Under feudalism, surplus labour is pumped from the labourer in the form of rent.
“All ground-rent is surplus-value, the product of surplus-labour. In its undeveloped form as rent in kind it is still directly the surplus-product itself. Hence, the mistaken idea that the rent corresponding to the capitalist mode of production — which is always a surplus over and above profit, i.e., above a value portion of commodities which itself consists of surplus-value (surplus-labour) — that this special and specific component of surplus-value is explained by merely explaining the general conditions for the existence of surplus-value and profit in general. These conditions are: the direct producers must work beyond the time necessary for reproducing their own labour-power, for their own reproduction. They must perform surplus-labour in general. This is the subjective condition. The objective condition is that they must be able to perform surplus-labour. The natural conditions must be such that a part of their available labour-time suffices for their reproduction and self-maintenance as producers, that the production of their necessary means of subsistence shall not consume their whole labour-power.”
Rent is the form of surplus value, and this surplus value can only take the form of absolute surplus value. Under feudalism, the method of production remains the same for centuries, so that the amount of necessary labour, required for the reproduction of the labourer, remains more or less constant. In addition, the length of the working-day for the labourer, employed more or less exclusively in agricultural production, is fixed at a maximum by the seasons, and by the amount of natural daylight. So, the only way for the landlord, clergy and state to extract more absolute surplus value is via more labourers, more peasant households paying rent, tithes and taxes.
Within bounds, any increase in the size of the peasant village commune is catered for by absorbing a quantity of common land into cultivation, so that new households receive their appropriate allotment. Each of these is then an additional source of rent, tithes and taxes. But, a certain amount of common land is required, because the village requires it for grazing, collection of fuel and so on. At a certain point, any increase in population requires a re-division of allotments, each household then having less land. But, the amount of produce that each household requires, remains the same. The amount of surplus that each household can hand over diminishes.
Landlords, at certain times, attempt to fight against this by demanding that the peasants hand over a greater proportion of their output, but as Marx describes, the necessary product and surplus product are not some arbitrary amount, but based upon the physical minimum that the peasant requires for their reproduction, and the physical maximum they can produce given the size of their allotment, and so on. If the rents, tithes and taxes eat into the necessary product, then the peasants suffer hunger, they have smaller numbers of children growing into adulthood, and so on, so that the amount of surplus handed over shrinks, as the population shrinks. And, in such conditions, the landlords also face repeated peasant revolts. The only sustainable means of the landlords increasing absolute surplus value is to increase the size of their domain. They do that by fighting wars against other landlords, princes and kings. It is the basis upon which feudalism, in association with a rising merchant class, engages in its process of colonisation.
The amount of necessary labour, for each peasant household varies, because each household farms under different conditions. Those households that benefit from better soil, have healthier, stronger members and so on, will produce their necessary product in less time than other households that do not enjoy these advantages. But, the rents they pay will be the same. That means that some peasant households will have higher standards of living; they will be able to have larger families, they will be able to buy additional animals, and as they become available, they will be able to buy tools and implements. As Lenin describes, this is the basis of the differentiation of the peasantry into a proletariat and bourgeoisie, as soon as capitalist production begins to spread from the towns to the countryside.
Under capitalist production, particularly in relation to industrial production, in the towns, the restrictions on the production of absolute surplus value are lifted. The industrial worker can work all year round, irrespective of seasonal variations; the industrial worker is not restricted by hours of daylight, because they can work by artificial light; the industrial workers are not restricted by available land to farm, because all that is required is a large enough factory, or additional factories. Industrial capital, therefore, begins by expanding absolute surplus value, by an egregious extension in the length of the individual working-day for each labourer. As it increases the extent of division of labour within the factory, it also brings about a simultaneous increase in the intensity of the working-day, as Marx describes, based on the work of Richard Jones, in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 24. The increased division of labour means that, where the craft worker would have natural breaks in their labour process, as they moved from one task to another, went to collect additional materials, different tools etc., the detail worker stays in one place, uses just one set of tools, and has the work brought to them, so that the elements of down-time in their labour process are continually removed.
When machine production is introduced, this assumes an even more developed form. In order to maximise the use of machines, capitalists seek to keep them going twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. They begin by extending the individual day to a maximum, and they follow it up, with the introduction of shift-working. Although, industrial production lifts the constraints imposed on the length of the working-day in agriculture, it still faces objective limits. Any concrete labour cannot work more than 24 hours in a day, and in practice can only work a portion of that time, because the worker must have time to sleep, recuperate, eat, procreate and so on. If the worker works beyond those limits, their labour-power itself is damaged, the supply of labour is damaged, and the value of labour-power itself rises as a consequence. That means that less surplus value is produced. Another way of extracting absolute surplus value is for the capitalist to increase the speed at which the machines operated by the workers run – speed-up. Similarly, however, the more this intensity of labour is raised, the less extensively the labour can be employed, because otherwise it again becomes worn out. Such methods can only be used when there is a large excess supply of labour that can be used up, such as when large numbers of agricultural labourers flooded into the industrial towns, or following periods of mass unemployment during a period of economic stagnation.
The normal working-day, is, thereby, objectively determined by these material conditions that set the extent of necessary labour required for the reproduction of the worker, and the optimum length of the working-day, in order to maximise the production of surplus value. Below this normal working-day, capital has the scope to produce additional absolute surplus value, by lengthening or intensifying the working-day. Beyond this normal working-day, capital may create additional new value, and, in the short term, more surplus value, but only at the cost of raising the value of labour-power, and so reducing the amount of surplus value in the longer-term.
No comments:
Post a Comment