The question of the relation between complex and simple labour cannot be reduced to the question of the relation between the value of skilled labour-power to unskilled labour-power, therefore, any more than the creation of new value per se can be reduced to the value of labour-power.
“Do these kinds of compound labour produce, in the same interval of time, the same commodity values as simple labour, the expenditure of pure and simple labour-power? Obviously not. The product of one hour of compound labour is a commodity of a higher value — double or treble — in comparison with the product of one hour of simple labour. The value of the products of compound labour is expressed in definite quantities of simple labour through this comparison; but this reduction of compound labour is established by a social process which goes on behind the backs of the producers, by a process which can only be stated at this point in the development of the theory of value, but not as yet explained.” (p 253)
This statement is the most explicit rejection of the idea that compound v simple labour can be reduced to the value of skilled v unskilled labour-power. If it were the case that the relation between complex and simple labour is simply the relation between skilled and unskilled labour-power, then it could be easily explained, and objectively measured. And, given that the value of labour-power is manifest, assumes the phenomenal form of wages, it would only be necessary to compare skilled wages with unskilled wages to determine the relation between simple and complex labour! But, that is not the basis, there is no such relation, and, as Marx says, this elation between complex and simple labour is only established a posteriori, in the process of the exchange of commodities, and comparison of the labour that produced them.
The reason it cannot be explained, “at this point in the development of the theory of value”, is that this comparison, a posteriori, in the market, involves an analysis of competition, and that analysis of competition, involves an analysis not just of supply/production, but, also of demand/consumption, which involves a theory of consumer behaviour and preferences, which extends into the realm of psychology. As Marx put it, in The Grundrisse,
“Here a great confusion: (1) This identity of supply, so that it is a demand measured by its own amount, is true only to the extent that it is exchange value = to a certain amount of objectified labour. To that extent it is the measure of its own demand -- as far as value is concerned. But, as such a value, it first has to be realized through the exchange for money, and as object of exchange for money it depends (2) on its use value, but as use value it depends on the mass of needs present for it, the demand for it. But as use value it is absolutely not measured by the labour time objectified in it, but rather a measuring rod is applied to it which lies outside its nature as exchange value.”
As Engels noted, if we take some other form of society, for example, one based on direct production, the matter is different. Marx makes this point in describing The Law of Value in relation to Robinson Crusoe, in Capital I. For Crusoe, his labour, however he applies it, is his labour. It does not matter whether he spends 1 hour catching rabbits, or an hour catching fish. The value of the product of that labour is the same in each case. He only has to determine whether he obtains greater use-value/utility from the expenditure of that hour in the one activity rather than the other. Here, as with all such direct production, value takes the form of individual value, inextricably tied to use-value in the product.
But, that is not the case when we come to commodity production and exchange, precisely because, although individual value continues to exist, for each producer, competition subsumes these individual values within one mean average market value. It is, then, this market value that is determinant. It forms the basis of comparison of each type of commodity with another, which takes the form of exchange-value, and, in a money economy, of its price.
“Because of his complete confusion he mistakes the value of commodities, with the study of which Marx was alone occupied in the first instance, for “the natural cost of production”, which makes the confusion still worse confounded, and even for “absolute value”, which to our our knowledge has nowhere had currency in political economy up to now. But whatever Herr Dühring may understand by the natural cost of production, and whichever of his five kinds of value may have the honour to represent absolute value, this much at least is sure: Marx is discussing none of these things, but only the value of commodities; and in the whole section of Capital dealing with value there is not the slightest indication of whether or to what extent Marx considers this theory of the value of commodities also applicable to other forms of society.” (p 254)
No comments:
Post a Comment