Proudhon, in his muddled example, failed to prove this basic feature that all previous economists had demonstrated, and, yet, he complains that they had failed to prove what he had shown with “mathematical rigour”. Marx quotes from Ricardo and Lauderdale to illustrate that, contrary to Proudhon's assertion, they had proved this fundamental proposition that he had failed to do.
“By constantly increasing the facility of production, we constantly diminish the value of some of the commodities before produced, though by the same means we not only add to the national riches, but also to the power of future production.... As soon as by the aid of machinery, or by the knowledge of natural philosophy, you oblige natural agents to do the work which was before done by man, the exchangeable value of such work falls accordingly. If 10 men turned a corn mill, and it be discovered that by the assistance of wind, or of water, the labour of these 10 men may be spared, the flour which is the produce partly of the work performed by the mill, would immediately fall in value, in proportion to the quantity of labour saved; and the society would be richer by the commodities which the labour of the 10 men could produce, the funds destined for their maintenance being in no degree impaired." (Ricardo) (p 90)
“In every instance where capital is so employed as to produce a profit, it uniformly arises, either – from its supplanting a portion of labour, which would otherwise be performed by the hand of man; or – from its performing a portion of labour, which is beyond the reach of the personal exertion of man to accomplish.” (Lauderdale) (p 90-91)
As Marx described earlier, on the one hand, Ricardo's conclusion is derived from The Labour Theory of Value, whereas those of Lauderdale from supply and demand.
“Finally, then, so long as the profit is greater than in other industries, capital will be thrown into the new industry until the rate of profit falls to the general level.” (p 91)
The person-society is a bourgeois fiction, just as with abstract, idealist categories such as “people”, or “nation”, which act to obscure the reality that all these categories are, in fact, comprised of antagonistic classes. As the attempts to present the Ukraine-Russia war as a “national” war or “people's war” demonstrate, it is the way the bourgeoisie, and its apologists always present their own specific interests as being the interests of “society”, “the nation”, or “the people”.
Proudhon gives his fiction of the person-society the name of Prometheus, and Marx quotes Proudhon, to describe the way he glorifies its deeds. All of it is designed to illustrate the way that social labour, and, from it, the division of labour, is more productive than individual labour and the purpose of this, for Proudhon, is to argue that the surplus produced by labour is solely a product of society. Marx comments,
“This Prometheus of M. Proudhon's is a queer character, as weak in logic as in political economy. So long as Prometheus merely teaches us the division of labour, the application of machinery, the exploitation of natural forces and scientific power, multiplying the productive forces of men and giving a surplus compared with the produce of labour in isolation, this new Prometheus has the misfortune only of coming too late.” (p 91-2)
In other words, there is nothing described in this allegory, by Proudhon, that had not been described a hundred times before, by dozens of economists, in previous decades. But, the continuation of this fable, by Proudhon, is illogical and absurd. This Prometheus is both a producer and consumer, and, according to Proudhon, consumes what he had produced the previous day, but, then, how did he consume on the previous day? If we take Proudhon's fable, Prometheus arises, like Adam, on the first day of Creation, with no day before it on which to produce. So, how did he consume on this first ever day?
“But the moment Prometheus starts talking about production and consumption he becomes really ludicrous. To consume, for him, is to produce; he consumes the next day what he produced the day before, so that he is always one day in advance; this day in advance is his “surplus labour.” But, if he consumes the next day what he has produced the day before, he must, on the first day, which had no day before, have done two days' work in order to be one day in advance later on. How did Prometheus earn this surplus on the first day, when there was neither division of labour, nor machinery, nor even any knowledge of physical forces other than fire? Thus the question, for all its being carried back “to the first day of the second creation,” has not advanced a single step forward. This way of explaining things savours both of Greek and of Hebrew, it is at once mystical and allegorical.” (p 92)
No comments:
Post a Comment