The value of a commodity is not a function of the value of the labour-power used in its production, but merely the quantity of labour-time. The amount and rate of surplus value are a function of the relation of the value of labour-power to the new value created, i.e. to the quantity of labour-time expended.
“The concept of relative wages is one of Ricardo’s greatest contributions. It consists in this—that the value of the wages (and consequently of the profit) depends absolutely on the proportion of that part of the working-day during which the worker works for himself (producing or reproducing his wage) to that part of his time which belongs to the capitalist. This is important economically, in fact it is only another way of expressing the real theory of surplus-value. It is important further in regard to the social relationship between the two classes.” (p 33-4)
But, Malthus objects to this idea that wages should be considered as in any way relative, or a proportion of something. He writes,
““No writer that I have met with, anterior to Mr. Ricardo, ever used the term wages, or real wages, as implying proportions.”” (p 34)
Malthus has no problem with the idea that profits are relative, because it is consistent with his notion of a rate of profit, though he can never explain exactly what profits are proportional to. He says,
““Profits, indeed, imply proportions; and the rate of profits has always justly been estimated by a percentage upon the value of the advances.”” (p 34)
But, as Marx points out,
“According to him, the value of a commodity is equal to the advances contained in it plus profit. Since the advances, apart from the immediate labour, also consist of commodities, the value of the advances is equal to the advances in them plus profit. Profit thus equals profit upon the advances plus profit. And so on, ad infinitum.” (p 34)
And, Malthus' own definition of wages then also contradicts his definition of the value of commodities being equal to wages, because he says,
““But wages had uniformly been considered as rising or falling, not according to any proportion which they might bear to the whole produce obtained by a certain quantity of labour, but by the greater or smaller quantity of any particular produce received by the labourer, or by the greater or smaller power which such produce would convey, of commanding the necessaries and conveniences of life” (Definitions etc., London, 1827, pp. 29-30).” (p 34)
The immediate aim of capitalist production is the increase in exchange-value of the capital advanced. In that case, says Marx, its important to know how to measure it. It's also clear here that, for Marx, the capital advanced is the productive-capital, not the money-capital. He makes this clear elsewhere, in discussing the turnover of the productive-capital, where he says clearly that money values only signify the use of money as unit of account, a money equivalent of the actual capital values, required in order to perform rational calculations.
“Since the production of exchange-value—the increase of exchange-value—is the immediate aim of capitalist production, it is important [to know] how to measure it. Since the value of the capital advanced is expressed in money (real money or money of account), the rate of increase is measured by the amount of capital itself, and a capital (a sum of money) of a certain size—100—is taken as a standard.” (p 34)
No comments:
Post a Comment