Keynes also accepted this point made by Marx that there can be money hoarding/saving. Keynes developed the concept of the marginal propensity to consume, meaning that it will always be the case that consumption comprises only a portion of revenues, the rest forming savings. But, Keynes continued to accept the overall validity of Say's Law, and of Smith's absurd dogma that stands behind it. In that case, in relation to a balance between aggregate demand and aggregate supply, if a part of revenues goes to savings, not consumption, a portion of aggregate demand must go not into consumption but into investment. On that basis, Keynes simply restores the aggregate balance by making savings equal to net investment.
That is the solution that Michael Roberts also puts forward in the quote previously given. So, for Keynes, and Roberts, the proportion of revenues that go to savings (for Roberts profits are equated with savings) then simply becomes the basis of consumption/demand in a different form, i.e. productive consumption or net investment, the accumulation of capital. But, for the reasons previously outlined, that net investment cannot be the solution to the question of where the demand for the consumed means of production comes from, because, as net investment, it is only the additional accumulation of capital over and above what is required to reproduce the consumed means of production on a like for like basis.
Marx has removed that element of complexity that merely obscures the relations, by assuming a) that all commodities are produced in the appropriate proportions, and b) there is no saving/capital accumulation. In all spheres of production, however, revenues are created, because labour, in each sphere, creates new value. However, in Department I, unlike Department II, these revenues cannot be expended on buying the products of that department – as we have assumed no net investment. The Department I revenues can only be spent to buy Department II consumption goods. Given that the value of Department II output is 3000, and Department II revenue equals only 1000, Department I revenues can only find their equivalent in Department II consumption goods, and represents the value of constant capital in Department II output. But, this value of Department II constant capital, in value terms, itself contains no value of constant capital, but comprises entirely Department I revenues, i.e. the amount only of the new value created by Department I labour.
The portion of Department I output that represents this revenue can be viewed, as Marx previously outlined, in terms of physical quantities. If we take the machine maker, who produces 12 machines, then 8 machines may be required to reproduce their own worn out machines, or are exchanged with other Department I producers who supply them with means of production, as they mutually replace each others constant capital. Then, 2 machines may comprise workers' wages, and the other 2 profit.
But, the Department I workers and capitalists cannot consume the use value of machines. They can only consume their value, and to do that it must be metamorphosed into the form of different use values, the use values of Department II consumption goods. Similarly, Department II workers and capitalists cannot consume the use values of machines, which they can only consume productively as means of production. Thereby, Department I machines replace Department II constant capital, whilst Department II replaces Department I means of consumption to an equal value.
“This part of the exchange of commodities represents exchange of one man’s capital for another man’s revenue, and of one man’s revenue for another man’s capital. Only one part of the total product of the producer of consumable products represents revenue; the other part represents constant capital. He can neither himself consume the latter, nor can he exchange it for the consumable products made by others. He can neither consume in kind the use-value of this part of the product, nor can he consume its value by exchanging it for other consumable products. He must on the contrary transform it again into the natural elements of his constant capital. He must consume industrially this part of his product, that is, use it as means of production.
But in its use-value his product is only capable of entering individual consumption; he cannot therefore transform it again in kind into his own elements of production. Its use-value excludes industrial consumption. So he can only industrially consume its value, [by selling it] to the producers of those elements of production needed for his product. He can neither consume in kind this part of his product, nor can he consume its value by selling it for other products that can be consumed individually. Just as little as this part of his product can enter into his own revenue, can it be replaced out of the revenue of producers of other individually consumable products; since this would only be possible if he exchanged his product for their product and so consumed the value of his product, which cannot happen. But since this part of his product, as well as the other part which he can consume as revenue, by its use-value can only be consumed as revenue, must enter into individual consumption and cannot replace constant capital, it must enter into the revenue of the producers of unconsumable products —it must be exchanged against that part of their products whose value they can consume, or in other words which represents their revenue.” (p 236-7)
This is why, in terms of the consumable product/GDP, whose value is comprised of c + v + s, it can be consumed entirely by the revenues, which equals only the new value created by labour in the current year, which divides into just v + s. It is because, in terms of the element of c in this consumable product, although it has the form of the use value of constant capital, in value terms, it comprises only revenues and no value of constant capital. Taken on its own, the consumable product is comprised of c + v + s, but the whole point is that the consumable product comprises only a fraction of the total output. The total output includes all of that further production required to physically replace the means of production of Department I, consumed in its own production, and the further output of Department I, which replaces the consumed means of production of Department II. It includes the 8 machines out of 12 that the machine maker must take out of their production to replace their own worn out machines, and those of the Department I producers who supply them with constant capital. This element of total production continually expands, relative to the consumable product, as social productivity rises, and a growing proportion of social labour-time must be devoted to simply reproducing those consumed means of production, on a like for like basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment