The simplest way to envisage this is from the perspective of a farmer who produces grain. First of all, to produce the grain, s/he must already have grain which is used as seed (constant capital). They employ workers who, here, we can assume, as with the farmer, live only on grain. So they must have another physical store of grain, which they pay as wages to their workers. This must be an actual physical store, of a given quantity of grain, because the reproduction of the workers' labour power depends not upon any given amount of value, but on a given amount of use-value, i.e. they require a given physical amount of grain for the physical reproduction of their body, and so their labour-power. Similarly, they require a similar store to consume themselves during the year. As Marx points out, it is only when social productivity reaches that minimum level whereby the labourers can produce a sufficient surplus product, over what is required for their own reproduction, to be able to provide for the needs of an exploiting class that class society of any kind becomes possible.
If these stores amount to 100 kilos of seed (constant capital), 1,000 kilos for wages (variable-capital), and 400 kilos for the personal consumption of the farmer, then, with simple reproduction, the farm needs to produce 1500 kilos of grain for this reproduction to occur. This 1500 kilos then resolves into 100 kilos constant capital, 1,000 kilos variable-capital, and 400 kilos surplus product. It can be objected that this is a “Physiocratic” analysis, based upon use values rather than values, but as Marx sets out in Capital III, Chapter 49, it is precisely these physical use values, the required material balances that must be reproduced, for production to continue on the same scale, and which form the real basis for determining the expansion of capital. As Marx sets out in Theories of Surplus Value, the objection can be easily dealt with, if we simply assume constant levels of social productivity. In that case the values of these components of total production remain the same, and nothing changes in the analysis. If we assume that a kilo of grain is equal to 1 hour of labour, then we can replace the physical quantities above with values, i.e. c 100 hours, v 1,000 hours, s 400 hours. If we assume a money economy in which £1 equals 1 hour of labour, then similarly both use values, and values can be replaced with exchange values, i.e. c £100, v £1,000, s £400.
As Marx sets out in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapters 12 and after, where he looks at effects of changes in the value composition of capital, if we assume changing levels of social productivity, this does not change the need to replace these physical quantities of use values, for social reproduction to occur, it simply changes the division of social labour-time, required to do so amongst these different components of the total social product. The consequences of that are releases of capital where social productivity rises, making additional accumulation or consumption possible, as well as raising the rate of profit, and vice versa where social productivity falls. Marx summarises that in Capital III, Chapter 6, and Chapter 49, as shown in the previous quote.
If we consider the revenues (v + s), in the above example, then this is equal to the new production undertaken during the year. In other words, of the original stores of grain, only the 100 kilos of seed actually took part in the production process. The other 1400 kilos being consumed unproductively by the workers and farmer. The labour undertaken by the workers, together with the use values of the soil, rain and sun, provided free by Nature, is solely responsible for the transformation of the 100 kilos into 1500 kilos of grain. In terms of value, as against use value, the labour alone is responsible for the creation of new value amounting to 1,400 hours, and new exchange-value, amounting to £1,400. The farmer appropriates all of the 1500 kilos (hours, £'s), but, because they must produce again the next year, not all of this can constitute their revenue.
Firstly, 100 kilos/hours/£s must be directly deducted from the output to replace the seed. So, of the 1500 kilos/hours/£s only 1400 constitutes revenue, and that is equal to the new value created by labour; the 100 kilos/hours/£s constituting capital. The portion of the revenue that must go to wages is objectively determined by the value of labour-power as a commodity like any other, and so by the quantity of grain required for its reproduction (1,000 kilos/hours/£s), which then leaves 400 kilos/hours/£s as a surplus for the consumption of the farmer.
This can be seen as a microcosm of the situation in respect of the national economy. As soon as we reduce matters to this reproduction of material balances, as described by Marx in Capital III, Chapter 49, matters become clear. As he also sets out there, and in Chapter 6, the effect of changing social productivity simply introduces additional complexity, as a result of changes in the amount of social labour-time required to reproduce these material balances, and so changes in their relative values.
So, it remains clear, here, that the value of output is determined by the labour-time required for production, which is comprised of the congealed labour in the seed (100), and the new labour undertaken = 1400 = 1500. It is out of this value of 1500 that the resolution into the components of c + v + s is undertaken, not the summation of c + v + s to give the value of output. However, the value of revenues is just 1400, equal only to the new value added by labour in the current year, and which resolves into v + s, v being objectively determined by the value of labour-power, and s then being the residual. The farmer does not replace the 100 kilos of seed, c, out of their profit of 400. It is replaced directly out of capital. In other words, the total national output divides into two components – capital and revenue.
“Thus, the value of the annual commodity-product, just like the value of the commodity-product produced by some particular investment of capital, and like the value of any individual commodity, resolves itself into two component parts: A, which replaces the value of the advanced constant capital, and B, which is represented in the form of revenue — wages, profit and rent. The latter component part of value, B, is counterposed to the former A, in so far as A, under otherwise equal circumstances: 1) never assumes the form of revenue and 2) always flows back in the form of capital, and indeed constant capital.”
(ibid)
No comments:
Post a Comment