As we are accustomed only to the modern form of this, in which all we see is money relations, i.e. we get paid money wages, profits, interest and rent, its worth examining this more closely, by examining these categories and relations in different modes of production. In a primitive commune, the collective production is distributed amongst its members. This distribution is socially determined, so that, for example, younger members engaged in more active labour, may obtain a larger proportion than older less active members. Following such a general, proportional distribution, different individuals may decide to exchange some of the items they receive for other items, with other individuals, to meet their specific consumption requirements and tastes.
In slave or serf production, the slave/serf must have a certain amount of food etc., for their own reproduction. In agricultural production, the slave/serf, therefore, gets back a proportion of what they produce, for that purpose, but, again, might exchange that allocation, provided by the slave-owner, with other slaves. The slave owner will exchange elements of the surplus product, they obtain, for other products. Where slaves are engaged in, say, silver production, its clear that they cannot consume silver, and nor can the slave-owner, but the same proportional distribution arises. The slave-owner exchanges silver for other commodities, which they now consume, whilst handing other commodities to the slave, for their subsistence.
In feudal economies, peasants produce, and again require a portion of production for their subsistence. Distribution is determined by social laws entitling the landlords to a portion of their production, which first takes the form of corvee labour, then of rent in kind, and eventually money rent. In the first two forms, distribution is of the physical product of labour. The landlord, then, can exchange a portion of their allocation of products for other products/commodities, so as to meet their individual consumption needs. Even under direct production, where the peasant produces for their own consumption requirements, a part of their production is always exchanged for other products/commodities, to meet their needs, and that portion expands, as the market itself expands.
Under capitalism, these basic relations are obscured, because workers are paid money wages. But, as Marx describes, in Capital, these same relations can be observed, as described above in relation to cotton.
“Production, distribution, exchange and consumption thus form a proper syllogism; production represents the general, distribution and exchange the particular, and consumption the individual case which sums up the whole. This is indeed a sequence, but a very superficial one. Production is determined by general laws of nature; distribution by random social factors, it may therefore exert a more or less beneficial influence on production; exchange, a formal social movement, lies between these two; and consumption, as the concluding act, which is regarded not only as the final aim but as the ultimate purpose, falls properly outside the sphere of economy, except in so far as it in turn exerts a reciprocal action on the point of departure thus once again initiating the whole process.” (p 194)
No comments:
Post a Comment