In pre-capitalist modes of production, individual products that are sold as commodities, may each be individual specimens, and each be sold according to their individual value. For example, a pot crafted by a master potter may be sold at a price that reflects the actual labour used in its production, i.e. its individual value. However, as Marx points out, under capitalism it is not even possible to identify the individual value of each commodity unit. Not only is each identical unit part of a batch of such commodities, but all of this production entails the production of other large batches of commodities that form raw materials, and other components of the commodity.
“It is no longer the labour expended on the individual particular commodity (in most cases, it can no longer be calculated, and may be greater in the case of one commodity than in that of another) but a proportional part of the total labour—i.e., the average of the total value [divided] by the number of products—which determines the value of the individual product and establishes it as a commodity.” (p 113)
To go back to the earlier point, then, made in the “Observations”, if 120 hats are produced, and require 1200 hours of labour, comprising the labour used in the production of materials, the proportionate amount of wear and tear of machines, as well as the immediate labour, then the value of the output is determinable as being 1200 hours, but the individual value of each hat is now only determinable in relation to this total. In other words, the value of a hat is now equal to 10 hours, whether, in fact, any of these 120 hats comprised, individually, 9 hours of labour or 11 hours of labour.
“Consequently, the total mass of commodities must also be sold, each commodity at its value, determined in this way, in order to replace the total capital together with a surplus-value. If only 800 out of the 1,200 yards were sold, then the capital would not be replaced, still less would there be a profit. But each yard would also have been sold below its value, for its value is determined not in isolation but as an aliquot part of the total product.” (p 113)
But, technically, this last statement by Marx is wrong. The value of the 1200 yards is determined not by the labour embodied within it, but, precisely for the reasons he states, only by the socially necessary labour expended. A third of the labour expended was not socially necessary, and was not, therefore, value creating. If in our example above, only 80 hats out of the 120 produced could be sold, at their market value, then, again, a third of the labour expended was not socially necessary, and therefore, was not value creating. It is as though the entire 120 hats only had a value of 800 hours of labour, so that the value of each hat is only 6.66 hours, rather than 10 hours.
The author of “Observations” writes,
““If you call labour a commodity, it is not like a commodity which is first produced in order to exchange, and then brought to market where it must exchange with other commodities according to the respective quantities of each which there may be in the market at the time; labour is created at the moment it is brought to market; nay, it is brought to market, before it is created” (op. cit., pp. 75-76).” (p 113)
But, what is brought to market, as a commodity, is not labour, but labour-power. The worker sells their ability to perform labour for a specific amount of time, e.g. a day. The value of that power to perform labour is not the same as the value of the product of that labour. The only reason for the capitalist buying the labour-power of the worker is precisely because of that fact, i.e. that what they have to pay for the value of labour-power is less than the value which that labour-power produces.
The capitalist buys labour-power, for, say, 10 hours, and thereby obtains 10 hours of value, via the labour undertaken, but the value of 10 hours labour-power, and so what the capitalist pays as wages, may be equal to only 5 hours of labour. In other words, only 5 hours of labour are required to reproduce the consumed 10 hours of labour-power. Nor is this changed if the method of payment is via piecework. The capitalist then simply determines how many “pieces” should be produced, on average, during the day, and then calculates the payment per piece accordingly.
For example, if the wage is £10, and rate of surplus value is 100%, the average number of pieces produced, per day, might be 1,000. Discounting constant capital, the value of these 1,000 pieces is £20, or £0.02 per piece. But, the worker will be paid only £0.01 per piece, providing the average worker with the wage of £10. As Marx describes, in Capital I, firms would get rid of the slowest workers, so that the average number of pieces per day slowly increased, and would attempt to adjust rates accordingly. But, this opens up grounds for disputes over these rates where improvements in technology, causes productivity to rise, rapidly increasing the quantity of pieces that workers can produce during the day, because without a reduction in the price paid per piece, this significantly raises wages, and reduces the rate of surplus value.
Whether wages are paid as time wages, i.e. for a day, week or month, or as piece wages, the worker sells their labour-power before they are paid for it. At the time the worker is set on, their labour-power, for the agreed period, becomes the property of capital. Capital then utilises the use value they have bought, but not yet paid for. This is like a landlord who rents land, or property, the use value of which is then utilised by the tenant, who only pays for it later. In this context, the question of whether what the worker produces is bought as a commodity before or after the worker is paid their wages is irrelevant. As Marx describes in Capital II, the circuit of capital, and the period for its turnover, is determined not by when the commodities comprising the advanced capital are paid for, but when they are physically advanced to production. The period of turnover ends, at the point that their replacements are advanced to production, i.e. P … C` - M`. M – C … P.
“But his commodity, his labour-power, has been consumed industrially, i.e., has been transferred into the hands of the buyer, the capitalist, before he, the worker, has been paid. And it is not a question of what the buyer of a commodity wants to do with it, whether he buys it in order to retain it as a use-value or in order to sell it again. It is a question of the direct transaction between the first buyer and seller.” (p 114)
No comments:
Post a Comment