Marx turns to Proudhon's application and conclusions based on this constituted value. Here, Marx elaborates on the points discussed earlier, distinguishing between concrete and abstract labour etc., and also the deficiency of Smith, in equating labour and wages. At this time, Marx had not himself made the distinction between labour (process) and labour-power (use-value/commodity), and so his explanation was still phrased in terms of the sale of labour rather than labour-power. Marx sets out Proudhon's conclusions.
“- A certain quantity of labour is equivalent to the product created by this same quantity of labour.
- Each day’s labour is worth as much as another day’s labour. That is to say, if the quantities are equal, one man’s labour is worth as much as another man’s labour. There is no qualitative difference. With the same quantity of work, one man’s product can be given in exchange for another man’s product. All men are wage workers getting equal pay for an equal time of work. Perfect equality rules the exchanges.” (p 48)
The first conclusion was also drawn by Smith, and the fact that its quite clear that, in fact, the wages of workers, i.e. the amount of labour that can be purchased with a given value of commodities/money, is not equal to the value of the commodities produced by that labour (discounting the value of constant capital) is what led Smith to abandon the Labour Theory of Value, in respect of his analysis of capitalist production. As Marx sets out, in Theories of Surplus Value, Part 1, it is true in respect of the independent commodity producer. In other words, A expends 100 hours of universal labour producing 10 metres of linen, and is able to exchange the linen for 100 hours of universal labour in some other form, for example, 10 litres of wine.
But, when it comes to the value of commodities, and their exchange, nothing has changed. All that changes is the way the new value created by labour is divided between capitalists and workers. Suppose the linen producer is now employed by a capitalist, and out of the 10 metres produced, the capitalist takes 2 and the worker 8, and similarly for wine production. The value of linen and wine remains the same, and their exchange-value remains the same. Now, the linen capitalist exchanges 2 metres of linen for 2 litres of wine, and the workers do likewise. The proportions of wine now in the possession of linen capitalists and workers is the same as the proportion in which they shared the production of linen.
All that is required, here, then, is to identify the value of “labour”(-power), as distinct from the value of the commodity, and once this labour (power) is itself identified as a commodity, in the form of wage labour, it is a simple matter to determine its value as for any other commodity.
“If the relative value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour required to produce it, it follows naturally that the relative value of labour, or wages, is likewise determined by the quantity of labour needed to produce the wages. Wages, that is, the relative value or the price of labour, are thus determined by the labour time needed to produce all that is necessary for the maintenance of the worker.” (p 48)
And, once considered on this basis, its clear that the value of this labour (power), as a use value/commodity, is not at all the same as the value created by this labour. If an independent producer, say Robinson Crusoe, must undertake 8 hours of labour to produce the food, clothing shelter required for their subsistence, for a day, this does not prevent them working for 10 hours in the day, and so creating 10 hours of new value, 2 of which, now, constitute a surplus value, which they can use so as to either a) consume more, b) save to consume on another day, without working, c) use to produce some additional type of use value, d) use to accumulate means of production, such as fishing nets or stock pens, which enable them to raise productivity, and so produce a greater quantity of use values, in future, in less time, thereby reducing the unit value of these use values.
So, when the labourer is a peasant, this surplus labour can be appropriated, as rent, by a landlord; and when the labourer is a wage worker, and now sells the use-value, which is their labour-power, as a commodity, the capitalist buys this commodity, at its value, i.e. equal to the wage required to reproduce it, but now appropriates the surplus value produced, as profit. In fact, the capitalist appropriates the whole of the product of that labour, and, thereby, the value produced, handing back to the worker only that portion equal to their wages.
No comments:
Post a Comment