expenditure—economy of power and expense. It is therefore the economic tendency of capital which teaches humanity to husband its strength and to achieve its productive aim with the least possible expenditure of means.” (p 548)
Moreover, because, for capitalism, the aim is not the production of commodities, for the purpose of satisfying the needs of human beings, nor is the worker, as such a human being, of central concern to the system either. The worker is only of concern as an agent of production, just as other human beings are agents of consumption. Workers are only of concern to the extent that the system needs to husband them as a productive resource, whilst at the same time, using their labour as effectively as possible. The only way to maximise the surplus value is not to drive the gross product to its highest level, but to keep the necessary cost to a minimum, in relation to it.
“Provided this surplus grows the aim of capitalist production has been achieved even if the value decreases or, if along with the value, the total quantity of the product also decreases.
Ricardo expressed these tendencies consistently and ruthlessly. Hence much howling against him on the part of the philanthropic philistines.” (p 548)
Ricardo, however, again repeats the error of Smith's absurd dogma, whereby the value of commodities, and thereby of the gross product, resolves entirely into revenues, thereby disregarding the constant capital consumed in its production, which has to be replaced. However, having described this inadequacy of Ricardo's theory, inherited from Smith, many times already, Marx sets it aside now, to focus on the rest of Ricardo's argument, and the inadequacy of his theory of a falling rate of profit, and of crisis. Marx sets out Ricardo's views on the centrality of the net revenue, as opposed to gross revenue, and the division of it into profit, rent and taxes. So, in Chapter XXXII, Ricardo says,
“It is of importance to distinguish clearly between gross revenue and net revenue, for it is from the net revenue of a society that all taxes must be paid.” (p 548)
It's important to distinguish here in Ricardo's argument, as with Marx’s, the difference between taxes in the true meaning, as a deduction from surplus value, as revenue obtained by the state to cover its own administrative expenditure, for its own operation, and money raised by the state, in the form of taxes, but which is really a price charged for commodities/services provided by the state, and which is thereby a payment from other revenues, as with the purchase of any other commodity. In other words, the state, as a capitalist, provides health and social care, and education, largely to workers, as the largest class. What it levies, again largely from workers, in the form of Income Tax, VAT, and National Insurance, is not, in the true sense a tax, but merely a price for these commodities, paid for from the workers wages. It is not a deduction from surplus value, but part of wages, and composes part of the variable-capital of society.
No comments:
Post a Comment