Bailey can only proceed with his argument on the basis of his deception of measuring labour against the use values exchanged with it, whilst measuring profit against the historic cost of the capital used to produce it. So, he writes,
““Whatever the produce of the labour of six men might be, whether 100 or 200 or 300 quarters of corn, yet so long as the proportion of the capitalist was one-fourth of the produce, that fourth part estimated in labour would be invariably the same.”” (p 152)
And, as Marx responds,
“And so would the ¾ of the produce accruing to the labourer, if estimated in labour.” (p 152)
And, when Bailey, conversely, states,
““Were the produce 100 quarters, then, as 75 quarters would be given to 6 men, the 25 accruing to the capitalist would command the labour of 2 men;”” (p 152),
then, again, as Marx says,
“and that given to the labourers would command the labour of 6 men” (p 152)
Bailey also arrives at his false conclusions, on the basis of his use of historic prices. So, he equates the price of labour with the use values received in exchange for it. When output rises, therefore, he assumes the same proportional increase in the quantity of those use values going to labour. So, he says,
“if the produce were 300 quarters, the 6 men would obtain 225 quarters, and the 75 falling to the capitalist would still command 2 men and no more.” (p 152)
Of course, the point is that the value of the variable-capital is not determined by the money wages previously paid to the workers (the historic price of labour) but by the quantum of physical use values required for the reproduction of the labour-power, just as the value of the constant capital is not determined by the historic prices paid for it, but by the current reproduction cost, the amount of labour-time/value that must be expended for the replacement, on a like for like basis, of the commodities consumed in the production process.
If productivity rises, so that total output rises, the quantity of use values required to replace the constant and variable-capital forms a smaller proportion of it. The capital value, thereby, falls so that the rate of profit rises. So, in Bailey's example, if output rises from 100 quarters to 300 quarters, that does not change the 75 quarters required to reproduce six workers (assuming they only require corn for their reproduction). It would, in fact, mean that the surplus product rose from 25 quarters to 225 quarters. Bailey's assumption that wages rise to 225 quarters would actually mean that, although their money wages remained constant, their real wage trebled. Even if we assume that, in Bailey's example, the workers require other use values to reproduce their labour-power, which they buy with corn wages, (and that the value of these other use values has not similarly been reduced), their wages would still be reduced proportionately to the quantity of corn that forms a part of their consumption, relative to other use values.
No comments:
Post a Comment