The quantity of labour employed depends upon the technical composition of capital, as well as the minimum efficient scale of production in the given industry. Moreover, the amount advanced as wages depends on the production time for the particular commodity. Some commodities have a longer working period than others, and for all this time the capital is advanced for wages. Other commodities, such as wine, that require time to ferment, or corn that requires time to grow, after the seed has been planted, whilst not being the subject of labour, during this period, have still tied up the capital advanced as wages, until they can be sold.
“... as well as on the length of time involved in the circulation of the commodity, the length of time required for the metamorphosis of the commodity, that is, the interval between its completion as a product and its reproduction as a commodity.” (p 229)
Marx reiterates the point made in Capital III, Chapter 15, that, given the rate of surplus value, the mass of surplus value depends entirely on the number of workers employed, and if the number of workers employed is given, the mass of surplus value depends on the rate of surplus value.
“But since profit is the ratio, not of the rate of surplus-value, but of the total amount of surplus-value to the total value of the capital advanced, then clearly its rate is determined not only by the rate, but also by the total amount of surplus-value, an amount which depends on the compound ratio of the rate and the number of working days, on the amount of capital expended on wages and the production costs of wages.” (p 231)
Assuming that the rate of surplus value is the same in all industries, the amount of variable-capital in each industry depends on the organic composition of capital in that industry. The objection of the higher value of skilled labour-power, Marx addresses by assuming that the value created by this labour is proportional, so that the ratio of paid to unpaid labour remains the same. Given any rate of surplus value, the amount of surplus value rises or falls proportionate to the variable-capital. But, this does not apply to the rate of profit, because the rate of profit is the ratio of the surplus value to the total capital – constant and variable, and different organic compositions of capital mean that a rise in the total capital does not mean a proportional rise in the surplus value.
“The amount of profit—as regards the different capitals—here depends on the ratio between the variable capital and the total capital, that is, on v/c+v. Thus, if the rate of surplus-value is given, and it is always expressed by s/v, by the ratio of surplus-value to variable capital, then the rate of profit is determined entirely by the ratio of variable capital to the total capital.” (p 231-2)
A number of ratios are then involved here, in relation to the rate of profit, and changes in each of these ratios can result in a rise or fall in the rate of profit, brought about by different, and even contradictory causes. These come down to the difference between a squeeze on profits, as a result of a fall in the rate of surplus value, or a rise in the value composition of capital (i.e. a rise in the value/price of the commodities that comprise the constant capital, as opposed to a rise in the quantity of them processed by labour) as opposed to the long-term tendency for the rate of profit to fall, as a result of a rising technical composition of capital (causing a rise in the organic composition), caused by technological development, and rising productivity.
“The rate of profit is thus determined, firstly, by the rate of surplus-value, that is, by the ratio of unpaid labour to paid labour; and it changes, rises or falls (insofar as this action is not rendered ineffectual by movements of the other determining factors), with changes in the rate of surplus-value. This, however, rises or falls in direct proportion to the productivity of labour and in inverse proportion to the value of labour, that is, to the production costs of wages or the quantity of necessary labour.” (p 232)
No comments:
Post a Comment