Its clear that there is no theoretical limit to the rise in the rate of surplus value, when considered in relation to a social working-day, and nor is there any limit on the growth in the mass of profit, even when this goes along with the consequent relative reduction in the amount of labour employed. What this does not preclude, however, as Marx demonstrates, is that this rising rate of surplus value, and rising mass of profit is consistent with a tendency for the rate of profit to fall. All that is required for that is that the increase in the mass of profit is proportionately smaller than the increase in the mass of capital, and that is why the fact that the total capital consists of constant as well as variable-capital is relevant.
Marx argues,
“The value of labour-power does not fall in the same degree as the productivity of labour or of capital increases.” (p 300)
That means the value composition of capital may fall. Higher productivity reduces the unit prices of commodities that comprise constant capital, relative to wages. However, the technical composition of capital, and thereby the organic composition of capital rises, because each unit of labour, now processes a proportionately greater mass of material. He gives a number of reasons for this assumption. Firstly, he argues its only in those industries producing wage goods where the rise in productivity affects the value of labour-power. He correctly identifies in this those industries indirectly involved in the production of wage goods. For example, an iron ore producer does not produce wage goods, but the iron they produce goes into steel, which goes into cans, cars, domestic appliances, and so on. A lower value of iron, means a lower value of steel, which means a lower value of all these other commodities that are wage goods, which thereby reduces the value of labour-power. The lower value of steel reduces the value of trucks, trains, ships, etc., which, thereby, reduces the cost of transport of wage goods, which also thereby reduces the value of labour-power.
Marx's point is that changes in productivity are not even across the economy. So, if productivity does not rise as fast in those spheres directly, or indirectly, involved in the production of wage goods, the value of labour-power will fall more slowly than the value of other commodities. Even in terms of those industries that only indirectly produce wage goods this has an effect. Suppose the rise in productivity in steel production causes the value of steel to fall by 20%. If steel only comprises 10% of say the value of a washing machine, it will result in a 2% fall in the value of the machine. If labour accounts for 50% of the value, even just a 10% rise in productivity would reduce the value of the machine by 5%.
“It is in the nature of capitalist production that it develops industry more rapidly than agriculture. This is not due to the nature of the land, but to the fact that, in order to be exploited really in accordance with its nature, land requires different social relations. Capitalist production turns towards the land only after its influence has exhausted it and after it has devastated its natural qualities. An additional factor is that, as a consequence of landownership, agricultural products are expensive compared with other commodities, because they are sold at their value and are not reduced to their cost-price. They form, however, the principal constituent of the necessaries.” (p 300-301)
Of course, 150 years later, capital already has turned to agriculture. It has applied science and technology on a massive scale to reverse a lot of the devastation that previous farming methods inflicted upon the land, as they sought to keep up with the growing demand of industrial capitalism, and the growth of the towns and cities. Such has been the success of capital, in agriculture, that, in most developed economies, only around 2% of the population are now employed in agriculture, and yet food production continues to rise, and food prices continue to fall. Moreover, as living standards have continued to rise, its no longer the case that agricultural products form the major component of necessaries, certainly in terms of value.
No comments:
Post a Comment