The fundamental principle, however, is a pure fiction, which arises from the appearance of commodity circulation. Commodities do not exchange in accordance with the labour that the producer has expended on them, but at their value, which includes not just that labour, but also congealed labour contained in the processed materials etc.
“In capitalist production this appearance, which its surface displays, disappears. What does not disappear, however, is the illusion that originally men confront one another only as commodity owners and that, consequently, a person is only a property owner insofar as he is a worker. As has been stated, this “originally” is a delusion arising from the surface appearance of capitalist production and has never existed historically.” (p 378)
Man comes on to the stage as a property owner before he becomes a worker. The first humans, as they separated from the rest of the animal kingdom, were owners of property even if it was only property in the form of use values freely provided by nature. And, each new generation of humans inherited property, in the shape of tools, weapons and means of production, produced by those that preceded them, either within their family, or their tribe or clan,
“... by his relationship to other men, which determines his relationship to nature. The “propertyless labourer” as a “fundamental principle” is rather a creature of civilisation and, on the historical scale, of “capitalist production”. This is a law of “expropriation” not of “appropriation”, at least not simply of appropriation in the way Cherbuliez imagines it, but a kind of appropriation which corresponds to a definite, specific mode of production.” (p 378)
Cherbuliez says,
““The products are appropriated before they are converted into capital; and this conversion does not eliminate such appropriation” (op. cit., p. 54).” (p 378)
However, Marx points out that this does not just apply to the products, but also to labour. The significance of Marx's circuit of capital, P... C` - M`.M – C ...P, and of the determination of values based upon current reproduction costs is again demonstrated here. In this circuit, M is the money equivalent of the value, i.e. current reproduction cost, of C, the commodities that comprised the constant and variable-capital previously consumed in production, and which must be physically replaced on a like for like basis. C` represents that fact that in that production process, a surplus product has been produced. But what is the nature of this surplus product? In other words, if we take a step back in this circuit we have C … P … C`, but C may comprise 100 kilos of cotton, 10% wear and tear of spinning machines, and 10 units of wage goods paid to workers, whilst C` comprises simply 100 kilos of yarn. There is absolutely no way of rationally comparing the use values that constitute the physical inputs at one end of the circuit with the physical outputs at the other, so as to determine that a physical surplus product has been created.
The inputs and outputs can only be rationally compared by reducing them to their value, i.e. their current reproduction cost, as expressed in its money equivalent, and that is what Marx does. The creation of a surplus product, c = C` - C, is the consequence of the production process, and is the result of the fact that the new value created by labour is greater than the value of the labour-power which undertook that labour. Consequently, c = m, which equals the money equivalent of this surplus value, embodied within the surplus product, i.e. it is an expression of the current reproduction cost in money, where money acts merely as unit of account.
“Raw materials, etc., and instruments belong to the capitalist. They are the converted form of his money. On the other hand, when he has bought labour-power or the daily (say 12 hours) use of labour-power, with a sum of money equal to the product of six hours of labour, then the labour of 12 hours belongs to him; it is appropriated by him before it is carried out. The process of production itself turns labour into capital. But this transformation is an act which takes place later than its appropriation.” (p 378-9)
The products, i.e. raw materials, tools etc., bought by the capitalist are physically transformed from being merely commodities into being capital, because, in the production process, they are the conditions of labour, upon which the labourer is dependent, in order to produce, and which is the basis upon which the capitalist is able to appropriate unpaid labour from the worker.
And, as the condition for the worker being able to work, which enables the capitalist to extract surplus labour, these means of labour become also formally capital, i.e. capital as self-expanding value, because they are the means by which living labour is absorbed in the production process, including the surplus labour, over and above what is required for the worker's reproduction. They are the means thereby that surplus labour is embodied within a surplus product, which is appropriated by the capitalist, and forms the basis of further capital accumulation. But, even in respect of the necessary labour absorbed by the means of production, it acts as capital precisely because, in doing so, it preserves the value of those commodities, which is then reproduced in the final output, so that the consumed means of production can be replaced on a like for like basis.
“the labour-power appropriated before the [production] process is turned directly into capital in the course of the process by being converted into the conditions of labour and into surplus-value, [since] as a result of its embodiment in the product, it not only preserves the constant capital but replaces the variable capital and adds surplus-value.” (p 379)
No comments:
Post a Comment