In the third period, the division of labour proceeds further, so that 3 producers engage exclusively in b, and 3 in c. This might be thought of as these other 2 producers in c concentrating on production of tools, perhaps one producing wooden ploughs, another wooden carts. Using Lenin's formulation whereby 1 unit of a, b or c = 3 units of value, each producer continues to produce 1a, which might be considered some basic food product, which they consume directly. Three produce 2b and 3 produce 2c. They, therefore, exchange 1b for 1c, and 1c for 1b, respectively to mutually meet their needs for b and c.
That means that now 6 units of a = 18 units of value remains within the realm of natural economy, whereas 6b and 6c are produced, but, of these, half are now traded, equal to 18 units of value.
“Again, the dimensions of the market correspond exactly to the degree of specialisation (=division) of social labour: specialisation has taken place in the production of 3 b and 3 c, i.e., one-third of social production, and one-third of the social product appears in the market.” (p 95)
The 4th period represents the transition to capitalist production. In the previous periods, independent commodity producers produced b and c, a portion of which is traded. Each producer takes their commodity, either b or c, to market and each producer is in competition with the others, and its by this process that a market value for each commodity is determined. Producers I-III may produce commodity c, each with different individual values, because each produces under different conditions, some more some less favourable than their competitors. Competition forms the market value on the basis of the average labour-time required for reproduction of c for Producers I-III in total. The same applies for the market value of b. The market prices of b and c fluctuate around these market values, as a result of changes in demand and supply.
At this point, we still have natural economy and direct production, because, although all of the producers now produce a third of their output as commodities, specifically for the market, the purpose of producing these commodities remains only to obtain other use values – a quantity of either b or c – in exchange, for personal consumption. However, it is precisely because the various producers of commodities b and c do so under different conditions, so that some produce at an individual value below the market value, and some above, that the former, by selling at the market value, effectively exchange less labour for more labour, and vice versa. The consequence is that the former obtains more money, relative to their costs and vice versa. The former are able to build up money hoards, which can be used to to buy more and better tools, more animals, to rent or buy more land and so on, which increases their revenues even more, as well as raising their productivity. For the latter, the opposite occurs. They may need to hire out their labour to obtain money to pay rents and taxes etc., they may need to borrow, thereby subjecting themselves to the power of the usurer.
“The enrichment of a few individuals and the impoverishment of the masses—such are the inevitable consequences of the law of competition. The matter ends by the ruined producers losing economic independence and engaging themselves as wage-workers in the enlarged establishment of their fortunate rival.” (p 95)
This is what is seen in Period 4. Producer I now produces c, whilst Producer IV produces b, whilst all the other producers are now employed by them as wage labourers. All producers continue to produce a, which is the situation that exists where peasant producers continue to produce food for their own consumption, from small plots, even whilst they sell their labour-power as wage workers. Peasant producers, for example, continued to produce their own food, even after they effectively became wage workers under the Putting Out system, whereby they produced yarn and cloth for capitalist merchants, who provided them with the materials.
These producers, therefore, no longer receive the full value of their production of b and c, but only the value less the surplus value appropriated by the capitalists that employ them. Surplus value is assumed to be a third of production, so that the wage workers, producing b and c, each producing 6 units of value, obtain as wages only 4 units of value.
So, Producers II, III, V and VI now each obtain only 7 units of value, whereas previously they obtained 9. The total value of production is still 54, but this reduction in income of what are now wage workers means that a larger share of income goes to the Capitalists I and IV. The wage workers have lost their means of production for b and c, and so any potential to bring these commodities to market, so that they must instead sell their labour-power as a commodity.
But, contrary to the Narodnik's view, alongside this immiseration of the peasant producer, the size of the market itself expands. The wage workers, who previously, as independent producers, produced and consumed a quantity of b and c, must now buy both b and c in the market, with money they obtain as wages, in exchange for selling their labour-power.
No comments:
Post a Comment