What are wages? Marx notes that, if you asked this of workers, each worker might first tell you what their own wages are, and the amounts of those would differ, for different types of worker. But, one thing their accounts would have in common would be that these wages are a payment for a given amount of labour. It may be that the wages are a payment for a given amount of time worked (time -wages), or, else, for a given amount of output (piece wages). In either case, it appears that wages are a price paid, by the capitalist, for a given amount of labour, just as the capitalist pays a price for materials used in the production of the end product, with each one's value then being a proportionate share of that product value.
But, this is wrong. What the worker sells to the capitalist is not labour, but their labour-power, just as a cotton producer sells cotton to a textile producer, as a commodity. So, if the worker sells this commodity, labour-power, to the capitalist, how is its value determined? It is determined, as with any other commodity, by the labour required for its own production. What does that amount to? It amounts to the time required to produce the food, clothes, shelter and so on that the worker must consume to live, to replenish their vital forces, consumed by their labour, and to produce a new generation of workers to take their place when they can no longer work.
This is where the free labourer differs from the slave, as Marx, also, sets out in The Grundrisse. The capitalist does not buy the worker, as a slave-owner buys a slave, but only the workers' labour-power, for a contracted period. The worker is free to sell their labour-power, as a commodity, to the highest bidder, and can do so, again, at the end of the contracted period. The slave-owner, however, buys the slave, body and soul, not their labour-power. Economically speaking, therefore, the slave is no different to an ox, used to pull a plough, or a machine, or any other means of production.
Like an ox, a machine, or bail of cotton, the slave can only transfer their own value, to production, via wear and tear. But, free labour is different: it is the essence of value itself, and creates new value. This new value is not at all the same as, or determined by, the value of labour-power. Because the ox, machine or slave only transfer their own value to the end product, they cannot produce a surplus value, though they may produce a surplus product (even plants in the wild can turn a given amount of seed, and with soil, sun and rain, expand into a much larger number of plants, though they represent no value at all), but, because free labour produces new value, if this value is greater than the value of the labour-power, it represents surplus value.
Take a thought experiment like that conducted by Marx in “The Fragment On Machines”. Suppose that someone possesses an automaton capable of obtaining raw and auxiliary materials, and processing them, so as to be able to repair and reproduce itself. The owner of the automaton had to buy it at its value, which represented the labour initially required for its production, say, £1,000, representing 1,000 hours of labour. This automaton, in all of its subsequent operations, creates no new value. It digs minerals form the ground, provided free by nature, and produces energy, perhaps from solar cells, or a miniature reactor. Although it produces no new value, these materials will have value, because it will transfer a part of its own value to them as wear and tear. If each year, it must replace 10% of itself, and 10% of its activity is in that specific repair work, it transfers 9% of its value, £90, to the materials required, and that is their only value. The other £10 of its value, transferred in wear and tear, is that it expends on its own repair.
£100 was transferred from its own value as wear and tear. It creates no new value, and so no surplus value. As a result of its repair, its own value is restored, once again to £1,000, so this cycle could begin again. Hover, there would be little point in owning such a machine, if it resulted only in its own reproduction. Suppose, therefore, that the automaton produces enough materials, and engages in sufficient processing so as not only to repair itself, but also, to produce an additional, identical automaton. Now, the same £100 (100 hours) of value is transferred, via its wear and tear, but is also now embodied in this additional automaton. Out of the 100 hours transferred as wear and tear, 10 now represent what was required for its own repair, and 90 are now embodied in the additional automaton. The second automaton, now, clearly represents a surplus product, but it does not represent any new value, nor surplus value.
No comments:
Post a Comment