The failure to distinguish between labour as the essence and measure of value, and labour-power, which is a use-value, and, under capitalism, sold, by the worker as a commodity, leads to several errors. It leads to the nonsensical idea of “the value of labour”, whereas labour has no value. What has value is not labour but labour-power. The value of labour-power is determined by the labour-time required for its reproduction, i.e. to reproduce the labourer. Labour itself has no value. It is not a thing, but a process, it is the creator and measure of value. Not only are labour and labour-power two completely different things, but they have no necessary relation to each other.
The value of labour-power may be relatively high, and yet the labour performed by the supplier of that labour-power may produce relatively little new value. For example, a labourer in an undeveloped economy, where productivity is low, will need to spend a large part of the day just to reproduce their own labour-power, even though their standard of living may be low compared to that of workers in a developed economy, where productivity is high.
By equating labour-power with labour, and the value of labour-power with the value created by labour, the fallacy is created that the value of commodities is, thereby, determined by the value of labour-power, or its phenomenal form – wages. This is the basis of the false claim by vulgar and bourgeois economists that wage rises cause price rises, also falsely presented as “inflation”.
Another aspect of this is in relation to simple and complex labour. Marx described simple labour as that unskilled, factory labour that anyone can perform. The most obvious expression of that is machine-minding labour. It does not matter whether the machine being minded is one that automatically spins yarn, weaves cloth, or produces envelopes. The labourer is there only to feed the raw material into it, clean it periodically, and ensure it is working. Consequently, a labourer can move from minding a spinning machine to minding an envelope producing machine with no significant additional requirement for skill or training.
That does not mean that every worker engaged in such activity is the same, or that their labour produces the same amount of new value. Even with this simple labour, some workers will be more adept at feeding the machine and so on, so that, in the course of a day, one may produce more than another. But, taken in aggregate, it is this simple labour that forms the basis of the measurement of the new value created.
But, clearly, not all labour performed is of this type. There is, also, skilled and semi-skilled labour. A carpenter does not mind machines. They use tools, and rely on their own acquired skill to produce furniture, construct doors, roof structures and so on. Their labour is not only, clearly, different to that of the machine minder, but, also, that of other skilled labourers, for example, that of the engineer or jeweller. Not only is it not possible for a carpenter to just become an engineer or jeweller, but the value created by their labour is, also, not directly comparable to, or reducible to that created by the labour of the engineer or jeweller. And yet this comparison does take place, and must take place, in order that the value of the products of these different types of labour can be determined, and so the basis of their exchange as commodities is established.
Nor is this a function of the value of their labour-power, any more than the value created by simple labour is determined by the value of the labour-power of the machine minder. The value of the labour-power of a carpenter, engineer or jeweller may be higher than that of a machine minder, because they require additional time and training to acquire their skills. Yet, the value of the labour-power of a carpenter, engineer and jeweller may still be the same, whilst the value of the product of their labour may be entirely different. It is only when these different types of skilled labour confront each other, as commodities, in the market, that these actual relative proportions can be determined.
No comments:
Post a Comment