Money wages are merely the phenomenal form of these real wages, i.e. the money equivalent of the value of wage goods, required to reproduce labour-power.
“So much money for so long a use of labour-power. For twelve hours' weaving, two marks. And do not the two marks represent all the other commodities which I can buy for two marks? In fact, therefore, the worker has exchanged his commodity, labour-power, for commodities of all kinds, and that, in a definite ratio. By giving him two marks, the capitalist has given him so much meat, so much clothing, so much fuel, light, etc., in exchange for his day's labour. Accordingly, the two marks express the ratio in which labour-power is exchanged for other commodities, the exchange-value of his labour-power. The exchange value of a commodity reckoned in money is called its price. Wages are only a special name for the price of labour-power, commonly called the price of labour; for the price of this peculiar commodity, which has no other repository than human flesh and blood.” (p 19)
At the time of independent commodity producers, they might sell their output to a merchant. They sold the commodity, to the merchant, below its value, because the merchant saved them time and expense of taking commodities to market. Both shared the surplus-value of the commodity between them. When the merchants take on the role of employing these producers, via The Putting Out System, it still appears that what the producer is paid is a share of the value of the commodity, and that continues in the handicraft workshop and factory. In fact, that was not the case. What the worker was paid was not a share of the value of the commodity, but the value of their labour-power. Sometimes, the money wage might be more or less than that, depending on the demand and supply for labour-power at the given time.
Assuming that to be in balance, then, if wages fell below that level, in a given firm or industry, so that the supply of labour to the low paying firms would fall, causing them to have to raise those wages. Competition between all firms, for labour, would push wages up to the value of labour-power. But, these wages are not, then, the workers' share of the value of the commodities they produce, only the value of the commodity – labour-power – they sell, whose own value may represent a larger or smaller proportion of the value of the commodities they produce.
As productivity rises, so that the value of wage goods falls, and, so, the value of labour-power falls, 10 hours labour may be required to produce those wage goods, and so reproduce a day's labour-power, rather than 12. Consequently, the necessary labour, having fallen from 12 to 10, means that the surplus labour rises from 8 to 10 hours. The amount of new value produced, remains the same; the value of the commodity remains the same, but the workers' wages, now, constitute a smaller proportion of it.
“The capitalist buys the labour-power of the weaver with a part of his existing wealth, of his capital, the capitalist buys the labour-power of the weaver just as he has bought the raw material – the yarn – and the instrument of labour – the loom – with another part of his wealth. After he has made these purchases, and these purchases include the labour-power necessary to the production of linen, he produces only with raw materials and instruments of labour belonging to him. For the latter include now, true enough, our good weaver as well, who has as little share in the product or the price of the product, as the loom has.” (p 20)
Because the wage-labourer sells his labour-power to capital, for a specified period, that labour-power, and the product of the labour, does not belong to the worker, but to capital. This is the basis of the alienation of labour.
“Thus, his life-activity is for him only a means to enable him to exist. He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labour as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity which he has made over to another. Hence, also, the product of his activity is not the object of his activity. What he produces for himself is not the silk that he weaves, not the gold he draws from the mine, not the palace he builds. What he produces for himself is wages, and silk, gold, palace resolve themselves for him into a definite quantity of the means of subsistence, perhaps into a cotton jacket, some copper coins, and a lodging in a cellar.” (p 20-1)
For the worker, life begins only outside this period, during which he has sold his labour-power to capital. And, because that labour-power is inseparable from his own being has sold himself to capital, for that time. It is in this sense that he is a slave – a wage slave. It is notable, that, today, as at other times when capital has been strong relative to labour, the capitalists seek to, also, control the workers even outside this contracted period, placing demands on their behaviour and so on. In other words, to turn the free labourer, once again into a slave. The labour performed outside that existence is his own, for example, tending a garden, decorating his home, caring for his family. It is not alienated.
“Labour-power was not always a commodity. Labour was not always wage-labour, i.e., free labour. The slave did not sell his labour-power to the slave-owner, any more than the ox sells his labour to the peasant. The slave, together with his labour-power, was sold to his owner once for all to his owner. He is a commodity which can pass from the hand of one owner to that of another. He is himself a commodity, but the labour-power is not his commodity. The serf sells only a part of his labour-power. He does not receive a wage from the owner of the land; rather the owner of the land who receives a tribute from him.” (p 21)
No comments:
Post a Comment