In terms of the exchanges within Department I, these are exchanges of capital for capital, and, thereby, the mutual replacement of constant capital “which has nothing in common with the transformation of a part of the constant capital of one into revenue for the other” (p 147). The fact that these exchanges, within Department I, take the form of sales of commodities, for money, does not change the fundamental relations, in terms of c, v and s, and does not increase the value of revenues in GDP/National Income data, to account for the missing c, and nor could it, because the revenues are a function only of the new value created by labour, and are used to purchase consumption goods, not means of production consumed in the production of means of production, which never enter into the consumable product.
“The case of iron producer and machine builder is only one example. Between different spheres of production, where the products of each enter into the other as means of production, an exchange in kind takes place too (even though concealed by a series of money transactions) between the constant capital of the one and that of the other. In so far as this is the case, the consumers of the final product which enters into consumption have not got to replace this constant capital, since it has already been replaced.” (p 148-9)
Marx gives an example of this, and the replacement of material balances that also speaks against the proponents of the TSSI.
“... in the manufacture of locomotives, every day the waste amounts to whole wagon-loads of iron filings. These are collected and resold (or charged in account) to the same iron manufacturer who supplied the locomotive manufacturer with his principal raw material. The iron manufacturer again gives them solid form, adding new labour to them. However in the form in which he sends them back to the locomotive manufacturer, these filings represent the part of the value of the product which replaces raw material, In this way not the same filings but constantly a certain quantity of filings, move hither and thither between the two factories, This part forms in turn the raw material for each of the two branches of industry and, considered as value, only wanders from one shop to the other. Consequently it does not enter into the final product, but is a replacement in kind of the constant capital.” (p 149)
It speaks against the proponents of the TSSI who say that the house of today cannot be built with the bricks of tomorrow. The point being that it is the bricks of tomorrow (which Marx points out are actually being produced simultaneously today with the laying of existing bricks) which will physically replace the bricks currently being laid. If productivity remains constant, then the replacement of that material balance occurs on the basis of the same values, of the same allocation of social labour-time. If it rises then less social labour-time is required, and a release of capital occurs. Similarly, here, as Marx states “not the same” iron filings, but “a certain quantity” of filings continually flow in this process of simultaneous production and consumption. The fetishisation of the exact same use values by the TSSI, in that regard, seems bizarre, given that, in Capital I, Marx makes the point that each individual commodity is to be considered merely as a representative of its class. It is this continual and simultaneous replacement of use values “on a like for like basis” that is involved not the consideration of the unique use values themselves.
Again summarising, Marx gives the following example.
“One quarter of wheat sold by a peasant is as dear as another, and a quarter of wheat that is sold is no cheaper than one that is returned to the land in the form of seed. Still, if the product equals 6 quarters, and the quarter equals £3—each quarter containing component parts of value for labour added, raw material and machinery—and if he has to use 1 quarter as seeds, he would only sell to consumers 5 quarters, equal to £15. They would therefore not pay for the part of the value contained in the 1 quarter of seed. And this is the point: how can the value of the product sold be equal to all the elements of value contained in it—labour added and constant capital—and how in spite of this does the consumer buy the product and yet not pay for the constant capital?” (p 149)
No comments:
Post a Comment