Four Lectures on Marxism. Paul M. Sweezy

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ by a process of primitive accumulation, varying from case to case in significant respects but always identical in content. In an important sense this is the key to world history from the sixteenth century on.

      No understanding of capitalism is possible without an understanding of capital. This is as true today as it was a hundred years ago and as true of capitalism on a local or regional scale as it is of capitalism on a national or global scale. Here Marx’s exposition of the theory as presented in the first volume of Capital is as valid as ever and has never been surpassed. For present purposes we shall have to be content with the briefest possible summary.

      We follow Marx in using a comparison between the circulation processes of simple commodity production (in which producers own their own means of production and satisfy their needs by exchanging products against those of other similarly situated producers) and capitalist production (in which the means of production are owned by capitalists). In simple commodity production, the producer goes to market with a commodity C, exchanges it for money M, and in turn buys other commodities C that are required for the satisfaction of producers’ families’ needs. Symbolically, this process can be represented by the formula C-M-C where the first C stands for a specific commodity being marketed by the producer, the M for the money the producer gets in exchange, and the second C for the bundle of useful commodities he buys with the money. Here we are obviously talking about a system of production for use, though the link is indirect: producers do not use their own products (or at least by no means all of them), but all the same their purpose in producing is to satisfy their needs, not to add to their wealth.

      Matters are radically different when we come to capitalism, a society in which those who do the actual producing own no means of production, are unable to initiate and direct a process of production, and hence must sell their labor power to capitalists who do own means of production and therefore control the processes of production. Here the defining formula C—M—C must be replaced by its “opposite,” M—C—M. What this symbolizes is that the capitalist who initiates the process of production starts with money M. With this, the capitalist purchases commodities C, consisting of means of production and labor power which are transformed through a process of production into finished commodities ready for sale. When the sale has been completed, the capitalist is left once again with money: the circuit is closed. This does not mean, however, that the C—M—C circuit is absent from or irrelevant to capitalism. Under capitalism the commodity labor power that the capitalist buys is not produced by capitalists but rather is produced within the working-class household and is possessed by the workers as a use value. But lacking means of production, they are unable to turn this use value into what they need in order to live and reproduce. They are therefore obliged to treat it as a commodity C that they sell to capitalists for money M, and with this in turn they buy other commodities C that possess for them a greater use value. This then is a C—M—C circuit formally identical to that which characterizes simple commodity production. The difference is that in simple commodity production the workers use their own labor power and means of production to produce commodities that they sell for money, while under capitalism they sell their labor power directly to capitalists for money.

      Wherever the C—M—C circuit obtains, the first and last terms can be, and indeed normally are expected to be, quantitatively equal, i.e., to have the same exchange value. The rationale of the operation lies not in the realm of exchange value but in that of use value: for simple commodity producers, the C at the end has greater use value than the C at the beginning, and it is this increase in use value that motivates their behavior. Nothing of the sort exists in the M—C—M case. The first and last terms are both money, qualitatively homogeneous and lacking use value of its own. It follows that if the two M’s are also quantitatively equal, the operation totally lacks a rationale: no capitalist is going to lay out money and organize a process of production in order to end up with the same amount of money possessed at the outset. We can therefore rewrite the formula as M—C—M′ where M′ = M + ∆ M. Here ∆ M represents more money, or as Marx called it, surplus value (Mehrwert).

      Before going any further we should ask where this surplus value comes from. Marx’s answer—and here he was following a line of reasoning pioneered by the classical economists, especially David Ricardo—was that the value of labor power (which he identified with the value of the worker’s means of subsistence) measured in hours of work is less than what the worker produces also measured in hours of work. Or, to put the point in other terms, that a part of the working day replaces the value of what the worker consumes, while the remainder of the working day produces surplus value. Thus if the working day is ten hours and it takes workers five hours to produce a value equivalent to their daily consumption, they will produce five hours’ worth of surplus value for the capitalist. Marx called the first five hours “necessary labor” and the second five hours “surplus labor,” and the ratio of surplus labor to necessary labor (in this case 100 percent) he called the “rate of exploitation” or, translated into value terms, the “rate of surplus value.” Note that, other things remaining equal, if the length of the working day is increased, the worker produces more surplus value for the capitalist and the rate of surplus value is raised. Marx called this the production of “absolute surplus value.” Conversely, and once again assuming everything else remains equal, if the productivity of workers is increased (through introduction of machinery, reorganization of the work process, speed-up) and the time required to produce their subsistence thereby reduced, the proportion of the working day devoted to necessary labor will fall and that devoted to surplus labor will rise. In this case too, the rate of surplus value will go up. Marx called this the production of “relative surplus value.”

      Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

      Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

      Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

      Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEBLAEsAAD/4gpQSUNDX1BST0ZJTEUAAQEAAApAQURCRQIQAABtbnRyUkdC IFhZWiAH3QACAAQADwAuACVhY3NwTVNGVAAAAABERUxMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9tYAAQAA AADTLURFTEzJFTn7wpcqCm3hX9wrKzASAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAApk ZXNjAAAA/AAAAIRjcHJ0AAABgAAAADh3dHB0AAABuAAAABRyWFlaAAABzAAAABRnWFlaAAAB4AAA ABRiWFlaAAAB9AAAABRyVFJDAAACCAAACAxnVFJDAAACCAAACAxiVFJDAAACCAAACAxjaGFkAAAK FAAAACxkZXNjAAAAAAAAACpERUxMIFAyMzE0SCBDb2xvciBQcm9maWxlLCBENjUwMAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

СКАЧАТЬ