Marx sets out the implications in a form that I have also utilised, in the past, which demonstrates why there is no limit imposed on the rate of profit by the rate of surplus value. If we consider the working-day as the individual working-day of individual workers, then its true that such a limitation exists, at least in theory. The usual way of viewing this is that a worker can only work say 15 hours in a day, and if even 14 hours of these hours are surplus value, this is less than if 15 workers each produced just 1 hour of surplus value. But, of course, the working-day does not exist as simply a sum of these individual working-days, but as a single social working-day.
“The total product, like the total labour of the workers, falls into two parts. One part the workers produce for themselves; the other part, they produce for the capitalist. Just as the [labour-] time of the individual worker can be divided into two parts, so can the [labour-] time of the whole working class. If the surplus labour is equal to half a day, it is the same as if half the working class produces means of subsistence for the working class and the other half produces raw materials, machinery and finished products for the capitalists, partly as producers and partly as consumers.” (p 363)
The working-day of any individual worker is physically restricted to the number of hours they can work, and so the amount of surplus value they can produce is likewise physically restricted. But that is not the case with the social working-day. It increases with the mass of simultaneously exploited labour, and so no restriction on the rate or mass of surplus value exists.
As Marx puts it,
"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."
(Capital III, Chapter 15)
To produce more surplus value, given the rate of surplus value, it only requires more labour to be exploited. And, if more labour is exploited, whilst only the same amount of social labour is required to produce the wage goods for this increased mass of labour, not only does the mass of surplus value rise, but the rate of surplus value itself also rises.
The important aspect of the work of Ramsay and Cherbuliez is the fact that they both effectively distinguish between constant and variable-capital. They should also distinguish between the circulating constant capital – materials – and the fixed constant capital – machines, buildings etc.
“The important thing in variations in the constituent elements of capital is not that relatively more workers are occupied in the production of raw materials and machinery than in that of direct means of subsistence—this concerns only the division of labour— but the proportion of the product which has to be used to replace past labour (i.e., to replace constant capital) to that which has to be used to pay living labour.” (p 364)
As social productivity increases, a given mass of labour processes a greater quantity of material – circulating constant capital. Consequently, not only does this material constitute a growing proportion of the value of output, but a growing proportion of current production must be set aside to replace this consumed material, on a like for like basis. The means by which the rise in social productivity is effected is via the introduction of machines that enhance the productivity of labour. So, to the extent that machines replace labour the proportion of output that must be set aside to replace these machines must also rise, relative to that set aside to reproduce labour-power. But, as Marx sets out in Capital III, Chapter 6, this does not mean that the proportion set aside to replace these machines rises relative to the total output value. The value of machinery, as well as labour, in total output, both fall proportionately, as the value of materials rises proportionally.
A new machine that replaces two older machines, makes one worker redundant, but it also makes one machine redundant. The value of material processed by the remaining worker and machine remains the same, whilst the value of output falls, as a result of less current labour required in its production, and less value of machinery used in its production. Although the proportion of total output accounted for by labour falls, and of variable-capital falls, this value represents a rising quantity of use value, as the rising social productivity reduces the value of commodities. £100 of wages now represents a greater quantity of wage goods than did £100 previously, and the same is true of the £100 profit that formed the other part of the new value created by labour. However, whilst, by this process, of rising social productivity, workers living standards rise, they do so by less than the rise in that productivity, so that the rate of surplus value rises.
“The part of the product which belongs to production becomes larger, and the part which represents living, newly added labour becomes relatively smaller. Although, this part grows in terms of commodities—use-values—the development described is synonymous with increased productivity of labour. But the portion of this part which the worker receives falls relatively all the more. And the same process gives rise to a continuous relative redundancy of the working population.” (p 364)
No comments:
Post a Comment