Monday, 30 August 2021

A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism, Chapter 1 - Part 44

Lenin fails to distinguish between under-consumption arising from inadequate revenues to produce demand, and under-consumption arising from merely a choice to prefer to hold money over the purchase of some or all commodities, which is precisely the error that lies behind Say's Law, and its acceptance by Ricardo and others. 

“Moreover, all equalisations are accidental and although the proportion of capital employed in individual spheres is equalised by a continuous process, the continuity of this process itself equally presupposes the constant disproportion which it has continuously, often violently, to even out.” 

(Theories of Surplus Value 2, p 492) 

“The general possibility of crisis is given in the process of metamorphosis of capital itself, and in two ways: in so far as money functions as means of circulation, [the possibility of crisis lies in] the separation of purchase and sale; and in so far as money functions as means of payment, it has two different aspects, it acts as measure of value and as realisation of value.” 

(Theories of Surplus Value 2, p 513-4) 

“If even for only a limited period of time the commodity cannot be sold then, although its value has not altered, money cannot function as means of payment, since it must function as such in a definite given period of time. But as the same sum of money acts for a whole series of reciprocal transactions and obligations here, inability to pay occurs not only at one, but at many points, hence a crisis arises.” 

(Theories of Surplus Value 2, p 514) 

This second type of under-consumption, is a result of disproportion, i.e. the actual use values produced, in the quantities, and at the values, they are produced, do not meet the requirements of the potential consumers of those commodities. There is a huge range of possibilities of how such crises can erupt, as Marx sets out, and as I have discussed in my book – Marx and Engels' Theories of Crisis

Lenin says, actually illustrating this, 

“The scientific analysis of accumulation in capitalist society and of the realisation of the product undermined the whole basis of this theory, and also indicated that it is precisely in the periods which precede crises that the workers’ consumption rises...” (p 167) 

The fact that its at these points that workers' consumption (and indeed wages) rise, does not at all mean that there is no under-consumption at such points. What it means, as with Marx's examples of the under-consumption of fixed capital, or of yarn, is that it is under-consumption relative to increased output, i.e. as the other side of the coin to an overproduction of commodities, which may arise from disproportion, and may arise in relation to certain or to all commodities. If production is expanding rapidly, and more and more labour is employed, as suggested above, then more stable employment and rising wages means that workers living standards rise. As they rise, a number of things happen. 

Firstly, workers are able to stop working overtime, so that the production of absolute surplus value is reduced. This, along with higher wages, means that the rate of surplus value falls, and profits are squeezed, as Marx sets out in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 21, and Capital III, Chapter 15. This squeeze on profits, means that the rate of profit/profit margin falls to a level, whereby small variations in market conditions of demand, lead to losses, and the larger the scale of production, the more small losses per unit of output turn into large total losses. 

Secondly, squeezed profits occur at a time when each capital needs to devote a larger proportion of profits to accumulation, in order to obtain its share of the rising market. The share of profits going to capitalists unproductive consumption must then fall, which in itself has an effect on the demand for luxury goods, an effect that cannot be completely compensated by workers beginning to buy some of those goods. Workers begin to buy some of those products, but a large range of them remain beyond their budgets. 

Thirdly, as wages rise, workers satisfy their demand for a range of wage goods, and in order to persuade them to buy more, firms must sell them at lower and lower prices, which with squeezed profit margins, means that losses become more and more inevitable. To overcome this problem, capital must a) revolutionise production of a range of luxury consumption goods to bring them within the budget of workers, b) revolutionise production so as to reduce the value of labour-power, so as to raise the rate of surplus value, c) revolutionise production so as to introduce labour-saving technologies that create a relative surplus population, so that wages are reduced, d) introduce whole new ranges of consumer goods for which new markets can then be created, and via which the value of the existing production is realised. 

“For example, if, through a doubling of productive force, a capital of 50 can now do what a capital of 100 did before, so that a capital of 50 and the necessary labour corresponding to it become free, then, for the capital and labour which have been set free, a new, qualitatively different branch of production must be created, which satisfies and brings forth a new need. The value of the old industry is preserved by the creation of the fund for a new one in which the relation of capital and labour posits itself in a new form.” 

(Grundrisse, Chapter 8)


No comments: