There may be a change in the technical, value or organic composition of capital without the total size of the capital changing. For example, the size of a capital may remain constant at £1 million, but it may be comprised:
- £0.8m c + £0.2m v
- £0.6m c + £0.4m v
- £0.9m c + £0.1m v
If in 1) a large amount of expensive material is processed by workers, the value composition of the capital results in this particular composition. If the value of that material falls substantially, it results in a release of capital. A larger quantity of that material may then be bought with a portion of the released capital. The technical composition of the capital here does not change, and, here, twice as much material is processed requiring twice as many workers. Now, v doubles, because twice as much labour is employed. The total capital has remained constant, and the technical composition remains the same, but the organic composition has fallen from 4:1 to 1.5:1. Alternatively, it might have been that wages rose, so that capital is then tied up; less labour and material can be bought, but the technical composition of the capital remains the same.
It might be that new machinery is introduced, so that a part of what was previously advanced as wages is now used for the purchase of machines. Now, the technical composition of capital rises, because less labour is required to process a given mass of material. The organic composition thus rises, whilst the value composition remains constant.
“An increase in the total capital, on the other hand, may be accompanied not only by a relative, but by an absolute diminution of variable capital and is always connected with violent fluctuations in the variable capital and consequently with “fluctuations in the amount of employment”.” (p 418)
Marx cites Jones comment later in the Syllabus, which he says is a description of what Marx calls primary accumulation, and it also shows the contradiction with the idea that this process of accumulation is a consequence of “saving”.
““Periods of gradual transition of the labourers from dependence on one fund to dependence on another… Transfer of the labouring cultivators to the pay of capitalists… Transfer of non-agricultural classes to the employ of capitalists”… (pp. 52-53).” (p 418)
Finally, in this section, Marx cites Jones' comment,
“Slavery:“Slaves may be divided into pastoral—predial—domestic— slaves of a mixed character, between predial and domestic… We find them as cultivating peasants;—as menials or artisans, maintained from the incomes of the rich;—as labourers maintained from capital” (p. 59).” (p 418)
Marx notes, here, the point he analyses in more detail in Capital III, that, wherever slavery is predominant, the capital relationship can only ever be sporadic and subordinate.
No comments:
Post a Comment