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

Чтение книги онлайн.

      the solutions of which are p′₁/p′₂ = 0.98, from which we get the comparative table, established in price terms, given below:

      It will be noted that comparison between the two phases is obscured by the fact that the solution of the system gives relative prices, p₁/p₂ and p′₁/p′₂, which differ according to the evolution of wages. We do know, from our assumption, that the system of Phase 2 will enable us to obtain, with the same total quantity of labor, twice as much physical product (use-values) from (1) and (2). But if we assume p₁ = p′₁ = 1, we have p₂ unequal to p′₂, since p₁/p₂ and p′₁/p′₂ both depend on the way distribution takes place. Here p₂ = 1.08 and p′₂ = 1.02.

      The net product, which is the measurement of the growth in value that is independent of distribution (in my model, this net product increases in value terms from 1.00 to 2.00), here increases from 0.84 to 1.62 (a growth rate of 93 percent) when we analyze the evolution of the system in price terms, with the given assumption regarding wages.

      It is because of these uncertainties in measurement of the development of the productive forces in price terms that we should prefer models constructed in terms of value, the only certain standard.

      The major defect of analysis in price terms compared with analysis in terms of value is not due to the “open” character of Sraffa’s model (meaning that the dynamic equilibrium of supply and demand for each product—equipment goods and consumer goods—is not formulated as an internal condition of the model but simply assumed to be related externally), in contrast to the “closed” (full circle) character of Marx’s model (in which the equilibrium in question is formalized in the model itself). This defect is due to the substitution of prices, which depend on distribution, for values, which do not so depend. This means that the concept of improvement in the productivity of labor (as the measure of the development of the productive forces), which is perfectly objective in Marx’s practice (it does not depend on the rate of surplus-value), is no longer objective in Sraffa’s model or in any other model constructed in price terms.

      Furthermore, the Sraffian framework does not lend itself to analysis of the conditions for dynamic equilibrium, since, unlike Marx’s framework, it is not concerned with the equilibrium of supply and demand for each type of product. It is therefore impossible to deduce from it the propositions set out above concerning expanded reproduction. What it offers is a meager empirical model, which serves at best to describe an evolution that has been observed, but not to infer from this any laws of evolution.

      A system defined directly in price terms is also perfectly determined—in the sense that relative prices and the rate of profit are determined—once the rate of real wages is given.

      But then there arises the question of a standard, which Sraffa, in the Ricardian tradition, defines like this: is there a standard that would leave the net product unchanged while distribution (w or r) changed independently? The answer to this question is no. Let us see why this is so.

      Sraffa does not analyze the system as Marx does. He excludes labor-power from the productive process, in order to consider wages not as the value of labor-power but as a distribution category. This is why he describes the system in the following form:

      He further proposes, as we know, that we select as our standard the price of the net product:

      With this standard, r and w are in a linear relationship that is independent of p₁ and p₂:

      With this standard, r and w are in a linear relationship, whereas any arbitrarily chosen standard gives a relationship between r and w that is neither linear nor monotonic, and is described by a curve (see graph on opposite page).

      But is this standard any better than others? Not so at all: (a) because this standard presupposes Sraffa’s treatment of wages: if the wage is integrated in the productive process as variable capital, the standard varies when w varies: it is no longer independent of prices; (b) because, even in Sraffa’s formulation, since the net product changes with the passage of time (the result of growth), the standard is not independent of prices but is elastic.

      If then we reintegrate w in the productive process, as we should, whatever the standard being used, we get three equations and four unknowns (p₁, p₂, r, and w). It is still possible to express r as a function of w, but the relation is no longer linear, nor even of necessity a monotonic decreasing one.

      The fundamental question underlying the dispute over whether to choose value as the standard, or something else, is that of how to measure, precisely and objectively, the progress of the productive forces.

      The value standard, on the other hand, enables us to measure the progress of the productive forces from one phase to another; that was why Marx chose it.

      It is not fair to Marx to reduce his proposition that value should be chosen as the standard of prices to the argument that this standard “works”—that is, that with it transformation is possible. The debate on transformation remains secondary, and however much ink it has caused to flow, it is in no sense primordial.

      Marx was actually seeking an instrument by which the development of the productive forces could be measured. This instrument is value. In fact, the quantity of socially necessary labor is, in the last analysis, society’s only “wealth”—and value is independent of distribution.

      This value standard means comparing the progress from one system (0) to another—(1), (2), etc.—along the Y-axis w. Along this axis r = 0, and wages w absorb the entire net product. The system that maximizes w for r = 0 maximizes income, or else minimizes the socially necessary labor time needed to produce a given amount of use-values. It corresponds, СКАЧАТЬ