Ricardo equated exchange-value with price of production, in which case surplus value must equal profit. But, as Marx has demonstrated, this is impossible, if there is to be an average rate of profit, because capitals with a lower organic composition of capital, or a higher rate of turnover, will produce more surplus value than capitals, of an equal size, where the opposite conditions apply. An average rate of profit necessitates that competition would lead to capital flowing away from the latter and towards the former, until the rate of profit was equalised. But, that would mean that the resultant price of production would diverge from the exchange value in each sphere, and correspondingly, the profit, in each sphere, would differ from the surplus value in each sphere.
Ricardo further erred, in equating the rate of profit, measured correctly, as Mill says, against the cost of production, with the rate of surplus value, measured only against the variable-capital.
“Mr. Mill himself is not quite clear about the question which he seeks to answer. We will therefore formulate his question briefly before we hear his answer. The rate of profit is the ratio of surplus-value to the total amount of the capital advanced (constant and variable capital taken together) while surplus-value itself is the excess of the quantity of labour performed by the labourer over the quantity of labour which is advanced him as wages; that is, surplus-value is considered only in relation to the variable capital, or to the capital which is laid out in wages, not in relation to the whole capital. Thus the rate of surplus-value and the rate of profit are two different rates, although profit is only surplus-value considered from a particular point of view.” (p 191)
Although this latter point is only true from the perspective of the total social capital, for the reasons described above. For any particular capital, there need be no relation between profit and surplus value, whatsoever. A capital that employed no labour would produce no surplus value, but, as capital, would still demand the average rate of profit. Moreover, as Marx and Engels describe, in Capital III, the rate of profit is only equal to the surplus value as a ratio of the total advanced capital, where that capital turns over once a year – which is rarely the case. Otherwise, the surplus value, as a proportion of the total advanced capital is equal to the annual rate of profit, and whether this annual rate is greater than or less than the rate of profit will depend upon the relation of fixed capital to circulating capital, and on the rate of turnover of the circulating capital.
“It is correct to say with regard to the rate of surplus-value that it exclusively depends “upon wages; rising as wages fall, and falling as wages rise”. (But it would be wrong with regard to the total amount of surplus-value, for this depends not only on the rate at which the surplus labour of the individual worker is appropriated but likewise on the number of workers exploited at the same time.)” (p 191)
This is the same point that Marx makes at the beginning of Capital III, Chapter 15.
“Given the necessary means of production, i.e. , a sufficient accumulation of capital, the creation of surplus-value is only limited by the labouring population if the rate of surplus-value, i.e. , the intensity of exploitation, is given; and no other limit but the intensity of exploitation if the labouring population is given.”
So, the rate of surplus value may rise, but the mass of surplus value fall, if the rise in social productivity, implied by this higher rate of surplus value, results in less labour, in total, being employed. Similarly, the rate of surplus value may fall, and yet the mass of surplus value rise, if more labour is employed. If the rate of surplus value rises, whilst more labour is employed, the mass of surplus value will rise for both reasons. But, whether the mass of surplus value rises or falls for any of these reasons, no conclusion for the rate of profit can be drawn from it, because the rate of profit is measured against both the constant and variable capital.
No comments:
Post a Comment