Capital must continually stimulate these new desires. It is what Marx refers to in The Grundrisse, as The Civilising Mission of Capital.
“On the other side, the production of relative surplus value, i.e. production of surplus value based on the increase and development of the productive forces, requires the production of new consumption; requires that the consuming circle within circulation expands as did the productive circle previously. Firstly quantitative expansion of existing consumption; secondly: creation of new needs by propagating existing ones in a wide circle; thirdly: production of new needs and discovery and creation of new use values. In other words, so that the surplus labour gained does not remain a merely quantitative surplus, but rather constantly increases the circle of qualitative differences within labour (hence of surplus labour), makes it more diverse, more internally differentiated. For example, if, through a doubling of productive force, a capital of 50 can now do what a capital of 100 did before, so that a capital of 50 and the necessary labour corresponding to it become free, then, for the capital and labour which have been set free, a new, qualitatively different branch of production must be created, which satisfies and brings forth a new need. The value of the old industry is preserved by the creation of the fund for a new one in which the relation of capital and labour posits itself in a new form. Hence exploration of all of nature in order to discover new, useful qualities in things; universal exchange of the products of all alien climates and lands; new (artificial) preparation of natural objects, by which they are given new use values. The exploration of the earth in all directions, to discover new things of use as well as new useful qualities of the old; such as new qualities of them as raw materials etc.; the development, hence, of the natural sciences to their highest point; likewise the discovery, creation and satisfaction of new needs arising from society itself; the cultivation of all the qualities of the social human being, production of the same in a form as rich as possible in needs, because rich in qualities and relations -- production of this being as the most total and universal possible social product, for, in order to take gratification in a many-sided way, he must be capable of many pleasures [genussfähig], hence cultured to a high degree -- is likewise a condition of production founded on capital. This creation of new branches of production, i.e. of qualitatively new surplus time, is not merely the division of labour, but is rather the creation, separate from a given production, of labour with a new use value; the development of a constantly expanding and more comprehensive system of different kinds of labour, different kinds of production, to which a constantly expanding and constantly enriched system of needs corresponds.”
The quantity of iron, as use value, is in no way proportionate to its value, because the value is dependent on the labour-time expended. So, one time, a ton of iron may be equal to £3 of exchange value, but, at some other time, is equal to only £0.03 of exchange-value. At any one time, it may be the case that 1 ton of iron is equal to £3, and, therefore, 2 tons of iron is equal to £6, but, as seen above, the fact that 2 tons of iron has an exchange-value equal to £6 does not mean that the £6 of exchange-value can be realised for it, if only demand for 1 ton of iron, at a price of £3 per ton exists.
“The quantity of iron (use-value) which I supply and the quantity of value I supply, are by no means proportionate to one another, since the latter quantity can remain unchanged no matter how much the former changes. No matter how large or small the quantity of iron I supply may be, it is assumed that I always want to realise the value of the iron, which is independent of the actual quantity of iron and in general of its existence as a use-value. The value supplied (but not yet realised) and the quantity of iron which is realised, do not correspond to each other. No grounds exist therefore for assuming that the possibility of selling a commodity at its value corresponds in any way to the quantity of the commodity I bring to market. For the buyer, my commodity exists, above all, as use-value. He buys it as such. But what he needs is a definite quantity of iron. His need for iron is just as little determined by the quantity produced by me as the value of my iron is commensurate with this quantity.” (p 101-2)
As a seller of a commodity, I can determine the quantity of that commodity I take to market, but I have no control over what demand for that commodity there will be, having done so. As a producer of a commodity, I am constrained, in relation to the individual value of that commodity, by the labour-time required for its production. That depends on the general level of social productivity, which determines the labour-time required to produce all of those commodities required for the production of that particular commodity. In other words, for iron, it depends on the value of coal, iron ore, furnaces and so on. In addition, it depends upon the immediate labour I use to process those materials, and turn them into iron. For each capital, that depends on its own level of productivity, which depends upon the technology used, the scale of production, and so on.
Moreover, in a capitalist economy, where commodities exchange at prices of production, it depends upon social productivity in another way, that the price of production of the iron is determined by the cost of production plus the average profit. As an individual capitalist, therefore, the value of my commodity is determined by all those factors, and my aim is to recover this value, whilst the quantity I can send to market depends upon the capital I have at my disposal. My aim, as a capitalist, is to maximise that capital advanced, so as to maximise my output, and maximise the profit from the sale of my output. But, I have no control over the demand for that output, at the price of production. Nor do I have control over how much of the same commodity is sent to market by my competitors.
For any buyer, who has money, the assumption is that they have this money, because they have previously sold some other commodity. The worker has money to buy commodities, because they have previously sold their labour-power, as a commodity. As Marx sets out in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 6, the landlord who has money from rent, to buy commodities, in fact, owned a part of the product of the farmer who cultivated the soil. The money rent is rather like a certificate given by the farmer to the landlord, in lieu of the portion of the product owed to them. In other words, the landlord sold the portion of the product owed to them, to the farmer, in return for money rent. The landlord then uses this money rent to buy other commodities.
No comments:
Post a Comment