Its when this industrial capital then leads to further industrialisation of the developing economy that the nature of the capital accumulation becomes more extensive than intensive, and so the demand for labour rises, using up the latent reserves. This has been seen with the industrialisation of China, for example, In reality, the export of capital, either of commodity-capital, or of productive-capital, cannot be explained simply on the basis of overproduction of commodities or capital. It is explained quite simply on the basis of capital doing what capital always does, which is to seek out where it can obtain the highest annual rate of profit.
Lenin does not deny the contradiction between production and consumption, supply and demand, use value and exchange value, or, indeed, the potential for under-consumption. He does deny that this contradiction can lead to crises, and this is wrong, as Marx sets out in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 17, and in Capital III, Chapter 15. Lenin says,
“It fully recognises this fact, but puts it in its proper, subordinate, place as a fact that only relates to one department of the whole of capitalist production.” (p 168)
But this is not true. In Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 17 and 20, and in Capital III, Chapter 15, Marx emphasises the possibility of a mismatch between the supply and demand of consumption goods, and the role that under-consumption plays in that mismatch. But, in Theories of Surplus Value, he also describes the same kind of overproduction/under-consumption of producer goods, for example overproduction of yarn due to introduction of spinning machines, or, in relation to iron, he says,
“The value supplied (but not yet realised) and the quantity of iron which is realised, do not correspond to each other. No grounds exist therefore for assuming that the possibility of selling a commodity at its value corresponds in any way to the quantity of the commodity I bring to market. For the buyer, my commodity exists, above all, as use-value. He buys it as such. But what he needs is a definite quantity of iron. His need for iron is just as little determined by the quantity produced by me as the value of my iron is commensurate with this quantity.
It is true that the man who buys has in his possession merely the converted form of a commodity—money—i.e., the commodity in the form of exchange-value, and he can act as a buyer only because he or others have earlier acted as sellers of commodities which now exist in the form of money. This, however, is no reason why he should reconvert his money into my commodity or why his need for my commodity should be determined by the quantity of it that I have produced. Insofar as he wants to buy my commodity, he may want either a smaller quantity than I supply, or the entire quantity, but below its value. His demand does not have to correspond to my supply any more than the quantity I supply and the value at which I supply it are identical.”
(Theories of Surplus Value 3, Chapter 20)
Now, its true that under systems of petty commodity production, such conditions cause a crisis only for the individual producer, and not for the economy as a whole, i.e. not a generalised crisis - though Marx says there is no reason why this could not happen, i.e. all commodities could be overproduced vis a vis money. It requires large-scale, i.e. capitalist production for such disproportions to result in generalised crises. However, no such crisis could exist, even for capitalism, without this underlying potential for crises that results from the separation of production from consumption, supply from demand, and use value from value.
And, in Capital II, Marx specifically describes an under-consumption of fixed capital resulting in a crisis of overproduction. Moreover, he sets out, at length, how an under-consumption of some goods leads to an overproduction others – consumer goods and producer goods – even if their output remains constant, because of what, today, would be called the multiplier and accelerator effects.
No comments:
Post a Comment