Cherbuliez frames his argument in terms of use-values, of physical outputs, relative to inputs. But, as set out earlier, an increase in physical output does not imply an increase in output value. An increase in physical outputs, relative to physical inputs, signifies an increase in surplus product, but not necessarily an increase in surplus value. Indeed, it can indicate a fall in surplus value, both relatively and absolutely.
Cherbuliez is misled by correlation into believing he has identified causation. In other words, he sees the correlation between capitals with large amounts of advanced fixed capital, and their correspondingly larger outputs. But, he also sees the prices of the commodities that comprise this output, and so the total price of production, of that output. Because he makes no distinction between exchange-value and price of production, he equates this higher price of production with higher value. But, the higher price of production of this output, the reason it rises proportionally to the advanced capital, is precisely because of the average profit that is attached to the advanced capital, and thereby forms part of the price of production.
The fixed capital increases the volume of output, because it increases productivity. But, this advanced fixed capital does not add anything to the value of the output. It is only the used up portion of the fixed capital that adds any value to the output, as a result of wear and tear. However, in raising productivity, as Marx describes in Capital III, Chapter 6, even this value of wear and tear, as a proportion of output value, is reduced, because the machines value is spread over a much larger mass of output.
“But, by itself, this unconsumed part of constant capital does not bring about a growth in the amount of products. It helps to produce a greater output in a given labour-time. Therefore, if only the same amount of labour-time were expended as is contained in the means of subsistence, the same amount of products would be produced.” (p 373)
In other words, if the higher productivity reduces the time required to produce the means of subsistence, and the amount of labour-time expended was reduced accordingly, the same volume of products would be produced, but, in less time. The increase in the surplus product can only arise because a rise in productivity means that more raw material is processed, as a result of the use of machinery etc. The exception to that is in agriculture/primary production, where an increase in output may be the result of greater fertility of the land or mine, or as a result of the weather etc.
Cherbuliez might as well say,
“The growth in the total amount of products” (at least in manufacturing industry) “is proportionate to the growth of the part of capital consisting of raw materials which is used up.” (p 373)
That is so for the reason described earlier that, setting aside any technological changes that might reduce waste etc., the physical output of, say, yarn, depends upon the physical input of cotton, flax, wool etc. In fact, as I've set out previously, these technological changes are significant. Not only can they reduce waste, but they can raise efficiency in energy use, they can introduce new, more durable materials, as inputs, they introduce new end products, which themselves require fewer physical inputs. For example, a motor tractor required less inputs than a steam tractor, a mobile phone less material inputs than an old land-line telephone, a personal computer less than a 1970's mainframe computer and so on.
“For the increase of products is physically identical with the growth of this part of capital. In agriculture on the other hand (and likewise in the extractive industries), where only a small proportion of the capital invested is not [annually] used up (i.e., constant capital) and a relatively large proportion of capital is used up (as wages for example), the amount of products, provided the land is fairly fertile, can be much larger than in the advanced countries where the ratio of capital invested to capital used up is infinitely greater.” (p 373-4)
In addition, as I've set out elsewhere, this relation of the quantity of material inputs to the quantity of output is decisive in economies where the majority of production is of physical commodities. That was true at the time Marx was writing, but it has not bee true, now, for more than thirty years. In developed economies, 80% of value added comes from service industries, and the same is increasingly true of developing economies like China. By the nature of such service production, rises in productivity result in greater outputs without any significant change in material inputs (with materials taking the form of auxiliary rather than raw materials), indeed with relative if not absolute reductions in such inputs.
“The second proposition thus amounts to an attempt to bring in surreptitiously surplus-value (the indispensable basis of profit).” (p 374)
No comments:
Post a Comment