Marx says,
“If the wage remained the same, no part of the variable capital would be released. The fact that the product of £8,250 represents the same amount of necessaries and food as previously £15,000 does not cause its value to rise. The farmer would have to sell it for £8,250, partly in order to replace the wear and tear of his machinery and partly in order to replace his variable capital. In so far as this lowering of the price of food and necessaries did not bring about a fall in wages in general, or a fall in the ingredients entering into the reproduction of the constant capital, the revenue of society would have expanded only in so far as it is expended on food and necessaries. A section of the unproductive and productive workers etc. would live better.” (p 567)
But, the lowering of the value of necessaries would mean the value of labour-power fell, even if wages did not. With the value of labour-power lowered, if the unemployed workers did remain on the streets, in any number, its hard to see how wages could remain the same, let alone not fall. Marx himself notes that,
“The discharged workers would remain on the street, although the physical possibility of their maintenance existed just as much as before. Moreover, the same capital would be employed in the reproduction process as before. But a part of the product (whose value had fallen), which previously existed as capital has now become revenue.” (p 568)
If these workers are of the wrong type, in the wrong location or represent only a small proportion of the total workforce, they may not be able to act to push down on wages, so that even with constant nominal wages, other workers enjoy a higher real wage, as that money wage now buys more of the now cheaper necessaries. Marx also quotes Ricardo's comment.
“The reduced quantity of labour which the capitalist can employ, must, indeed, with the assistance of the machine, and after deductions for its repairs, produce a value equal to £7,500, it must replace the circulating capital with a profit of £2,000 on the whole capital; but if this be done, if the net income be not diminished, of what importance is it to the capitalist, whether the gross income be of the value of £3,000, of £10,000, or of £15,000?” (p 568)
And Marx notes,
“This is perfectly correct. The gross income is of absolutely no importance to the capitalist. The only thing which is of interest to him is the net income.” (p 568)
But, if we are dealing with prices of production, and an average rate of profit, it is not as though the two things are entirely separate. If the ratio of fixed to circulating capital, and the rate of turnover of capital is held constant, then changes in the net revenue will go hand in hand with changes in the gross revenue. In other words, if the capital is all taken to turn over once during the year, the profit will rise in tandem with the gross revenue, for the simple reason that the gross revenue, in this case, is equal to the laid out capital plus the profit. The variation in this relation arises as a result of the variations in the rate of turnover of capital. The higher the rate of turnover of capital, the lower the rate of profit/profit margin, and so the lower the gross revenue in relation to the net revenue.
No comments:
Post a Comment