Engels moves from the question of mathematics to the real world, which that mathematics is intended to model, and analyse. H takes a process occurring in front of everyone's eyes, of the development of a grain of barley. Used as seed, rather than consumed, the seed, provided it has the necessary conditions, germinates, and grows into a barley plant, which, itself, may have 30 grains of barley.
“the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the grain. But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and as soon as these have ripened the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have the original grain of barley once again, but not as a single unit, but ten-, twenty- or thirtyfold.” (p 172-3)
If course, when Engels says “we have the original grain of barley once again”, he does not mean this literally, but that we have grains of barley, identical for all intents and purposes, to the original seed. It s the same point made by Marx in Capital and Theories of Surplus Value, that when we talk about commodities and their value, i.e. their market value, we mean commodities of the same type. even though, it is quite clear that, as use-values, each individual commodity unit differs from every other, i.e. it is unique. Similarly, when Marx talks about reproduction of capital, he talks about the reproduction/replacement of the individual commodities/use-values that physically comprise it, “on a like for like basis”. It is this simple reproduction that must be understood, and which forms the basis of expanded reproduction. In the case of the grain of barley, expanded reproduction takes the form of, now, not just one seed being planted, out of the 30 produced, with 29 being consumed, but of only 20 being consumed, with 10 planted as seed, now producing, in turn, 300 grains.
Of course, grains of barley, do not remain the same as physical use-values either, especially, where agriculture intervenes to select the most productive seeds. Marx also described that, in Capital. Originally, it might be typical for a grain of barley, used as seed, to produce, on average, only 10 grains. But, by selecting, as seeds, grains from those plants that produced the most grains, or, say, the largest grains, the nature of the seeds, and resultant barley plants is itself changed. Instead of the average number of grains per plant being 10, it is increased to say, 20. So, now, even just for a simple reproduction of the amount of grain output, only half the number of seeds is required to be planted.
Again, Marx sets this out in Capital III, Chapter 49, in relation to such a simple reproduction of capital, “on a like for like basis”.
“In so far as reproduction obtains on the same scale, every consumed element of constant capital must be replaced in kind by a new specimen of the same kind, if not in quantity and form, then at least in effectiveness.”
No two Mars Bars are actually identical, in their physical composition, or their individual value, but, in terms of that use-value, and their market value, they are taken as identical, because each acts as a representative of its species. It is where the TSSI is ridiculous in claiming that “you cannot build the house of today with the bricks of tomorrow”. In terms of their use-value, the bricks of tomorrow, required to replace the bricks used in building the house of today, are identical, and it is this use-value that must be replaced “in kind by a new specimen of the same kind, if not in quantity and form, then at least in effectiveness.” And, for that reason, in examining how the value of the house built today, resolves into constant capital, wages and profits, it is the value of these replacement bricks that is determinant, not the historical cost of the bricks already consumed and that need to be replaced, for the capital to be reproduced. It is why Marx insists that the value of the commodity is based on its current reproduction cost, not historical prices. As he sets out in Capital III, Chapter 49,
“If the productiveness of labour remains the same, then this replacement in kind implies replacing the same value which the constant capital had in its old form. But should the productiveness of labour increase, so that the same material elements may be reproduced with less labour, then a smaller portion of the value of the product can completely replace the constant part in kind. The excess may then be employed to form new additional capital or a larger portion of the product may be given the form of articles of consumption, or the surplus-labour may be reduced. On the other hand, should the productiveness of labour decrease, then a larger portion of the product must be used for the replacement of the former capital, and the surplus-product decreases.”
Otherwise, you end up with the same error as Ramsay, set out by Marx, in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 22, where you confuse capital gains and losses with profit/surplus value, and so destroying the Labour Theory of Value, because if profit is greater than surplus value from labour, labour cannot be the only source of surplus value, or of value. As Marx puts it,
“...if we only know that the profit depends on the ratio of the surplus to these outlays, then we can acquire the most inaccurate notions about the origin of this surplus, for example we can, like Ramsay, imagine that it originates in part in fixed (constant) capital.”
Indeed, Engels directly addresses this question, saying,
“Species of grain change extremely slowly, and so the barley of today is almost the same as it was a century ago.” (p 173)
No comments:
Post a Comment