Engels mocks Duhring's argument, which implies that, in his future socialist commune, this social division of labour would continue.
“A fine sort of socialism that would be—perpetuating professional porters!” (p 257)
He, then, elaborates why Duhring's claim of equivalence is wrong.
“If the equivalence of labour-time. means that each worker produces equal values in equal periods of time without there being any need to take an average first, then this is obviously wrong. If we take two workers, even in the same branch of industry, the value they produce in one hour of labour-time will always vary with the intensity of their labour and their skill — not even an economic commune, at any rate on our planet, can remedy this evil, which, in any case is only an evil for people like Dühring.” (p 257)
The only thing left, then, of Duhring's argument is “... the purely braggart phrase, which has no other economic foundation than Herr Dühring's incapacity to distinguish between the determination of value by labour and the determination of value by wages—nothing but the ukase, the basic law of the new economic commune, equal wages for equal labour-time! Indeed, the old French communist workers and Weitling had much better reasons for their equality of wages.” (p 257)
This same argument, put forward by Duhring, was encountered in The Poverty of Philosophy, as proposed by Proudhon. It is the argument of the petty-bourgeois, moral socialists. Engels turns to the question of how to explain the higher wages of those that supply the complex labour. As described earlier, the starting point is not the higher value of this labour-power/wages, but is the higher value of the product of this labour. This higher value creates a demand for that type of labour. Suppose the labour of a carpenter produces twice as much new value, in an hour, as that of simple labour. In all these examples, by discussing “new” value, we, thereby, exclude the value of constant capital, which is simply preserved and transferred to the product.
To put a monetary amount on it, the complex labour of the carpenter produces a new value of, say, £100, in an hour, where that of simple labour produces a new value of only £50. If the carpenter is paid wages of only £20, the same as that of the provider of simple labour, the rate of surplus value, in the former sphere would be 300%, as against 100% in the latter. As Marx describes, in Capital III, even assuming just commodity production and exchange, i.e. a condition prior to capitalist production, this would lead to an increase the amount of labour engaged in carpentry, until the supply of these commodities reduced their prices, and the rate of surplus value was reduced in that sphere. Under capitalism, that also implies an increased demand for the labour-power of carpenters, which raises their wages, also, thereby, equalising the rate of surplus value.
But, in both cases, what, then, also determines the wages paid to the carpenters? The fact that the market places a higher value on the product of their labour creates the potential for them to be paid higher wages, but it was the mistake of Carey in believing that this potential is itself sufficient to bring about the higher wages. Capitalists do not engage in production on some kind of altruistic basis, but to maximise profits, and if they can avoid paying such higher wages, they will do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment