Lenin takes the data from Handicraft Industries, to look at the relation between family labour and wage labour, in each establishment more closely. I am again providing his table, from which the details can be observed.
“These detailed figures fully confirm the proposition advanced above, which seemed so paradoxical at first glance, i.e., the larger the total number of workers in an establishment, the larger the number of family workers employed in it, and the more extensive, consequently, the “family co-operation”; but, at the same time, capitalist co-operation also increases, and does so far more rapidly. Despite the fact that they have a large number of family workers, the more prosperous handicraftsmen employ many additional wage-workers. “Family co-operation” is thus the pledge and foundation of capitalist co-operation.” (p 374)
Lenin provides two more tables based on data from the 1894-5 census, relating to family labour and wage labour. The first, relating to family labour, shows that 53.2% of all establishments were operated by just one person. A further 30.8% involved just 2 family members.
“Even if we were to assume that all the establishments that combine family labour with wage-labour have no more than one family worker each, we would still find that 2,500 of them would be run by one man. These are the representatives of the most scattered producers, representatives of the most disunited small workshops—a disunity that is generally characteristic of the much-vaunted "“people’s production.”” (p 375)
The second relates to the employment of wage labour. It shows that a quarter of all wage labour was employed by just 85 establishments (less than 10% of the total), and the average number of wage labourers employed by them was 14.6. In other words, these handicraft producers were already capitalist producers.
“The overwhelming majority of our “factories” (so called in the official statistics), actually 15,000 out of 23,000, employ less than 16 workers. See Directory of Factories for 1890.” (Note *, p 376)
Lenin describes how establishments with 15 workers could engage in a significant division of labour, and the greater efficiency resulting from that. But, other economies of scale were to be had, in terms of buildings etc. An establishment employing 15 does not require a building 15 times bigger than that of the single producer. Other savings were to be had in the purchase and use of materials on a larger scale, and larger scale production means that economies are to be had in selling, including to larger, more distant markets. Also, larger-scale production means that the capital turns over more quickly, so a given amount of advanced capital mobilises a much greater quantity of productive-capital, and produces a higher annual rate of profit.
“It should, therefore, be clear that the technical and economic features of these establishments also differ radically from those of the one-man workshops, and it is really astonishing that the Perm statisticians should nevertheless have decided to combine them and compute general “averages” from them. It may be said a priori that such averages will be absolutely fictitious, and that the analysis of the household statistics, in addition to dividing the handicraftsmen into groups and sub-groups, should also have divided them into categories based upon the number of workers per establishment (both family and wage-workers).” (p 376)
The investigators, however, underestimated the importance of the capitalist workshops. They argued that competition between handicraft and capitalist production was only significant when more than 5 wage workers were employed, i.e. more than the average number of family workers. But, as Lenin says, this argument is nonsensical. In terms of being able to engage in a division of labour, and enjoy other economies of scale, it does not matter whether the employed workers are family workers or wage workers. An establishment that employed 3 family members and 3 wage workers would be able to employ a division of labour, and to obtain advantages compared to an individual artisan producer.
“And the facts show that there is no special “handicraft form of production” (that is an invention of “handicraft” economists), that the small commodity producers give rise to large capitalist establishments (in the tables we found a handicraftsman employing 65 wage-workers!—p. 169), and that it was the investigators’ duty to group the data in such a way that we could examine this process and compare the various establishments insofar as they approximate capitalist enterprises. The Perm statisticians not only failed to do this themselves, but even deprived us of the opportunity of doing so, for in the tables all the establishments in a given sub-group are lumped together so that it is impossible to separate the factory owner from the one-man producer.” (p 377-8)
4 comments:
Hello Boffy,
It's been a while since I stumbled on your blog and then started following your posts seriously.
Wanted to contact you, but found no e-mail address.
I prefer contact by the simple method of comments posted to the blog.
Thank you Boffy for your reply; sure, we can go ahead as you wish. My question which is however not related to this post is as follows:
It is really common among Marxists to simply take the difference between the price of a commodity and its total cost (c+v), then equate this difference with "surplus value" (s) and finally measure the rate of exploitation by s/v. But this is wrong because, as you have explained in your previous posts, the profit obtained by an individual Capital is no more equal with the surplus value extracted from the labor power employed by that capital.
So in almost all examples and for simplicity purposes, this rate is given "a priori", say 100%, 200% etc.
But this question is raised that whether the rate of exploitation is measurable for an individual capital? if so, how?
I don't think its true that most Marxists take price minus cost-price (c + v), and deduce the difference as surplus value. If they did, then it would be wrong. The difference is profit not surplus value, and these are two different things. For any given sphere, this profit gravitates towards the average annual rate of profit, and determines the price of production, around which the market price fluctuates (look in the Glossary for the definitions of these terms).
But, for each firm within any sphere, the annual rate of profit, as well, therefore as its rate of profit/profit margin (p/k) or (p/c+v) will vary above or below this average because whilst it sells at the market price/price of production, its costs will vary from those of other firms in the industry. Some will have lower costs and so make surplus profits, and others will have higher costs, and so make sub-normal profits.
As for measuring the rate of surplus value for an individual capital, the pragmatic answer comes from Capital III, Chapter 10(?), where Marx sets out that the more capitalism is developed, the more an average rate of surplus value is produced - not to be confused with the average rate of profit - because labour will move accordingly to where the rate of exploitation is lower, or conversely, where the rate is high, capital will seek to employ more labour, which will act to increase wages in that area, as well as increasing supply of the commodities produced by that labour, so reducing their market prices.
So, if you calculate a rate of exploitation for the economy - which again, as with profit, must be the annual rate of surplus value, not just the rate of surplus value, then this can be taken as existing for all capitals. Of course, there is then the question of variations due to complex labour, and the extent to which frictions prevent them being resolved in the short/medium term. The obvious example is labour in developed economies backed by lots of fixed capital, so that it appears as complex compared to labour in less developed economies, so that even with higher wages/living standards, the labour in developed economies faces a much higher rate of exploitation than labour in less developed economies.
Post a Comment