In Section 10 of Chapter 3 Marx examines the same relations examined in Capital II, Chapter 20, of the exchange between Department I and II, and within Department II. The first sub-section shows the impossibility of exchanges within Department II replacing its consumed constant capital. That is obvious, because these producers produce only items for consumption. Again, Marx makes clear that this problem cannot be got around by the subterfuge, used by Keynes and Michael Roberts, of conflating net investment (capital accumulation) out of surplus value, with the replacement of the consumed constant capital. As Marx says,
“The difficulty is the reproduction of the existing constant capital, not the formation of new constant capital in excess of what has to be reproduced. The new constant capital obviously originates in profit, and has existed for a moment in the form of revenue which is later transformed into capital. This part of the profit consists of the surplus labour-time, which, even without the existence of capital, must constantly be performed by society, in order to have at its disposal, so to speak, a fund for development, which the very increase of population makes necessary.” (p 107)
The additional constant capital comes from profit, just as the new bow or fishing rod of a hunter-gatherer is the product of their surplus labour, after they have provided for their immediate needs. But, once produced, and forming part of their means of production, its reproduction is no longer achieved out of their surplus labour, but forms a part of their necessary labour. The bow or fishing rod enables them to raise their productivity, resulting in a greater volume of output. But, now, to maintain it, they must not only hunt and fish, but must also apportion a part of their labour-time to the reproduction of the bow and fishing rod. The value of both pass to the value of their output as wear and tear, alongside the new value they create by their hunting and fishing labour. This labour does not reproduce the value of the bow or fishing rod, which already exists as the result of past labour; it merely preserves it by using them productively. But, where then does that value come from? Who labours to produce the replacements? Again, Marx makes the point that it cannot come from profit/surplus labour.
“...the capitalist does not replace the capital already used up in his own production out of this surplus-labour or profit. Were this the case, the surplus-value would not be a fund for new capital formation, but for the maintenance of the old capital. But the necessary labour which forms the wages and the surplus-labour which forms the profit make up the whole working-day, and no other labour is performed in addition to these.” (p 108)
If we revert to the hunter-gatherer, the equivalent of the production of Department II is their activity hunting and gathering, to provide for their consumption. This is revenue producing labour, i.e. labour whose product can be personally consumed. To the extent they can meet their immediate consumption needs, in, say, 6 hours, but can work for 8 hours, they have 2 hours of surplus labour. This is still revenue producing labour. For example, they could simply produce more to consume. Under feudalism, it is labour appropriated by the landlord as rent, and under capitalism, by the capitalist as profit. In each case, this revenue can be consumed, whoever appropriates it. The hunter-gatherer may simply catch more fish and game, and consume more, and the landlord and capitalist use it to consume without having to produce. They consume the surplus product that is the equivalent of the surplus labour.
But, as previously indicated, a portion of this revenue may instead be used to accumulate additional means of production. In fact, as Marx later sets out, its not the revenue per se that is the basis of the accumulation, but the allocation of this portion of surplus social labour-time to that production of additional means of production. The hunter-gatherer produces a bow, and with it they can catch the required amount of game in 3 hours rather than 6 hours. But, now, to maintain this level of productivity, they must continually replace the bow as it wears out, which requires 2 hours of their labour. This 2 hours of labour is not labour producing consumption goods, i.e. its not labour used in hunting for game to consume. It is labour producing means of production that cannot be consumed, i.e. labour that is the equivalent of Department I production.
If, originally, they caught 6 rabbits in 6 hours, and spent 2 hours of surplus labour producing a bow, the total value of output equals 8 hours, but only 6 hours constitutes revenue/consumption (to be more precise, revenue is 8 hours, but 2 of them exist only momentarily as such, because they are used for accumulation not consumption). Now, with the bow, 6 rabbits are caught in 3 hours, and a further 2 hours of labour is required to reproduce the bow. The value of 6 rabbits falls from 6 hours to 5 hours – 3 hours of current, value creating labour plus 2 hours of value of wear and tear of the bow, preserved by labour, and transferred to current output. The bow has clearly not been funded out of the surplus labour, now, because out of the 8 hour day, only 5 hours of labour have been necessary to catch the rabbits and produce the bow, 1 hour less than before, and now the surplus labour rises to 3 hours.
No comments:
Post a Comment