In primitive society, Marx says, there are no produced means of production, and so,
“...no constant capital, the value of which could pass into the product, and which, in reproduction on the same scale, would have to be replaced in kind out of the product and to a degree measured by its value.” (p 847)
But, Nature provides the means of subsistence and means of production gratis. A stone becomes a primitive means of hunting, digging, cutting, as with sticks etc. Its in these conditions that the members of these primitive societies can use surplus labour-time to produce means of production to increase productivity. But, this expenditure of resources, out of revenue, is, then, not a replacement of consumed means of production, just as with the accumulation of capital out of surplus value.
“This reconversion of profit into capital shows rather upon closer analysis that, conversely, the additional labour — which is always represented in the form of revenue — does not serve for the maintenance, or reproduction respectively, of the old capital value, but for the creation of new excess capital so far as it is not consumed as revenue.” (p 848)
In other words, this is equal to Keynes net investment, and, in no sense, accounts for the replacement of consumed constant capital.
“In so far as reproduction obtains on the same scale, every consumed element of constant capital must be replaced in kind by a new specimen of the same kind, if not in quantity and form, then at least in effectiveness. If the productiveness of labour remains the same, then this replacement in kind implies replacing the same value which the constant capital had in its old form. But should the productiveness of labour increase, so that the same material elements may be reproduced with less labour, then a smaller portion of the value of the product can completely replace the constant part in kind. The excess may then be employed to form new additional capital or a larger portion of the product may be given the form of articles of consumption, or the surplus-labour may be reduced. On the other hand, should the productiveness of labour decrease, then a larger portion of the product must be used for the replacement of the former capital, and the surplus-product decreases.” (p 849)
So, again, what we have is social reproduction as a physical reproduction of material balances, the fact of which is plain if no change in social productivity or capital accumulation occurs. But, a change in social productivity does not change this relation, it simply means a change in the proportion of social labour-time allocated to reproduce these different material balances. A rise in social productivity, as described in Capital III, Chapter 6, and in Theories of Surplus Value, brings about a release of capital, meaning more social labour-time is available for consumption or accumulation, and vice versa. It means that the rate of profit rises, because any given mass of surplus value, now accumulates greater quantities of means of production and labour-power. This is no different than Robinson Crusoe using his excess labour-time to produce a bow to increase his hunting capacity. The only difference is that, under capitalism, it is the capitalist that owns the surplus labour capacity, and, thereby, the products of it in the form of additional capacity.
“However, what is actually transformed into capital is not profit as such. Transformation of surplus-value into capital signifies merely that the surplus-value and surplus-product are not consumed individually as revenue by the capitalist. But, what is actually so transformed is value, materialised labour, or the product in which this value is directly manifested, or for which it is exchanged after having been previously transformed into money.” (p 850)
No comments:
Post a Comment