Marx notes that this point raised by the author of the pamphlet about the exchange of necessaries for imported luxuries is itself important, not just because of the point already noted that it exposes the fallacy in the theory of wages put forward by Ricardo and Barton, but also because,
“it determines the whole social pattern of backward nations...” (p 243)
In ancient slave owning societies, a large surplus product can arise, but, with a limited range of use values to exchange, for this surplus product, the ruling class is left having to store up huge hoards of treasure, or else to use the surplus product to fund other forms of conspicuous wealth, such as the building of pyramids. This same limitation exists for the feudal ruling class, which utilises its surplus product to fund large armies of retainers and so on. But, as the potential for improved transport and communications leads to increased trade with more distant lands, so the feudal landlords can exchange their surplus product – especially as rent in kind is replaced by money rent – to exchange for a more extensive range of exotic luxury products. They can send out the growing class of merchant adventurers, like Drake, Raleigh, Columbus, De Gama, and Vespucci etc., to discover new lands and exotic products. They can forge an alliance with this merchant class to establish their own plantations in those foreign lands, and to develop colonies within them. So arises the symbiotic relation between the declining landlord class and the rising merchant class that creates the transitional regime of mercantilism that exists between feudalism and industrial capitalism.
In the same way, as Marx points out, in the slave states of the US, the range of products is highly restricted. Slaves do not produce surplus value, but do produce a significant surplus product. The slave owners cannot consume the surplus product of cotton, or corn, but, in an era of capitalist production, and international trade, this no longer matters. The slaves do not produce surplus value, and the individual value of their output is lower than its global market value. But in a global capitalist market, the output is sold at its market value, not its individual value (as indeed is the case with all commodities). The surplus product of the slaves is thereby sold, not at its individual value, but at its market value, so that the surplus product, thereby becomes manifest as a surplus value. The surplus product, whether it is cotton, tea, sugar, coffee, corn etc., is simply thrown on to the world market, and thereby its market value is determined by the international market value of those commodities, whether those that produced these commodities are slaves, independent peasant producers, or wage workers. By this means, the surplus product becomes translated into a surplus value, and the slave owners can then exchange that surplus value for any of the range of globally produced commodities.
“No matter how large the surplus product they extract from the surplus labour of their slaves in the simple form of cotton or corn, they can adhere to this simple, undifferentiated labour because foreign trade enables them [to convert] these simple products into any kind of use-value.” (p 243)
The argument that Marx puts forward against the notion adduced by Ricardo and Barton in relation to wages, also has relevance today, in another connotation. The argument that wages would have to rise, if a large surplus of necessaries were produced, is like saying that, if a large part of production consisted of houses, workers would have to be provided with extensive cheap housing.
“The assertion that the portion of the annual product which must be expended as wages depends on the size of the circulating capital, is equal to the assertion that, when a large part of the product consists of “buildings”, houses for workers are built in large numbers relative to the size of the working population, and that consequently the workers must live in cheap and well-built houses because the supply of houses increases more quickly than the demand for them.” (p 243)
A similar argument is put today, in relation to the high price of houses, and the proposal for its solution being the building of many more houses. But, of course, its nonsense. Firstly, builders build houses to make profits, not to supply workers, or anyone else, with houses. If they can't sell the houses at a price that provides the average profit, they will not build more houses. Simply building more houses at prices that people can't afford does not solve the problem. That would require that either money wages were higher, so as to afford the high price, or else that the cost of land, and building was lower, so that houses could be sold cheaper, whilst still providing the average profit. Secondly, there is no actual shortage of housing. There is 50% more homes in the UK today, per head, than there was in the 1970's, when house prices, in real terms, were a fraction of what they are today. The number of additional homes built each year since then has also increased at a rate faster than new household formation. It's not a shortage of supply, but a shortage of supply at prices that workers can afford to pay. Thirdly, an excess of homes does not mean they have to be sold to workers at lower prices. Those with money can buy second and third homes; they can buy houses to rent to workers at high rents; and as has happened where property is seen as a speculative financial asset, that can produce speculative capital gains, it can be bought and simply left vacant, like art in a bank vault or wine in a cellar, in the expectation that its price will appreciate. Fourthly, although property cannot be exported, in the way that was described earlier, with the export of surplus production, it can be sold to foreign buyers, for them to use as their own second or third home, or as a speculative asset, or as rental property.
No comments:
Post a Comment