Because Bailey defines value as exchange-value, he defines the value of labour as being that quantum of use values which exchanges for labour, so that if the worker continues to obtain the same quantum of use values, then, for him, the value of labour remains constant. But, Bailey, when he then considers profit, switches to a different approach, and definition of value. Instead of defining the value of profit as being the quantity of use values against which it exchanges, he defines it proportionally to capital. This approach of Bailey in calculating the rate of profit, is essentially the same as that used by the proponents of historic pricing, and the Temporal Single System Interpretation.
“The portion received by the worker can, however, remain the same although the proportion received by the capitalist rises if the productivity of labour increases. It is not clear why, in dealing with capital, we suddenly come to a proportion and of what use this proportion is supposed to be to the capitalist, since the value of what he receives is determined not by the proportion, but by its “expression in other commodities”.” (p 149)
If Bailey was consistent, and measured things only in terms of use values, then the consequence of a rise in productivity would witness that, if the amount of use values received by labour remained constant, whilst the total quantity of use values rises, this must mean that the proportion of this total, received by workers, falls. But, likewise, it would mean that the proportion received as profits rises.
“Wages are equal to a quantity of use-values. Profit, on the other hand, is (but Bailey must avoid saying so) a relation of value. If I measure wages according to use-value and profit according to exchange-value, it is quite evident that neither an inverse nor any other kind of relation exists between them, because I should then be comparing incommensurable magnitudes, things which have nothing in common.” (p 149)
And, this is also the problem with the Temporal Single System Interpretation, and the use of historic prices as the basis for calculating the rate of profit. If wages and profits are measured by a common standard of value, it's clear that whilst the quantity of use value received as wages remains constant, the value of those wages has fallen, whilst the quantity of use values, constituting surplus product has risen, and the amount of surplus-value has also risen, i.e. whilst the total new value produced remains constant, a smaller proportion of that value is required to reproduce labour-power, and so a greater proportion constitutes surplus value. And, as will be seen later, this applies again to the error of the Temporal Single System Interpretation, and use of historic pricing in relation not just to surplus value and wages, but also to profit and the total capital. As will be seen in relation to Marx’s analysis of Ramsay, and his confusion caused by using historic prices, if the same quantity of use values, constituting constant capital, can be reproduced with less value, this results in a) a release of capital as revenue, giving the illusion of additional profit, but also b) a reduction in the value of the constant capital that must be reproduced, and so a rise in the rate of profit, i.e. the value of profit rises proportionally to the value of the constant capital that must be reproduced/accumulated.
No comments:
Post a Comment