The author of the pamphlet, Marx says, puts forward a similar idea to Carey that, as capital accumulation proceeds, the rate of profit falls, as wages rise.
““The progress of […] increasing capital would, in established societies, be marked by the decreasing interest of money, or, which is the same thing, the decreasing quantity of the labour of others that would be given for its use…” (op. cit., p. 6).” (p 254)
Marx notes,
“Since by interest he understands surplus labour in any form, the matter of the remedy of our “national difficulties” amounts to an increase in wages; for the reduction of interest means a reduction of surplus labour. However, what he really means is that in the exchange of capital for labour the appropriation of alien labour should be reduced or that the worker should appropriate more of his own labour and capital less.” (p 254-5)
But, this can be interpreted in a number of ways. Firstly, it could mean that, as productivity rises, the length of the working-day is shortened, as with the demand for a sliding scale of hours. Secondly, it could mean that the working-day remains the same length, but wages rise, so that the portion of the working-day going to production of the surplus product falls. However, the author of the pamphlet is not clear about the distinction, as shown in their statement,
“A nation is really rich only if no interest is paid for the use of capital; when only six hours instead of twelve hours are worked… “Wealth […] is disposable time, and nothing more” (loc. cit., p. 6).” (p 255)
There is an echo of Smith here. For Smith, capital is able to appropriate surplus value because capital is scarce whilst labour is plentiful. As capital accumulates, faster than the supply of labour, this condition disappears. Wages rise, profits fall. But, for the author of the pamphlet, capital is only the product of accumulated labour, which is able to extract “interest” as the charge for its use by labour. In either the Smithian scenario, or that presented by the author of the pamphlet, if profit/interest disappears, capital itself disappears, because what gives it its characteristic as capital as opposed to being merely commodities, is the fact that it is able to appropriate this surplus labour/profit/interest.
If the owners of these commodities that comprise the elements of capital – buildings, machines, materials, wage goods – can only obtain an equal amount of value/labour as that they represent, then the owners of these commodities can never derive a revenue from them. They must always then become labourers themselves. The distinction between capital and labour would disappear.
But, the formulation is not clear. The author of the pamphlet talks about the workers' living standards currently being at a bare minimum. So, it's clear they do not believe that the necessary working day of that time was in any sense an adequately long duration. In order to improve workers' living standards, it would be necessary to expand the minimum. So, when they speak of only six hours being worked rather than 12 hours, this suggests not that they believe that only 6 hours should be worked, and no more, but that, however many hours are worked, the total product of that labour should go to the worker, and none of it to surplus value.
No comments:
Post a Comment