Bailey is also facilitated in his criticism of Ricardo by the fact that Ricardo does not distinguish between surplus value and profit, and Bailey also makes no such distinction. The difference is important, as Marx previously elaborated, because surplus value relates to the variable-capital, whereas profit relates to the whole capital.
“Bailey then seeks to invalidate Ricardo’s law that the value of labour and profit stand in inverse proportion to one another. He seeks, moreover, to invalidate that part of it which is correct.” (p 149)
If the working-day is extended, so that more total value is produced, this additional value could be divided equally between worker and capitalist, and so both wages and profit could rise simultaneously. However, even here, as Marx set out in Capital I, the fact of the worker working for longer, may then shorten the worker's life. That would act to raise the value of labour-power, so that, if this was not reflected in a rise in wages, in addition to that resulting from the share of the additional value – it would really mean a fall in wages, in real terms. It would require something like overtime rates, as compensation, so that the result then would be lower profits. This is one reason that capital discovered that absolute surplus value was limited, as a means of raising exploitation, and resorted instead to the production of relative surplus value, by raising levels of productivity.
Bailey's criticism of Ricardo's argument that the value of labour and profits are inversely proportional comes down to a confusion of the value of labour-power/wages with real wages. This confusion arises, because of Bailey's own definition of value, whereby value is only exchange-value, and the value of any commodity is only definable as a quantity of other use values given in exchange for it. So, Bailey defines the value of labour as being equal to the quantity of those use values (wage goods) given in exchange for it. Now, it is fundamentally correct that the value of labour-power is determined by the value of those use values/commodities (wage goods) required for its reproduction. These use values do, indeed, constitute a given physical quantum. But, what Bailey necessarily fails to take account of, given his theory of value, is that the labour-time, required to produce this quantum, varies as a result of changes in productivity, i.e. the value of these wage goods varies.
If productivity rises, so that this given quantum of use values is produced in less time, real wages may remain constant, i.e. workers obtain the same quantity of these use values, their living standard is unaltered, but the value of their labour-power/wages will have fallen. A greater part of the labour they undertake, during the day, constitutes surplus labour, so that surplus value rises. If the value of money remains constant, the worker would receive a lower money/nominal wage, because less money is required to buy the quantum of use values required to reproduce their labour-power.
No comments:
Post a Comment