Lenin quotes Sismondi's comment,
“The English would have us believe that their big farms are the only means of improving agriculture, that is to say, of providing themselves with a greater abundance of agricultural produce at a cheaper price—actually, however, they do the opposite, they produce at a higher price.” (p 195)
Here, Lenin says, we have the typical view of the romanticist. On the one hand,
“The development of capitalist farming and the technical progress connected with it are depicted as a deliberately introduced system:” (p 195)
In other words, rather than the larger farms arising naturally in the conditions of expanding commodity production and exchange, as farmers sought to meet the needs of growing industrial markets in the towns, by the most efficient means, which leads to the invasion of capital into agriculture, Sismondi, in a similar way to that proposed by Michael Roberts, puts forward a view by which the idea for these large farms is something that arises purely on the basis of a conscious decision by farmers/landlords, imbued with a capitalist ethos.
On the other hand,
“Sismondi wants to say that “there could be” other means of improving agriculture besides capitalist farming, i.e., again “there could be” in some abstract society, but not in the real society of a definite historical period, in the “society” based on commodity production of which the English economists speak, and of which Sismondi too should have spoken.” (p 195)
And, Lenin points to one specific way in which this application of The Law of Value, under capitalism, produces contradictory results, at odds with Sismondi's attempt to view things from the abstract perspective of the nation. The Law of Value, in all modes of production, leads to an attempt to produce the greatest amount of use values with the least amount of labour, i.e. to reduce the unit value of each use value. In the primitive communist societies, the consequence of this is to increase the quantity and range of use values produced, thereby, increasing the living standards of the members of the commune. It means surpluses are produced, which can be exchanged for the use values produced by other communes. For peasant producers, it means, again, they can produce larger quantities of use values to directly consume or exchange for other use values, as well as enabling feudal lords to extract larger amounts of surplus product.
Under capitalism, the producer/worker, however, does not control the means of production. The capitalist owner of the means of production is compelled to comply with the requirements of The Law of Value, to produce the greatest amount of use value with the minimum amount of labour, because that is what competition involves. They must drive the individual value of their own production down as much as possible, below the market value of such commodities, because that is how they undercut their competitors and grab market share, as well as how they are able to obtain surplus profits. But, there is nothing in this that directly involves the maximisation of the welfare of society, of the actual producers of those commodities. So, when Sismondi says,
“Improvement of agriculture, that is to say, providing themselves’’ (the nation?) “with a greater abundance of produce.” (p 195),
this does not follow at all. The specific difference of the application of The Law of Value under capitalism, as against all other modes of production, is that it is conditioned not by a drive to expand the total quantity of use values, and so social wealth, but by the requirement of each capital to maximise profits.
Under feudalism, if the peasant works for three days on their own land, and three days on the Lord's land, a rise in productivity means that the peasant has more to consume, as well as the surplus product being larger. As Marx described, with Money Rents, set for long periods, when inflation rose due to increases in currency in circulation, the real value of these money rents fell, being one source of a primitive accumulation of capital, in agriculture, to the benefit of farmers and detriment of landlords.
Under capitalism, a rise in productivity can result in an increase in output, but no improvement in the standard of living of the worker. Indeed, the drive for technological improvement by capital is not only to directly replace labour with fixed capital, but is also to reduce the value of labour-power, so as to reduce wages and increase the rate of surplus value. The rise in productivity that occurs, under capitalism, driven by The Law of Value, and its specific form of the maximisation of profit, - one aspect of which is the exchange of commodities at prices of production rather than exchange values – leads only indirectly to a rise in workers' living standards, as a result of The Civilising Mission of Capital, but it is always predicated upon productivity rising faster than living standards.
“For example, an increase in potato cultivation may signify an increase in labour productivity in agriculture (introduction of root crops) and an increase in surplus-value, simultaneously with a deterioration of the workers’ food. It is another example of the habit of the Narodnik—that is to say, the romanticist—to dismiss the contradictions of real life with phrases.” (p 195)
No comments:
Post a Comment