Friday 9 November 2018

Theories of Surplus Value, Part III, Chapter 19 - Part 5

Malthus recognises that a commodity's value already contains a profit. He, therefore, argues that a commodity commands labour equal to that contained in its production plus a profit. But, of course, as a commodity, it does not. A commodity that has a value of say 10 hours, as a commodity, can only command 10 hours of value/labour. That is a requirement of the law of value, and equal exchange. But, the fact that this commodity has a value of 10 hours, does not at all mean that it does not contain profit. If 10 hours are expended on its production, that is its value, but, if only 8 hours of those 10 hours constitute paid labour, that means that 2 hours constitute surplus value, or profit. This is the same situation as previously discussed by Marx, in respect of Proudhon, i.e. a failure to distinguish between the cost of production of a commodity for society – the total labour expended on its production – and the cost of production for the capitalist – the cost of the constant capital plus only the paid labour of the worker. 

Marx quotes Malthus to illustrate these points. 

““…in the same country, and at the same time, the exchangeable value of those commodities which can be resolved into labour and profits alone, would be accurately measured by the quantity of labour which would result from adding to the accumulated and immediate labour actually worked up in them the varying amount of the profits on all the advances estimated in labour. But this must necessarily be the same as the quantity of labour which they will command” ([T. R. Malthus,] The Measure of Value Stated and Illustrated, London, 1823, pp. 15-16).” (p 16) 

Malthus notably leaves out of account those commodities whose value is resolved not just into 'labour' (which should be wages), and profit, but also rent. He refers to 'labour' because he notes that this labour consists not only of immediate labour, but also of accumulated labour, i.e. constant capital. Like Ricardo, Malthus has no objective basis for determining how much the profit should be, and so is left simply adding an amount of value equal to the profit, to what is attributed to labour and constant capital. 

Marx notes, 

“Mr. Malthus wants to include “profit” directly in the definition of value, so that it follows immediately from this definition, which is not the case with Ricardo. This shows that he felt where the difficulty lay.” (p 16) 

And, continuing the argument Malthus put in the previous quote, Marx cites his comment, 

““… the labour which a commodity would command”[is] “a standard measure of value” (op. cit., p. 61).”, 

and, 

““… I had nowhere seen it stated” (that is, before his own book The Measure of Value appeared), “that the ordinary quantity of labour which a commodity will command must represent and measure the quantity of labour worked up in it, with the addition of profits” ([T. R. Malthus,] Definitions in Political Economy etc., London, 1827, p. 196).” (p 16) 

But, herein lies the contradiction. A commodity that has a value of 10 hours comprised say of six hours of constant capital and four hours of immediate labour, two of which are necessary and two surplus labour, will, as Malthus says, command itself ten hours of labour, whether that labour is likewise in the form of some other commodity, or is in the form of direct labour, via a labour service. All of the commodities that comprise the elements of capital are also of that nature. 

If we take the commodity referenced earlier, with a value of ten hours, let's say it is a machine. If the owner of the machine comes to sell it, they will only be able to obtain, in exchange for it, money or some other commodity, with a value of ten hours. But, the same applies to the commodities that comprise the variable-capital. If a capitalist farmer has a stock of food products, which comprise their variable-capital, and which they use to pay their workers' wages, in kind, during the year, these same products are sold as commodities in the market. Potatoes with a value of ten hours labour or £10, that the farmer sells in the market, only thereby exchange for other commodities with a value of ten hours or £10. When the farmer pays his workers with these potatoes, it is just the same as paying them £10 in money, which they can exchange for commodities of the same value. 

In both cases, this capital value can only change its form. The variable-capital here, in the form of potatoes, or £10 in money, metamorphoses not into labour, but into another commodity of equal value, i.e. labour-power. And, so the conundrum arises of how the surplus value can arise. The answer is that it does not arise as a result of these commodity exchanges, which can only metamorphose value in one form into the same value in another form. It is not the relation of machines or material (means of production) or food and necessaries (means of consumption) as commodities, to labour, which is the source of the surplus value, but the relation of all those things as capital, that is the source of the surplus value. It is precisely this relation which determines the value of capital, i.e. its capacity for self-expansion. 

“Besides, it is particularly absurd that he declares the value of the commodity and its realisation as capital to be identical. When commodities or money (in brief, materialised labour) are exchanged as capital against living labour, they are always exchanged against a greater quantity of labour than they contain. And if one compares the commodity before this exchange on the one hand, with the product resulting from this exchange with living labour on the other, one finds that the commodity has been exchanged for its own value (equivalent) plus a surplus over and above its own value—the surplus-value. But it is therefore absurd to say that the value of a commodity is equal to its value plus a surplus over and above this value. If the commodity, as a commodity, is exchanged for other commodities and not as capital against living labour, then, insofar as it is exchanged for an equivalent, it is exchanged for the same quantity of materialised labour as is embodied in it.” (p 16-17) 

No comments: