Of course, the output value of this firm is shown as quadrupling, because Sismondi includes the full value of the fixed capital, rather than just its wear and tear. The calculation is made more difficult because he does not distinguish fixed and circulating capital from constant and variable-capital. But taking fixed capital to mean the machines, and circulating capital to be both wages and material, then the quantity of output rises only by 2.29 times not 4 times, assuming the unit value of consumed material remains constant. That in itself would be a rather odd situation, because it would mean the unit price of this output would have risen, as a result of the introduction of machines! It arises, because, on this basis, the cost of the fixed capital was greater than the wages it saved, in the replacement of labour. No business would introduce a machine on that basis, because it would make them less competitive.
However, given what has been described previously, its quite clear why Sismondi's argument that the consumption of the machine makers should not be included is false. The machine makers are enabled to consume only because they produce use values – machines – that are not themselves consumable, and can only be used as means of production, and that they exchange these machines for consumable products. This highlights the problem with Sismondi's example that he frames the question of realising the value of this output only in terms of the revenues produced in that sphere, leaving out entirely the revenues produced in the other spheres producing constant capital, i.e. that produced in machine making and in the production of the additional material now consumed. However, all of the labour involved in producing the F200,000 of fixed capital is labour involved in producing commodities that cannot be personally consumed, yet the workers who produce it, and who are paid wages for doing so, as well as the capitalists who obtain profits from that production do need to personally consume consumption goods.
If we take Sismondi's example, therefore, and assume it is a consumption good, it is not just the revenues of the capitalists and workers in that sphere that represent demand for it. In addition to the F48,000 of demand from capitalists in that sphere, and the F40,000 of demand from workers, there is also the F160,000 of demand from workers and capitalists producing material, but, now, there is also the demand of F200,000 of revenues of workers and capitalists involved in the production of fixed capital, a demand that previously did not exist at all.
As Lenin points out,
“Curious is his observation that the consumption of the workers who made machines “should not be counted.” Why not? Because, firstly, it is covered by the 200,000 francs. Thus, capital is transferred to the department which manufactures means of production—this Sismondi does not notice. Hence, the “home market,” which “shrinks,” as Sismondi says, does not consist solely of articles of consumption, but also of means of production.” (p 158)
Its quite true that, as profits rise, in particular, the capitalists will not simply increase their personal consumption proportionally, but all this means is that what increases is the amount of the profits they accumulate, i.e. consume productively by converting it into capital. Moreover, as they do so, they do not have to simply accumulate more capital in existing lines of production, but can begin the production of whole new ranges of commodities, which, thereby, expands the market in breadth, as well as depth. Indeed, this is part of The Civilising Mission of Capital.
Sismondi also puts forward the explanation of Adam Smith as justification for not including the value of constant capital.
“Secondly, answers Sismondi, it is the workers of the other manufactory, where the facts will be the same (où les mêcmes faits pourront se représenter). As you see, Sismondi repeats Adam Smith in sending the reader “from Pontius to Pilate.” But this “other manufactory” also consumes constant capital, and its production also provides a market for that department of capitalist production which manufactures means of production! However much we shift the question from one capitalist to another, and then to a third—this department does not disappear, and the “home market” does not reduce itself just to articles of consumption.” (p 158-9)
No comments:
Post a Comment