Going back to the earlier example, the weaver produces 12 metres of cloth with an exchange-value of £36. It comprises £24 of constant capital (yarn, loom etc.) and £12 of newly created value by labour. But, if we assume an average organic composition of 2:1, then its obvious that, for the yarn producer, loom producer and so on, their capital must also divide 2:1, into £16 constant capital, £8 new value. The constant capital of the weaver must always be greater than that of the yarn producer and loom producer, consumed in this production, because in addition to reproducing it, the weaver must also reproduce the value of labour added in production by the yarn producer and loom producer, which also forms part of the constant capital consumed by the weaver. And, the same applies to the spinner and loom producer in relation to the constant capital they consume.
“When the spinner replaces his constant capital, he pays not only for the total capital of the spindle manufacturer, etc., but also for that of the flax-grower. His constant capital pays for the one part of their constant capital plus the labour added.” (p 127)
But, what, then, when we get back to the flax-grower, who sells the flax to the spinner. In addition to constant capital in the form of manure/fertiliser, and equipment, it also comprises seed, which is itself a product of his own output from previous years.
“We will assume—as in agriculture must always be the case, more or less directly—that this part of the farmer’s constant capital is an annual deduction from his own product, which he must return each year, out of his own product, to the land —that is, to production itself. Here we find a part of the constant capital which replaces itself and is never sold, and therefore also is never paid for, and is never consumed, never enters into individual consumption. Seed, etc., are the equivalent of so much labour-time. The value of the seed, etc., enters into the value of the total product; but the same value, because it is the same amount of products (on the assumption that the productivity of labour has remained the same), is also deducted again from the total product and returned to production, not entering into circulation.” (p 127)
This was the source of error for Rodbertus, in relation to rent. Rodbertus, taking the standpoint of the landlord or peasant producer, rather than the capitalist farmer, thought that, because the seed, breeding livestock etc. cost the farmer nothing, in the sense that they were not bought, they had no value. On this basis, Rodbertus argued that the constant capital of the farmer was always smaller than that of the manufacturer, who must always buy all of their constant capital from the agricultural and mineral producers of primary products. He saw that as the basis of the higher rate of profit in agriculture, and, thereby, of rent.
But, Marx points out that, whilst the peasant might be confused that just because they do not buy the seeds and other products they use in their production, they do not have value, the capitalist farmer certainly is not. The fact that the seed, for the farmer, is not bought, and so is not a commodity, but is rather a product taken from their own production, does not change the fact that it has value. Indeed, it is only because it is first a product, and has value that it can also become a commodity, and to then express that value in the form of an exchange-value.
“Here we have at least one part of the constant capital—that which can be regarded as the raw material of agriculture—which replaces itself. Here therefore is an important [branch I—the most important branch in size and in the amount of capital it contains—of the annual production in which an important part of the constant capital, the part which consists of raw materials (apart from artificial fertilisers, etc.), replaces itself and does not enter into circulation, and is therefore not replaced by any form of revenue. Therefore the spinner has not got to repay to the flax-grower this part of the constant capital (the part of the constant capital which is replaced and paid for by the flax-grower himself); nor has the weaver to pay for this to the spinner, nor the buyer of the linen to the weaver.” (p 127-8)
No comments:
Post a Comment