Marx cites another passage from Jones which highlights a point I have made elsewhere.
““… where the capital is in a great degree fixed, or where it is sunk on land… the trader is obliged to continue to employ, much more nearly (than if there had been less fixed capital) the same amount of circulating capital as he did before, in order not to cease to derive any profits from the part that is fixed” (op. cit., p. 73).” (p 434)
In other words, where production involves large amounts of fixed capital, the capitalist is obliged to keep production going, and at a higher level than they would if all of their capital was in the form of circulating capital. If all capital is circulating capital, then, if demand falls, or profitability falls, production can be cut back, thereby reducing costs. However, if fixed capital is involved, its costs have already been incurred. Even less profitable production provides a contribution towards this fixed capital cost. Moreover, if the fixed capital is left idle or under utilised, it may suffer a material or moral depreciation, thereby inflicting a capital loss on the capitalist.
““… of the state of manners to which the dependence of the workmen on the revenues of their customers has given birth in China, you would, perhaps, get the most striking picture, in the Chinese Exhibition, so long kept open by its American proprietor in London. It is thronged with figures of artisans with their small packs of tools, plying for customers, and idle when none appear—painting vividly to the eye the necessary absence, in their case, of that continuity of labour which is one of the three great elements of its productiveness, and indicating sufficiently, to any well-informed observer, the absence also of fixed capital and machinery, hardly less important elements of the fruitfulness of industry” (Richard Jones, [Text-book of Lectures on the Political Economy of Nations, Hertford, 1852,] p. 73).” (p 434)
Marx cites a further passage from Jones, describing the situation of such artisans in India. He describes the way each village set aside a portion of its revenue to cover the services of such artisans who provided the services that the villagers could not provide for themselves.
“The position and rights of these rural artisans soon became, like all rights in the East, hereditary. The band found its customers in the other villagers. The villagers were stationary and abiding, and so were their handicraftsmen.” (p 435)
In the Indian towns, however, the artisans, whilst dependent upon the same fund of revenue had no permanent employment. Not tied down by any great use of fixed capital, they were again led into migrations in search of customers.
“If their customers change their location for long—nay, sometimes for very short—periods, the non-agricultural labourers must follow them, or starve” (pp. 73-74).” (p 435)
Noting the nature of the Asiatic Mode of Production as distinct from either feudalism or capitalism, in Europe, Jones notes,
““… the […] greater part of that fund” for the handicraftsmen in Asia is “distributed by the State and its officers. The capital was, necessarily, the principal centre of distribution…” (p. 75).
“From Samarcand, southward to Beejapoor and Seringapatam, we can trace the ruins of vanishing capitals, of which the population left them suddenly” (and not as in other countries [as a result of a gradual] decline) “as soon as new centres of distribution of the royal revenues, that is, of the whole of the surplus revenues of the soil, were established” (p. 76).” (p 435)
Marx also notes,
“See Dr. Bernier, who compares the Indian towns to army camps. This is due to the form of landed property which exists in Asia.” (p 435)
No comments:
Post a Comment