Political Econ of Growth. Paul A. Baran

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ economic surplus.

      It hardly needs stressing that the waste resulting from unemployment is neither an exclusively American phenomenon nor of merely historical interest. It can be readily observed at the present time, and it has been characteristic of the entire history of capitalism everywhere. While its magnitude has been different in different countries at different times, it always depressed total output considerably below what it could have been in a rationally organized society. Nor is the impact of unemployment adequately expressed in any measure of output foregone. No one can estimate the benefits to society that might have been realized, if the energy, the ability to work, the creative genius of the millions of unemployed had been harnessed for productive ends.

      IV

      If the potential economic surplus is a category of considerable scientific interest for the understanding of the irrationality of the capitalist order, and of major practical significance to a capitalist society under emergency conditions or facing the necessity of economic development, the planned economic surplus is relevant only to comprehensive economic planning under socialism. It is the difference between society’s “optimum” output attainable in a historically given natural and technological environment under conditions of planned “optimal” utilization of all available productive resources, and some chosen “optimal” volume of consumption. The meaning and contents of the “optimum” involved are essentially different from those attached to this notion in bourgeois economics. They do not reflect a configuration of production and consumption determined by profit considerations of individual firms, by the income distribution, tastes, and social pressures of a capitalist order; they represent a considered judgment of a socialist community guided by reason and science. Thus as far as resource utilization is concerned, it implies a far-reaching rationalization of society’s productive apparatus (liquidation of inefficient units of production, maximal economies of scale, etc.), elimination of redundant product differentiation, abolition of unproductive labor (as previously defined), a scientific policy of conservation of human and natural resources, and the like.

      Nor does this “optimum” presuppose the maximization of output that might be attainable in a country at any given time. It may well be associated with a less than maximum output in view of a voluntarily shortened labor day, of an increase in the amount of time devoted to education, or of conscious discarding of certain noxious types of production (coal mining, for example). What is crucial is that the volume of output would not be determined by the fortuitous outcome of a number of uncoordinated decisions on the part of individual businessmen and corporations, but by a rational plan expressing what society would wish to produce, to consume, to save, and to invest at any given time.²⁸

      Furthermore the “optimum” husbandry of resources in a socialist economy does not call by any means for reduction of consumption to merely what is essential. It can and will go together with a level of consumption that is considerably higher than what the criterion of essentiality might suggest. Again, what is decisive is that the level of consumption and therefore also the volume of the actually generated surplus would not be determined by the mechanism of profit maximization but by a rational plan reflecting the society’s preference as to current consumption versus future consumption. Therefore the economic surplus under socialism may be smaller or larger than the actual economic surplus under capitalism, or may even be equal to zero if society should choose to refrain from net investment. It would depend on the stage that has been reached in the historical process, on the degree of development of productive resources, on the structure and growth of human needs.

      So much about our primitive tools. Now let us try to use them on some historical material.

      ¹ It comprises obviously a lesser share of total output than that encompassed by Marx’s notion of surplus value. The latter, it will be recalled, consists of the entire difference between aggregate net output and the real income of labor. The “actual economic surplus” as defined above is merely that part of surplus value that is being accumulated; it does not include, in other words, the consumption of the capitalist class, the government’s spending on administration, military establishment, and the like.

      ² While it need not detain us at this point, it is worth bearing in mind that from the standpoint of economic development it is most important whether the actual economic surplus assumes the form of capital goods increasing productivity, or appears as additions to inventories or gold hoards only tenuously, if at all, related to the “strengthening of society’s technical arm.”

      ³ This also refers to a different quantity of output than what would represent surplus value in Marx’s sense. On one hand, it excludes such elements of surplus value as what was called above essential consumption of capitalists, what could be considered essential outlays on government administration and the like; on the other hand, it comprises what is not covered by the concept of surplus value—the output lost in view of underemployment or misemployment of productive resources.

      ⁴ The labor of some of the most respectable orders in the society, is like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value.… The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive laborers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part Of the annual produce of the industry of other people.… In the same class must be ranked … churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds: players, musicians, opera singers, opera dancers, etc.…” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Modern Library ed.), p. 295.

      “When the annual productions of a country more than replace its annual consumption, it is said to increase its capital; when its annual consumption is not at least replaced by its annual production, it is said to diminish its capital. Capital may, therefore, be increased by an increased production or by a diminished unproductive consumption.” Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (Everyman’s Library ed.), p. 150.

      ⁵ Marx, Theories of Surplus Value (London, 1951), p. 177.

      ⁶ J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York, 1950), p. 143.

      ⁷ Capital (Kerr ed.), Vol. I, p. 668.

      ⁸ “The function of economic institutions is to organize economic life in conformity with the community’s wishes … the efficiency of economic organization will … be judged by its conformity to the community’s preferences.” T. Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition (Chicago, 1951), p. 5.

      ⁹ For instance Professor Scitovsky—one of the most authoritative writers in the field—observes: … if we begin questioning the consumer’s ability to decide what is good for him, we embark on a road on which it is difficult to stop, and we may end up by throwing overboard the whole concept of consumers’ sovereignty.” Op. cit., p. 184. In actual fact, what is at issue is not the “concept of consumers’ sovereignty” but merely the unhistorical, apologetic version of that concept that underlies bourgeois economics.

      ¹⁰ The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor works with some notion of “essential consumption” in compiling its cost of living index. The Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics at the University of California employs similar concepts. Food, housing, and medical requirements for various countries have been studied by the United Nations, by the Food and Agriculture Organization and other agencies, and represent a most important field for further investigations. Cf. Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO Nutritional Studies No. 5, Caloric Requirements (Washington, June 1950); National Research Council, Reprint and Circular Series, Recommended Dietary Allowances (Washington, 1948); United Nations, Housing and Town and Country Planning (1949–1950), as well as the material referred to in these sources.

      ¹¹ СКАЧАТЬ