Marx notes the point referred to earlier that the “intermediate production” contains not one penny of value of constant capital, but consists entirely of revenues, of the new value created by labour. He assumes that a coal producer, produces 30,000 tonnes of coal, and of this 10,000 tonnes is exchanged directly for means of production required for its production. The coal producer, then, exchanges the other 20,000 tonnes, the value of which is entirely equal to the new value created by labour, for consumption goods.
“On the assumption made, the other 10,000 hundredweight would be replaced by iron, timber, machinery, etc., etc.; in a word, the whole value of the means of production used up in the 30,000 hundredweight would be replaced in kind by means of production of the same sort and of equal value.
The buyers of the 20,000 hundredweight thus do not pay a single farthing for the value of the pre-existing labour contained in the 20,000 hundredweight; for the 20,000 represent only two-thirds of the value of the total product in which the newly-added labour is realised. It comes to the same thing, therefore, as if the 20,000 hundredweight represented only labour newly added (during the year, for example) and no pre-existing labour. The buyer therefore pays the whole value of each hundredweight, pre-existing labour plus newly-added labour, and yet he pays only for the newly-added labour; and that is because the quantity he buys is only 20,000 hundredweight, only that quantity of the total product which is equal to the value of all the newly-added labour. Just as little does he pay for the farmer’s seed in paying for the wheat which he eats. The producers have mutually replaced this part for each other; therefore they do not need to have it replaced a second time. They have replaced it with the part of their own product which it is true is the year’s product of their labour, but is not at all the product of their year’s labour, but on the contrary is the part of their annual product that represents the pre-existing labour. Without the new labour the product would not be there; but in the same way it would not be there without the labour materialised in the means of production. If it were merely the product of the new labour, then its value would be less than it now is, and there would be no part of the product to be returned to production. But if the other method of labour [using means of production] were not more productive and did not yield more product in spite of a part of the product having to be returned to production, it would not be used.” (p 191-2)
Marx, then, addresses the fallacy of the TSSI, and historic pricing, noting the requirement to replace material balances/use values, and so the consequence of changes in productivity/values.
“Although no part of the value of the one-third of the coal enters into the 20,000 hundredweight of coal sold as revenue, any change in the value of the constant capital which the one-third or 10,000 hundredweight represented would nevertheless bring about a change of value in the other two-thirds which are sold as revenue.” (p 192)
That is because a change in productivity/values implies a change in the proportion of social labour-time now required to replace “on a like for like basis” these material balances. Continuing with the example of coal production, he assumes a fall in productivity, in those spheres that provide it with means of production, but no change in productivity in coal production itself.
“The 30,000 hundredweight are produced with the same quantity of iron, timber, coal, machinery and labour as before. But since iron, timber and machinery have got dearer, cost more labour-time than before, more coal than before must be given for them.” (p 192)
In other words, Marx recognises that, whilst you cannot build a house today with the bricks of tomorrow, or, here, dig coal, today, with the iron, timber and machines of tomorrow, what is important is not the past value of all those things – their historic price – but what is required to replace them, what quantity of coal will now be required to be exchanged for them, at their current values, in order that production on the same scale can continue and social reproduction proceed.
“As previously, the product would be equal to 30,000 hundredweight. The coal-mining labour has remained as productive as it was before. With the same quantity of living labour and the same amount of timber, iron, machinery, etc., it produces 30,000 hundredweight as before. The living labour, as before, is represented by the same value, say £20,000 (reckoned in money). On the other hand timber, iron, etc., in a word, the constant capital, now cost £16,000 instead of £10,000; that is to say, the labour-time contained in them has increased by six-tenths, or 60 per cent.
The value of the total product is now equal to £36,000; it was £30,000 before; it has therefore risen by one-fifth, or 20 per cent. So also every aliquot part of the product costs one-fifth, or 20 per cent, more than before. If a hundredweight cost £1 previously, then now it costs £1 plus one-fifth of £1=£1. 4s. Previously, 1/3 or 3/9 of the total product was equal to constant capital, 2/3 equal to labour added. Now the proportion of the constant capital to the value of the total product is as 16,000 : 36,000 = 16/36 = 4/9. It amounts therefore to one-ninth [of the value of the total product] more than before. The part of the product which is equal to the value of the labour added was formerly 2/3 or 6/9 of the product, now it is 5/9.” (p 192-3)
And, consequently, and importantly, in relation to the claims of the TSSI, and proponents of historic pricing, concerning the calculation of the rate of profit, if the rate of surplus value is 100%, then the profit would have fallen from 1/3 of the product to just 5/18.
“The coal miners’ labour would not have become less productive; but the product of their labour plus the pre-existing labour would have become less productive; that is, 1/9 more of the total product would be required to replace the component part of the value formed by the constant capital.” (p 193)
No comments:
Post a Comment