Marx then sets out an example of the argument used to justify this absurd dogma. The example involves the production of a linen shirt, but is essentially the same as the example I have given of the production of bread. The spinner buys flax from the flax-grower, and must pay a price that covers the value of seed, fertiliser and other constant capital, plus wear and tear of fixed capital, as well as the value of wages and profit. Similarly, the weaver who buys the yarn pays a price not only covering this value of flax, but also covering the other constant capital, wages and profit involved in converting flax to yarn.
“... and so the thing goes on with the bleacher, the transportation costs of the finished linen, and finally the shirtmaker, who has to pay the entire price of all preceding producers, who supplied him only with his raw material. In his hands a further addition of value takes place, partly through the value of constant capital consumed in the manufacture of shirts in the shape of instruments of labour, auxiliary materials, etc., and partly through the labour expended, which adds the value of the shirtmakers’ wages plus the surplus-value of the shirt manufacturer.” (p 438-9)
The total value in shirts comes to £100, and represents, “the aliquot part of the value of the total annual product expended by society on shirts. The consumers of the shirts pay these £100, i.e., the value of all the means of production contained in the shirts, and of the wages plus surplus-value of the flax-grower, spinner, weaver, bleacher, shirt manufacturer, and all carriers. This is absolutely correct. Indeed, every child can see that. But then it says: that’s how matters stand with regard to the value of all other commodities. It should say: That’s how matters stand with regard to the value of all articles of consumption, with regard to the value of that portion of the social product which passes into the consumption-fund, i.e., with regard to that portion of the value of the social product which can be expended as revenue.” (p 439)
In other words, its absolutely true that, in terms of the value of shirts, just as previously seen in relation to the production of bread, the costs of the constant capital, or “intermediate production” used in its production, is accounted for in the price of the shirt, as well as that of the new value added by shirt-making labour. That must be the case or the shirt makers could not continue to produce shirts. However, the point is that a) this constant capital, consumed in the production of shirts, bread or other consumption goods is not the only constant capital consumed. On the contrary, a much larger quantity of constant capital is consumed in the production of constant capital itself (seeds to produce seeds, machines to produce machines, coal to produce coal etc.), i.e. the 4000 of the 6000, in the example above, and b) the value of constant capital consumed in the production of consumption goods/shirts/bread resolves entirely into revenues (v + s), and not constant capital. That is why the whole of the value of consumption goods/GDP/shirts/bread resolves into revenues (Department I (v + s) and Department II (v + s)).
“True enough, the sum of the values of all these commodities is equal to the value of all the means of production (constant portions of capital) used up in them plus the value created by the labour last added (wages plus surplus-value). Hence the totality of the consumers can pay for this entire sum of values because, although the value of each individual commodity is made up of c + v + s, nevertheless the sum of the values of all commodities passing into the consumption-fund, taken at its maximum, can be equal only to that portion of the value of the social product which resolves itself into v + s, in other words, equal to that value which the labour expended during the year has added to the existing means of production — i.e., to the value of the constant capital.” (p 439)
But, it is clear then that Smith's argument that the value of total output resolves entirely into revenues is false, and so is the claim that consumers must cover the cost, not only of those revenues, but also of the consumed constant capital. The latter is true only in relation to the constant capital (Department I (v + s) consumed in the production of consumer goods. It is not true in relation to the constant capital consumed in the production of production goods, i.e. Department I (c). It cannot be true, in that case, because consumers do not buy these capital goods, and those capital goods are not themselves sold to the producers of consumption goods. They are mutually replaced, on a like for like basis, by the Department I producers themselves.
This is why the GDP data does not include any element of consumed constant capital value, despite that appearance given by the category of “intermediate production”. In terms of its use value, it is constant capital, but, in terms of its value, it comprises not one penny of constant capital, but is entirely comprised of revenues.
“The phrase that the value of the entire annual product must ultimately be paid by the consumer would be correct only if consumer were taken to comprise two vastly different kinds: individual consumers and productive consumers. However that one portion of the product must be consumed productively means nothing but that it must function as capital and not be consumed as revenue.” (p 440)
No comments:
Post a Comment