Malthus says,
““…it is precisely because the labour which a commodity will ordinarily command measures the labour actually worked up in it with the addition of profits, that it is justifiable to consider it” (labour) “as a measure of value. If then the ordinary value of a commodity be considered as determined by the natural and necessary conditions of its supply, it is certain that the labour which it will ordinarily command is alone the measure of these conditions”([T. R. Malthus,] Definitions in Political Economy, London, 1827, p. 214).” (p 17)
In other words, if we take the commodity referred to earlier with a value of 10 hours, including 2 hours of unpaid labour, it can be sold on the market for £10, which is the money equivalent of ten hours labour. The capitalist, via this commodity, has, therefore, command over 10 hours of labour, even though it has only cost them 8 hours of labour, in what they have paid for means of production, and in wages. If they use the £10 to buy other commodities, those commodities will also be the equivalent of 10 hours, but they will obtain these commodities even though they have only paid the equivalent of 8 hours, or £8 to obtain them.
Malthus' definition here is similar to Smith's definition encountered previously of the 'necessary price' of a commodity as being that which is required to provide the revenues required to produce the natural price of labour and capital. Malthus also sets this out in terms of his definition of the necessary conditions of supply.
““Elementary costs of Production. An expression exactly equivalent to the conditions […] of the supply” (Definitions in Political Economy, ed. by John Cazenove, London, 1853, p.14).
“Measure of the Conditions of […] the Supply […]. The quantity of labour for which the commodity will exchange, when it is in its natural and ordinary state” (loc. cit., p. 14).
“… the quantity of labour which a commodity commands represents exactly the quantity of labour worked up in it, with the profits upon the advances, and does therefore really represent and measure those natural and necessary conditions of the supply, those elementary costs of production which determine value…” (op. cit., p. 125).
“… the demand for a commodity, though not proportioned to the quantity of any other commodity which the purchaser is willing and able to give for it, is really proportioned to the quantity of labour which he will give for it; and for this reason: the quantity of labour which a commodity will ordinarily command, represents exactly the effectual demand for it; because it represents exactly that quantity of labour and profits united necessary to effect its supply; while the actual quantity of labour which a commodity will command when it differs from the ordinary quantity, represents the excess or defect of demand arising from temporary causes” (op. cit., p. 135).” (p 17)
And, of course, this is correct, because, under capitalist production, a necessary condition of supply is that the capitalist does not just retrieve the value they have expended in production, but that they also realise a profit.
“For example, a cotton manufacturer sells his calico. The condition for the supply of new calico is that he exchanges the money—the exchange-value of the calico—for more labour in the process of the reproduction of the calico than was embodied in it or than is represented by the money. For the cotton manufacturer produces calico as a capitalist. What he wants to produce is not calico, but profit. The production of calico is only a means for the production of profit.” (p 18)
No comments:
Post a Comment