Modern Imperialism, Monopoly Finance Capital, and Marx's Law of Value. Samir Amin

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of precapitalist ideology (alienation in nature) and capitalist ideology (market alienation), and (b) the different relations between base and superstructure, with dominance by the ideological instance in all the precapitalist modes and, contrariwise, direct domination by the economic base in capitalist mode. Thereby I have related the appearance of “economic laws,” and so of “economic science,” to the capitalist mode.

      Bourgeois economic science (neoclassical, i.e., vulgar, economics) tries to grasp these laws directly, on the basis of what is immediately obvious. It therefore takes capital for what it seems to the capitalist to be, that is, a factor of production, productive in itself, with labor as another factor of production.

      6. IS AN EMPIRICIST APPROACH TO ACCUMULATION POSSIBLE?

      The strictly empiricist philosophical mind-set of the Anglo-Saxon world, transmitted to all contemporary vulgar economics, means that only observable facts (“prices,” such as they are) count toward the direct deduction of “laws” allowing one to understand the mechanisms of the reproduction of the system and of its expansion. For the “professional” economist, an empiricist and nothing but an empiricist, a detour by way of value is burdensome and useless.

      One might confine oneself to replying that to understand capitalism means not only to understand its economic laws but also to understand the link between these laws and the general conditions of social reproduction, that is, the way its ideological instance functions in relation to its base. The concept of value is a key concept, enabling one to grasp this reality in its full richness. Those who carry out the reduction, which I here condemn, always end up by conceiving socialism as nothing but “capitalism without capitalists.”

      However, this argument, though sound, is not the only one available. We will, in fact, see that the empiricist treatment of the question, which “economizes” that “burdensome and useless detour” (for it) by directly apprehending reality as expressed in “market prices,” loses itself in a blind alley.

      7. SRAFFA’S SCHEMA

      In Sraffa’s model the productive system is given (the quantities of each commodity, 1, 2, … i, … n, and the techniques used to produce them, including the inputs of direct labor), as is the real wage (the quantity of various goods that the hourly wage enables the wage earner to buy). Consequently, the relative prices and the rate of profit are determined in static equilibrium. The difference between the two methods is situated on two planes, which must be carefully distinguished: (a) the substitution of prices for values; and (b) the adoption of a system of production with n branches instead of the two departments specializing in the production, respectively, of equipment goods and of consumer goods.

      Let us assume that there are two lines of production, (1) and (2), each of which produces both producer goods and consumer goods, and that a_ij = the coefficients of inputs necessary for the production of these goods, p₁and p₂ = their unit prices; w = the wage rate (the quantities of labor being assigned by the coefficients a₀₁ and a₀₂); and r = the rate of profit. We then have:

      To this system corresponds the following system of values:

      Let it be remembered that since the two products (1) and (2) are not destined by nature, one for use as equipment and the other for consumption, this system does not describe an equilibrium of supply and demand for each department. The conditions for that equilibrium, which are assumed to be achieved, are external to the model.

      We define two parameters of improvement in productivity, π₁ and π₂, specific to each of the branches (1) and (2). Let us assume, for simplicity, that it is the same, π, in both cases. Let us go on to assume that the system of values for Phase 1 is as follows:

      from which we get:

      Assuming that the same quantity of direct labor becomes capable of setting to work twice as much equipment and raw material and, for simplicity, in the same proportions aij so as to provide twice the quantity of end products (that is, if π = 0.5), we have for Phase 2:

      from which we get:

      The table below will then show the evolution of the system of values obtained with the same global quantity of labor, left unchanged.

      The results, meaning the increase in the net product (from 1.00 to 2.00) are independent of distribution (no assumptions having been made regarding wages or the rate of profit).

	Phase 1	Phase 2
Production	1.0v1 + 1.0v2 = 2.45	2.0v′1 + 2.0v′2 = 4.92
– Productive consumption	0.7v1 + 0.5v2 = 1.45	1.4v′1 + 1.0v′2 = 2.92
= Net Product	0.3v1 + 0.5v2 = 1.00	0.6v′1 + 1.0v′2 = 2.00

      Rising productivity can be expressed by falling prices while nominal incomes remain unchanged or by nominal incomes’ increases with unchanged unit prices. Here prices are doubled:

      If, however, we examine the evolution of a system expressed in prices, we have to introduce an assumption regarding the way income is distributed.

      The previous system, expressed in price terms, namely:

      completed by an assumption regarding wages, e.g., that:

      can be reduced to a system of “production of commodities by means of commodities only” which here is as follows:

      the solutions of which are:

      For the next phase the system becomes:

      The results (relative prices and rate of profit) will depend on the way that wages evolve. If we assume an unchanged real wage, that is, if

СКАЧАТЬ