2. Overproduction of Capital
2.3 Cyclicality of Crises
a) Crises are cyclical because of the operation of the Long Wave Cycle.
- The Spring Phase
The long wave cycle is characterised by four phases, each approximately 12-15 years in duration. In the Spring Phase, economic activity picks up. The rate of profit is high, labour supplies are plentiful. During this phase, crises of over accumulation of productive-capital are rare. Crises of overproduction of commodities occur where production of new types of commodity runs ahead of the market for them. In addition, crises resulting from the inability to increase the supplies of raw materials fast enough arise. The high prices, and profits for primary products, encourages additional investment in those spheres, but it takes around 12-14 years for such investment to bear fruit.
As output expands, capital first seeks to extend the individual working-day. This also causes the rate of profit to rise.
“If the capitalist pays nothing for the extension or intensification of labour, then his surplus-value (his profit as well, provided there is no change in the value of the constant capital, for we assume that the mode of production remains the same)—and, in accordance with the proviso, his profit—increases more rapidly than his capital. He pays no necessary labour for the capital which has been added.
If he pays for the surplus labour at the same rate as previously, then the growth of the surplus-value is proportionate to the increase in capital. The profit grows more rapidly. For there is a more rapid turnover of fixed capital, while the more intensive use of the machinery does not cause the wear and tear to increase at the same rate. There is a reduction of expenditure on fixed capital, for less machinery, workshops etc. are required for 100 workers who work longer hours than for 200 workers employed simultaneously. Likewise fewer overseers, etc. (This gives rise to a most satisfactory situation for the capitalist, who is able to expand or contract his production without hindrance, in accordance with the market conditions. In addition, his power grows, since that portion of labour which is over-employed, has its counterpart in an unemployed or semi-employed reserve army, so that competition amongst the workers increases.)”
(Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 21)
Marx explains, as in Capital I, that where the working day is extended or intensified beyond certain limits, it causes the value of labour-power and so wages to rise, because the worker is worn out more quickly. They must reproduce the value of their labour-power in a shorter working life, and so the annual, and hourly wage must rise accordingly.
“Finally, if the capitalist is forced to pay more for over-time than for normal working-time, then, according to the facts outlined above, this is by no means an increase in wages, but only compensation for the increased value of over-time—and in reality over-time pay is rarely sufficient to cover this. In fact, in order to pay for the increased wear and tear of the labour-power, when over-time is worked, a higher rate ought to be paid for every working hour not merely for the additional hours...
But, as has been stated, on this basis (if the productivity of labour remains the same) not only must the profit on additional capital fall, but at a certain point it must cease altogether, thus the whole accumulation based on this compound profit would be stopped.” In this case, the decline in profit is linked with increased exploitation of labour and the cessation of profit at a certain point is not due to the worker or someone else receiving the whole product of his labour, but to the fact that it is physically impossible to work over and above a certain amount of labour-time or to increase the intensity of labour beyond a certain degree.”
(ibid)
At this point, capital must expand absolute surplus value by increasing the social working-day rather than the individual working-day. That is, it must employ more workers. It seeks to do this by drawing in workers from the reserves. In the 1950's for example, married women were drawn into the workforce, immigration was encouraged, and so on. As Marx describes, this increase in the social working day means that additional capital does not, at all, necessarily mean that surplus value cannot be expanded, or that the rate of profit must fall. Employing married women and children, for example, meant that the cost of reproducing the value of labour-power, which formerly rested solely on the wages of the male head of household, could now be spread amongst the wages of the wife and children, whilst each of these contributed additional labour, and surplus value.
“Thus it should be noted first of all that Hodgskin’s view only has meaning if it is assumed that capital grows more rapidly than population, that is, than the working population. (Even this latter is a relative growth. It is in the nature of capitalism to overwork one section of the working population while it turns another into paupers.) If the population grows at the same rate as capital, then there is no reason whatsoever why I should not be able to extract from 8x workers with £800 the [same rate of] surplus labour that I can extract from x workers with £100. Eight times 100 C makes no greater demand on 8 times x workers than 100 C on x workers. Thus “Hodgskin’s” argument becomes groundless.”
(ibid)
And, in expanding the social working-day, capital also seeks to raise the rate of profit by a more efficient use, once again of fixed capital. So, for example, it utilises fixed capital 24 hours a day, seven days a week by introducing shift working. But, ultimately, even these increases in the social working-day, as a means of expanding absolute surplus value reach their limit. It is then only possible to expand surplus value, via relative surplus value, which requires a technological revolution, so as to raise productivity, and reduce the value of labour-power.
“The only other case, where, with the number of workers remaining constant, more capital is applied per worker, and therefore the additional capital can be laid out and used for the increased exploitation of the same number of workers, occurs when the productivity of labour increases, i.e. the method of production is changed. This presupposes a change in the organic ratio between constant and variable capital. In other words, the increase in the capital in relation to labour is here identical with the increase of constant capital as compared with variable capital and, in general, with the amount of living labour employed.”
(ibid)
Or, as Marx puts it in Capital III, Chapter 15,
“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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment