I. The Theory of Value and
Surplus Value
In the last analysis, every
step forward in the history of civilization has been brought
about by an increase in the productivity of labor. As long as a
given group of men barely produced enough to keep itself alive,
as long as there was no surplus over and above this necessary
product, it was impossible for a division of labor to take place
and for artisans, artists or scholars to make their appearance.
Under these conditions, the technical prerequisites for such
specialization could not possibly be attained.
Social Surplus Product
As long as the productivity of
labor remains at a level where one man can only produce enough
for his own subsistence, social division does not take
place and any social differentiation within society is
impossible. Under these conditions, all men are producers and
they are all on the same economic level.
Every increase in the
productivity of labor beyond this low point makes a small
surplus possible, and once there is a surplus of products, once
man’s two hands can produce more than is needed for his own
subsistence, then the conditions have been set for a struggle
over how this surplus will be shared.
From this point on, the total
output of a social group no longer consists solely of labor
necessary for the subsistence of the producers. Some of this
labor output may now be used to release a section of society
from having to work for its own subsistence.
Whenever this situation arises,
a section of society can become a ruling class, whose
outstanding characteristic is its emancipation from the need of
working for its own subsistence.
Thereafter, the labor of the
producers can be divided into two parts. A part of this labor
continues to be used for the subsistence of the producers
themselves and we call this part necessary labor; the
other part is used to maintain the ruling class and we give it
the name surplus labor.
Let us illustrate this by the
very clear example of plantation slavery, as it existed in
certain regions and periods of the Roman Empire, or as we find
it in the West Indies and the islands of Portuguese Africa
starting with the seventeenth century, on the great plantations
which were established there. In these tropical areas, even the
slave’s food was generally not provided by the master; the
slave had to produce this himself by working a tiny plot of
ground on Sundays and the products from this labor constituted
his store of food. On six days of the week the slave worked on
the plantation and received in return none of the products of
his labor. This is the labor which creates a social surplus
product, surrendered by the slave as soon as it is produced and
belonging solely to the slavemaster.
The work week, which in this
case is seven days, can be divided into two parts: the work of
one day, Sunday, constitutes necessary labor, that labor which
provides the products for the subsistence of the slave and his
family; the work of the other six days is surplus labor and all
of its products go to the master, are used for his sustenance
and his enrichment as well.
The great domains of the early
Middle Ages furnish us with another illustration. The land of
these domains was divided into three parts: the communal lands
consisting of forest, meadows, swamps, etc.; the land worked by
the serf for his own and his family’s subsistence; and
finally, the land worked by the serf in order to maintain the
feudal lord. The work week during this period was usually six
days, not seven. It was divided into two equal parts: the serf
worked three days on the land from which the yield belonged to
him; the other three days he worked on the feudal lord’s land,
without remuneration, supplying free labor to the ruling class.
The products of each of these
two very different types of labor can be defined in different
terms. When the producer is performing necessary labor, he is
producing a necessary product. When he is performing
surplus labor, he is producing a social surplus product.
Thus, social surplus product is
that part of social production which is produced by the laboring
class but appropriated by the ruling class, regardless of the
form the social surplus product may assume, whether this be one
of natural products, or commodities to be sold, or money.
Surplus value is
simply the monetary form of the social surplus product. When the
ruling class appropriates the part of society’s production
previously defined as “surplus product” exclusively in the
monetary form, then we use the term “surplus value” instead
of “surplus product.”
As we shall see later on,
however, the above only constitutes a preliminary approach to
the definition of surplus value.
How does social surplus product
come into existence? It arises as a consequence of a gratuitous
appropriation, that is, an appropriation without compensation,
by a ruling class of a part of the production of a producing
class. When the slave worked six days a week on a plantation and
the total product of his labor was taken by the master without
any compensation to the slave, the origin of the social surplus
product here is in the gratuitous labor, the uncompensated
labor, supplied by the slave to the master. When the serf worked
three days a week on the lord’s land, the origin of this
income, of this social surplus product, is also to be found in
the uncompensated labor, the gratuitous labor, furnished by the
serf.
We will see further on that the
origin of capitalist surplus value, that is to say, the revenue
of the bourgeois class in capitalist society, is exactly the
same: it is uncompensated labor, gratuitous labor, which the
proletarian, the wage worker, gives the capitalist without
receiving any value in exchange.
Commodities, Use value and
Exchange value
We have now developed several
basic definitions which will be used throughout this exposition.
A number of others must be added at this point.
Every product of human labor
normally possesses utility; it must be able to satisfy a human
need. We may therefore say that every product of human labor has
a use value. The term “use value” will, however, be
used in two different senses. We will speak of the use
value of a commodity; we will also talk about use values, as
when we refer, for example, to a society in which only use
values are produced, that is to say, where products are created
for direct consumption either by the producers themselves or by
ruling classes which appropriate them.
Together with this use value, a
product of human labor can also have another value, an exchange
value. It may be produced for exchange on the market place,
for the purpose of being sold, rather than for direct
consumption by the producers or by wealthy classes. A mass of
products which has been created for the purpose of being sold
can no longer be considered as the production of simple use
values; it is now a production of commodities.
The commodity, therefore, is a
product created to be exchanged on the market, as opposed to one
which has been made for direct consumption. Every commodity
must have both a use value and an exchange value.
It must have a use value or
else nobody would buy it, since a purchaser would be concerned
with its ultimate consumption, with satisfying some want of his
by this purchase. A commodity without a use value to anyone
would consequently be unsaleable, would constitute useless
production, would have no exchange value precisely because it
had no use value.
On the other hand, every
product which has use value does not necessarily have exchange
value. It has an exchange value only to the extent that the
society itself, in which the commodity is produced, is founded
on exchange, is a society where exchange is common practice.
Are there societies where
products do not have exchange value? The basis for exchange
value, and a fortiori for trade and the market place,
is constituted by a given degree of development of the division
of labor. In order for products not to be directly consumed by
their producers, it is essential that everybody should not be
engaged in turning out the same thing. If a particular community
has no division of labor, or only its most rudimentary form,
then it is clear that no reason for exchange exists. Normally, a
wheat farmer has nothing to exchange with another wheat farmer.
But as soon as a division of labor exists, as soon as there is
contact between social groups producing different use values,
then exchange can come about, at first on an occasional basis,
subsequently on a more permanent one. In this way, little by
little, products which are made to be exchanged, commodities,
make their appearance alongside those products which are simply
made for the direct consumption of their producers.
In capitalist society,
commodity production, the production of exchange values, has
reached its greatest development. It is the first society in
human history where the major part of production consists of
commodities. It is not true, however, that all production under
capitalism is commodity production. Two classes of products
still remain simple use value.
The first group consists of all
things produced by the peasantry for its own consumption,
everything directly consumed on the farms where it is produced.
Such production for self-consumption by the farmer exists even
in advanced capitalist countries like the United States,
although it constitutes only a small part of total agricultural
production. In general, the more backward the agriculture of a
country, the greater is the fraction of agricultural production
going for self-consumption. This factor makes it extremely
difficult to calculate the exact national income of such
countries.
The second group of products in
capitalist society which are not commodities but remain simple
use value consists of all things produced in the home. Despite
the fact that considerable human labor goes into this type of
household production, it still remains a production of use
values and not of commodities. Every time a soup is made or a
button sewn on a garment, it constitutes production, but it is
not production for the market.
The appearance of commodity
production and its subsequent regularization and generalization
have radically transformed the way men labor and how they
organize society.
The Marxist Theory of
Alienation
You have no doubt already heard
about the Marxist theory of alienation. The emergence,
regularization and generalization of commodity production are
directly related to the expanding character of this phenomenon
of alienation.
We cannot dwell on this aspect
of the question here but it is extremely important to call
attention to it, since the history of trade covers far more than
the capitalist era. It also includes small-scale
commodity production, which we will discuss later. There is also
a postcapitalist society based on commodities, a transitional
society between capitalism and socialism, such as present-day
Soviet society, for the latter still rests in very large measure
on the foundations of exchange value production. Once we have
grasped certain fundamental characteristics of a society based
on commodities, we can readily see why it is impossible to
surmount certain phenomena of alienation in the transitional
period between capitalism and socialism, as in Soviet society,
for example.
Obviously this phenomenon of
alienation does not exist – at least in the same form – in a
society where commodity production is unknown and where the life
of the individual and his social activity are united in the most
elementary way. Man works, but generally not by himself; most
often he is part of a collective group having a more or less
organic structure. His labor is a direct transformation of
material things. All of this means that labor activity, the act
of production, the act of consumption, and the relations between
the individual and his society are ruled by a condition of
equilibrium which has relative stability and permanence.
We should not, of course,
embellish the picture of primitive society, which was subject to
pressures and periodic catastrophes because of its extreme
poverty. Its equilibrium was constantly endangered by scarcity,
hunger, natural disasters, etc. But in the periods between
catastrophes, especially after agriculture had attained a
certain degree of development and when climatic conditions were
favorable, this kind of society endowed all human activities
with a large degree of unity, harmony and stability.
Such disastrous consequences of
the division of labor as the elimination of all aesthetic
activity, artistic inspiration and creative activity from the
act of production and the substitution of purely mechanical and
repetitive tasks were nonexistent in primitive society. On the
contrary, most of the arts, music, sculpture, painting, the
dance, were originally linked to production, to labor. The
desire to give an attractive and appealing form to products
which were to be used either by the individual, his family, or
larger kinship groups, found a normal, harmonious and organic
expression within the framework of the day’s work.
Labor was not looked upon as an
obligation imposed from without, first of all because it was far
less intense, far less exhausting than under capitalism today.
It conformed more closely to the rhythms of the human organism
as well as to the rhythms of nature. The number of working days
per year rarely exceeded 150 to 200, whereas under capitalism
the figure is dangerously close to 300 and sometimes even
greater. Furthermore, there was a unity between the producer,
his product and its consumption, since he generally produced for
his own use or for those close to him, so that his work
possessed a directly functional aspect. Modern alienation
originates basically in the cleavage between the producer and
his product, resulting both from the division of labor and
commodity production. In other words, it is the consequence of
working for the market, for unknown consumers, instead of for
consumption by the producer himself.
The other side of the picture
is that a society which only produces use values, that is, goods
which will be consumed directly by their producers, has always
in the past been an impoverished society. Not only was it
subject to the hazards of nature but it also had to set very
narrow limits to man’s wants, since these had to conform
exactly to its degree of poverty and limited variety of
products. Not all human wants are innate to man. There is a
constant interaction between production and wants, between the
development of the productive forces and the rise of new wants.
Only in a society where labor productivity will be developed to
its highest point, where an infinite variety of products will be
available, will it be possible for man to experience a
continuous expansion of his wants, a development of his own
unlimited potential, an integrated development of his humanity.
The Law of Value
One of the consequences of the
appearance and progressive generalization of commodity
production is that labor itself begins to take on regular and
measurable characteristics; in other words, it ceases to be an
activity tied to the rhythms of nature and according with
man’s own physiological rhythms.
Up to the nineteenth century
and possibly even into the twentieth, the peasants in various
regions of Western Europe did not work in a regulated way, that
is to say, they did not work with the same intensity every month
of the year. There were periods in the work year when they
worked very hard and other periods, particularly during the
winter, when all activity virtually came to a halt. It was in
the most backward agricultural areas of most of the capitalist
countries that capitalist society, in the course of its
development, found a most attractive source of reserve manpower,
for here was a labor force available for four to six months a
year at much lower wages, in view of the fact that a part of its
subsistence was provided by its agricultural activity.
When we look at the more highly
developed and prosperous farms, those bordering the big cities,
for example, and which are basically on the road to becoming
industrialized, we see that work is much more regular and the
amount of expended labor much greater, being distributed in a
regular way throughout the year, with dead seasons progressively
eliminated. This holds true not only for our times but even as
early as the Middle Ages, at least from the twelfth century on.
The closer we get to the cities, that is to say, to the
marketplace, the more the peasant’s labor becomes labor for
the market, that is to say, commodity production, and the more
regulated and more or less stable his labor becomes, just as if
he were working inside an industrial enterprise.
Expressed another way, the
more generalized commodity production becomes, the greater the
regulation of labor and the more society becomes organized on
the basis of an accounting system founded on labor.
When we examine the already
fairly advanced division of labor within a commune at the
beginning of commercial and craft development in the Middle
Ages, or the collectives in such civilizations as the Byzantine,
Arab, Hindu, Chinese and Japanese, certain common factors
emerge. We are struck by the fact that a very advanced
integration of agriculture and various craft techniques exists
and that regularity of labor is true for the countryside as well
as the city, so that an accounting system in terms of labor, in
labor-hours, has become the force governing all the activity and
even the very structure of the collectives. In the chapter on
the law of value in my Marxist Economic Theory,
I give a whole series of examples of this accounting system in
work-hours. There are Indian villages where a certain caste
holds a monopoly of the blacksmith craft but continues to work
the land at the same time in order to feed itself. The rule
which has been established is this: when a blacksmith is engaged
to make a tool or weapon for a farm, the client supplies the raw
materials and also works the blacksmith’s land during the
whole period that the latter is engaged in making the
implement. Here is a very transparent way of stating that exchange
is governed by an equivalence in work-hours.
In the Japanese villages of the
Middle Ages, an accounting system in work-hours, in the literal
sense of the term, existed inside the village community. The
village accountant kept a kind of great book in which he entered
the number of hours of work done by villagers on each others’
fields, since agriculture was still mainly based on cooperative
labor, with harvesting, farm construction and stock breeding
being done in common. The number of work-hours furnished by the
members of one household to the members of another was very
carefully tallied. At the end of the year, the exchanges had to
balance, that is, the members of household B were required to
have given household A exactly the same number of work-hours
which members of household A had given household B during the
year. The Japanese even refined things to the point – almost a
thousand years ago! – where they took into account that
children provided a smaller quantity of labor than adults, so
that an hour of child labor was “worth” only a half-hour of
adult labor. A whole system of accounting was set up along these
lines.
There is another example which
gives us a direct insight into this accounting system based on
labor-time: the conversion of feudal rent from one form to
another. In feudal society, the agricultural surplus product
could take three different forms: rent in the form of labor (the
corvée), rent in kind, and money rent.
When a change is made from the
corvee to rent in kind, obviously a process of conversion takes
place. Instead of giving the lord three days of labor per week,
the peasant now gives him a certain quantity of wheat,
livestock, etc., on a seasonal basis. A second conversion takes
place in the changeover from rent in kind to money rent.
These two conversions must be
based on a fairly rigorous accounting in work-hours if one of
the two parties does not care to suffer a loss in the process.
For example, if at the time the first conversion was effected,
the peasant gave the lord a quantity of wheat which required
only 75 workdays of labor, whereas previously he had given the
lord 150 workdays of labor in the same year, then this
conversion of labor-rent into rent in kind would result in the
sudden impoverishment of the lord and a rapid enrichment of the
serfs.
The landlords – you can
depend on them! – were careful to see to it when the
conversion was made that the different forms of rent were
closely equivalent. Of course the conversion could eventually
turn out to be a bad one for one of the participating classes,
for example, against the landlords, if a sharp rise in
agricultural prices occurred after rent was converted from rent
in kind to money rent, but such a result would be historical in
character and not directly attributable to the conversion per
se.
The origin of this economy
based on an accounting in labor-time is also clearly apparent in
the division of labor within the village as it existed between
agriculture and the crafts. For a long time the division
remained quite rudimentary. A section of the peasantry continued
to produce part of its own clothing for a protracted historical
period, which in Western Europe extended almost a thousand
years; that is, from the beginning of the medieval cities right
up to the nineteenth century. The technique of making clothing
was certainly no mystery to the cultivator of the soil.
As soon as a regular system of
exchange between the farmer and textile craftsman was
established, standard equivalents were likewise established-for
example, an ell of cloth [a measure varying from 27 to 48
inches] would be exchanged for 10 pounds of butter, not for 100
pounds. Obviously the peasants knew, on the basis of their own
experience, the approximate labor-time needed to produce a given
quantity of cloth. Had there not been a more or less exact
equivalence between the time needed to produce the cloth and the
time needed to produce the butter for which it was exchanged,
there would have been an immediate shift in the division of
labor. If cloth production were more lucrative than butter
production, the butter producers would switch to producing
cloth. Since society here was only at the threshold of
an extreme division of labor, that is to say, it was still at a
point where the boundaries between different techniques were not
clearly marked, the passage from one economic activity to
another was still possible, particularly when striking material
gains were possible by means of such a change.
In the cities of the Middle
Ages as well, a very skilfully calculated equilibrium existed
between the various crafts and was written into the charters
which specified almost to the minute the amount of labor-time
necessary for the production of different articles. It is
inconceivable that under such conditions a shoemaker or
blacksmith might get the same amount of money for a product
which took half the labor-time which a weaver or other artisan
might require in order to get the same amount of money for his
products.
Here again we clearly see the
mechanism of an accounting system in work-hours, a society
functioning on the basis of an economy of labor-time, which is
generally characteristic of the whole phase which we call small-scale
commodity production. This is the phase intervening between
a purely natural economy, in which only use values are produced,
and capitalist society, in which commodity production expands
without limit.
Determination of the
Exchange Value of Commodities
Once we have determined that
the production and exchange of commodities becomes regular and
generalized in a society based on an economy of labor-time, on
an accounting system in work-hours, we can readily understand
why the exchange of commodities, in its origins and inherent
nature, rests on this fundamental basis of an accounting system
in work-hours and consequently follows this general rule: the
exchange value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of
labor necessary to produce it. The quantity of labor is
measured by the length of time it takes to produce the
commodity.
This general definition of the
labor theory of value is the basis of both classical bourgeois
political economy from the seventeenth century to the beginning
of the nineteenth century, from William Petty to Ricardo; and
Marxist economic theory, which took over the theory of labor
value and perfected it. However, the general definition must be
qualified in several respects.
In the first place, not all men
are endowed with the same capacity for work, with the same
strength or the same degree of skill at their trade. If the
exchange value of commodities depended only on the quantity of
labor expended individually, that is, on the quantity
of labor expended by each individual in the production
of a commodity, we would arrive at this absurdity: the lazier or
more incompetent the producer, and the larger the number of
hours he would spend in making a pair of shoes, the greater
would be the value of the shoes!
This is obviously impossible
since exchange value is not a moral reward for mere willingness
to work but an objective bond set up between independent
producers in order to equalize the various crafts in a
society based both on a division of labor and an economy of
labor-time. In such a society wasted labor receives no
compensation; on the contrary, it is automatically penalized.
Whoever puts more time into producing a pair of shoes than the
average necessary hours – an average determined by the average
productivity of labor and recorded in the Guild Charters, for
example! – such a person has wasted human labor, worked to no
avail for a certain number of hours. He will receive nothing in
exchange for these wasted hours.
Expressed another way, the
exchange value of a commodity is not determined by the quantity
of labor expended by each individual producer engaged in the
production of this commodity but by the quantity of labor socially
necessary to produce it. The expression “socially
necessary” means: the quantity of labor necessary under the
average conditions of labor productivity existing in a given
country at a given time.
The above qualification has
very important applications when we examine the functioning of
capitalist society more closely.
Another clarifying statement
must be added here. Just what do we mean by a “quantity of
labor”? Workers differ in their qualifications. Is there
complete equality between one person’s hour of work and
everybody else’s, regardless of such differences in skills?
Once again the question is not a moral one but has to do with
the internal logic of a society based on an equality between
skills, an equality in the marketplace, and where any disruption
of this equality would immediately destroy the social
equilibrium.
What would happen, for example,
if an hour’s work by an unskilled laborer was worth as much as
an hour’s work by a skilled craftsman, who had spent four to
six years as an apprentice in acquiring his skill? Obviously, no
one would want to become skilled. The hours of work spent in
learning a craft would be wasted hours since the craftsman Would
not be compensated for them after becoming qualified.
In an economy founded on an
accounting system of work-hours, the young will desire to become
skilled only if the time lost during their training period is
subsequently paid for. Our definition of the exchange value of a
commodity must therefore be completed as follows: “An hour of
labor by a skilled worker must be considered as complex labor,
as compound labor, as a multiple of an hour of unskilled labor;
the coefficient of multiplication obviously cannot be an
arbitrary one but must be based on the cost of acquiring a given
skill.” It should be pointed out, in passing, that there was
always a certain fuzziness in the prevailing explanation of
compound labor in the Soviet Union under Stalin which has
persisted to this very day. It is claimed that compensation for
work should be based on the quantity and quality of the
work, but the concept of quality is no longer understood in the
Marxist sense of the term, that is to say, as a quality
measurable quantitatively by means of a specific
coefficient of multiplication. On the contrary, the idea of
quality is used in the bourgeois ideological sense, according to
which the quality of labor is supposed to be determined by its
social usefulness, and this is used to justify the incomes of
marshals, ballerinas and industrial managers, which are ten
times higher than the incomes of unskilled laborers. Such a
theory belongs in the domain of apologetics despite its
widespread use to justify the enormous differences in income
which existed under Stalin and continue to exist in the Soviet
Union today, although to a lesser extent.
The exchange value of a
commodity, then, is determined by the quantity of labor socially
necessary for its production, with skilled labor being taken as
a multiple of simple labor and the coefficient of multiplication
being a reasonably measurable quantity.
This is the kernel of the
Marxist theory of value and the basis for all Marxist economic
theory in general. Similarly, the theory of social surplus
product and surplus labor, which we discussed at the beginning
of this work, constitutes the basis for all Marxist sociology
and is the bridge connecting Marx’s sociological and
historical analysis, his theory of classes and the development
of society generally, to Marxist economic theory, and more
precisely, to the Marxist analysis of all commodity-producing
societies of a precapitalist, capitalist and postcapitalist
character.
What is Socially Necessary
Labor?
A short while back I stated
that the particular definition of the quantity of socially
necessary labor for producing a commodity had a very special and
extremely important application in the analysis of capitalist
society. I think it will be more useful to deal with this point
now although logically it might belong to a later section of
this presentation.
The totality of all commodities
produced in a country at a given time has been produced to
satisfy the wants of the sum total of the members of this
society. Any article which did not satisfy somebody’s needs,
which had no use- value for anyone, would be a priori
unsaleable, would have no exchange value, would not constitute a
commodity but simply a product of caprice or the idle jest of
some producer. From another angle, the sum total of buying power
which exists in this given society at a given moment and which
is not to be hoarded but spent in the market, must be used to
buy the sum total of commodities produced, if there is to be
economic equilibrium. This equilibrium therefore implies that
the sum total of social production, of the available productive
forces in this society, of its available work-hours, has been
distributed among the various sectors of industry in the same
proportions as consumers distribute their buying power in
satisfying their various wants. When the distribution of
productive forces no longer corresponds to this division in
wants, the economic equilibrium is destroyed and both
overproduction and underproduction appear side by side.
Let us give a rather
commonplace example: toward the end of the nineteenth and
beginning of the twentieth century, a city like Paris had a
coach-building industry, which together with associated harness
trades employed thousands or even tens of thousands of workers.
In the same period the
automobile industry was emerging and although still quite small
it already numbered some scores of manufacturers employing
several thousands of workers.
Now what is the process taking
place during this period? On the one hand, the number of
carriages begins to decline and on the other, the number of
automobiles begins to increase. The production of carriages and
carriage equipment therefore shows a trend toward exceeding
social needs, as these are reflected in the manner in which
the inhabitants of Paris are dividing their buying power; on the
other side of the picture, the production of automobiles is below
social needs, for from the time the industry was launched
until the advent of mass production, a climate of scarcity
existed in this industry. The supply of automobiles on the
market was never equal to the demand.
How do we express these
phenomena in terms of the labor theory of value? We can say that
in the carriage industry more labor is expended than is
socially necessary, that a part of the labor expended by
the sum total of companies in the carriage industry is socially
wasted labor, which no longer finds an equivalent on the
marketplace and is consequently producing unsaleable goods. In
capitalist society, when goods are unsaleable it means that an
investment of human labor has been made in a specific industrial
branch which turns out to be socially unnecessary labor,
that is to say, it is labor which finds no equivalent in buying
power in the marketplace. Labor which is not socially necessary
is wasted labor; it is labor which produces no value. We can see
from this that the concept of socially necessary labor embraces
a whole series of phenomena.
For the products of the
carriage industry, supply exceeds demand, prices fall and goods
remain unsaleable. The reverse is true in the automobile
industry where demand exceeds supply, causing prices to rise and
under- production to exist. To be satisfied with these
commonplaces about supply and demand, however, means stopping at
the psychological and individual aspects of the problem. On the
other hand, if we probe into the deeper social and collective
side of the problem, we begin to understand what lies below the
surface in a society organized on the basis of an economy of
labor-time.
The meaning of supply exceeding
demand is that capitalist production, which is anarchistic,
unplanned and unorganized, has anarchistically invested or
expended more labor hours in an industrial branch than are
socially necessary, so that a whole segment of labor-hours turns
out to be pure loss, so much wasted human labor which remains
unrequited by society. Conversely, an industrial sector where
demand continues to be greater than supply can be considered as
an underdeveloped sector in terms of social needs; it is
therefore a sector expending fewer hours of labor than are
socially necessary and it receives a bonus from society in order
to stimulate an increase in production and achieve an
equilibrium with social needs.
This is one aspect of the
problem of socially necessary labor in the capitalist system.
The other aspect of the problem is more directly related to
changes in the productivity of labor. It is the same thing but
makes an abstraction of social needs, of the “use value”
aspect of production.
In capitalist society the
productivity of labor is constantly changing. Generally
speaking, there are always three types of enterprises (or
industrial sectors): those which are technologically right at
the social average; those which are backward, obsolete, on the
downgrade, below the social average; and those which are
technologically advanced and above average in productivity.
What do we mean when we say a
sector or an enterprise is technologically backward and has a
productivity of labor which is below the average? Such a branch
or enterprise is analogous to our previously mentioned lazy
shoemaker, that is, it is one which takes five hours to produce
a specific quantity of goods in a period when the average social
productivity demands that it be done in three hours. The two
extra hours of expended labor are a total loss, a waste of
social labor. A portion of the total amount of labor available
to society having thus been wasted by an enterprise, it will
receive nothing from society to compensate it. Concretely it
means that the selling prices in this industry or enterprise,
which is operating below average productivity, approach its
production costs or even fall below them, that is to say, the
enterprise is operating at a very low rate of profit or even at
a loss.
On the other hand, an
enterprise or industrial sector with an above average level of
productivity (like the shoemaker who can produce two pairs of
shoes in three hours when the social average is one pair per
three hours) economizes in its expenditure of social
labor and therefore makes a surplus profit, that is to say, the
difference between its costs and selling prices will be greater
than the average profit.
The pursuit of this surplus
profit is, of course, the driving force behind the entire
capitalist economy. Every capitalist enterprise is forced by
competition to try to get greater profits, for this is the only
way it can constantly improve its technology and labor
productivity. Consequently all firms are forced to take this
same direction, and this of course implies that what at one time
was an above-average productivity winds up as the new average
productivity, whereupon the surplus profit disappears. All the
strategy of capitalist industry stems from this desire on the
part of every enterprise to achieve a rate of productivity
superior to the national average and thereby make a surplus
profit, and this in turn provokes a movement which causes the
surplus profit to disappear, by virtue of the trend for the average
rate of labor productivity to rise continuously. This is the
mechanism in the tendency for profit rates to become equalized.
The Origin and Nature of
Surplus Value
And now, what is surplus value?
When we consider it from the viewpoint of the Marxist theory of
value, the answer is readily found. Surplus value is simply the
monetary form of the social surplus product, that is to
say, it is the monetary form of that part of the worker’s
production which he surrenders to the owner of the means of
production without receiving anything in return.
How is this surrender
accomplished in practice within capitalist society? It takes
place through the process of exchange, like all important
operations in capitalist society, which are always relations of
exchange. The capitalist buys the labor-power of the worker, and
in exchange for this wage, he appropriates the entire production
of that worker, all the newly produced value which has been
incorporated into the value of this production.
We can therefore say from here
on that surplus value is the difference between the value
produced by the worker and the value of his own labor-power.
What is the value of labor-power? In capitalist society,
labor-power is a commodity, and like the value of any other
commodity, its value is the quantity of labor socially necessary
to produce and reproduce it, that is to say, the living costs of
the worker in the wide meaning of the term. The concept of a
minimum living wage or of an average wage is not a
physiologically rigid one but incorporates wants which change
with advances in the productivity of labor. These wants tend to
increase parallel with the progress in technique and they are
consequently not comparable with any degree of accuracy, for
different periods. The minimum living wage of 1830 cannot be
compared quantitatively with that of 1960, as the theoreticians
of the French Communist party have learned to their sorrow.
There is no valid way of comparing the price of a motorcycle in
1960 with the price of a certain number of kilograms of meat in
1830 in order to come up with a conclusion that the first “is
worth” less than the second.
Having made this reservation,
we can now repeat that the living cost of labor-power
constitutes its value and that surplus value is the difference
between this living cost and the value created by this
labor-power.
The value produced by
labor-power can be measured in a simple way by the length of
time it is used. If a worker works ten hours, he produces a
value of ten hours of work. If the worker’s living costs, that
is to say, the equivalent of his wage, is also ten hours of
work, then no surplus value would result. This is only a special
case of the more general rule: when the sum total of labor
product is equal to the product required to feed and maintain
the producer, there is no social surplus product.
But in the capitalist system,
the degree of labor productivity is such that the living costs
of the worker are always less than the quantity of newly created
value. This means that a worker who labors for ten hours does
not need the equivalent of ten hours of labor in order to
support himself in accordance with the average needs of the
times. His equivalent wage is always only a fraction of his
day’s labor; everything beyond this fraction is surplus value,
free labor supplied by the worker and appropriated by the
capitalist without an equivalent offset. If this difference did
not exist, of course, then no employer would hire any worker,
since such a purchase of labor-power would bring no profit to
the buyer.
The Validity of the Labor
Theory of Value
To conclude, we present three
traditional proofs of the labor theory of value.
The first of these is the analytical
proof, which proceeds by breaking down the price of a
commodity into its constituent elements and demonstrating that
if the process is extended far enough, only labor will be found.
The price of every commodity
can be reduced to a certain number of components: the
amortization of machinery and buildings, which we call the
renewal of fixed capital; the price of raw materials and
accessory products; wages; and finally, everything which is
surplus value, such as profit, rent, taxes, etc.
So far as the last two
components are concerned, wages and surplus value, it has
already been shown that they are labor pure and simple. With
regard to raw materials, most of their price is largely
reducible to labor; for example, more than 60 per cent of the
mining cost of coal consists of wages. If we start by breaking
down the average manufacturing cost of commodities into 40% for
wages, 20% surplus value, 30% for raw materials and 10% in fixed
capital; and if we assume that 60% of the cost of raw materials
can be reduced to labor, then we already have 78% of the total
cost reduced to labor. The rest of the cost of raw materials
breaks down into the cost of other raw materials – reducible
in turn to 60% labor – plus the cost of amortizing machinery.
The price of machinery consists
to a large degree of labor (for example, 40%) and raw materials
(for example, 40% also). The share of labor in the average cost
of all commodities thus passes successively to 83%, 87%, 89.5%,
etc. It is obvious that the further this breakdown is carried,
the more the entire cost tends to be reduced to labor, and to
labor alone.
The second proof is the logical
proof, and is the one presented in the beginning of
Marx’s Capital. It has perplexed quite a few
readers, for it is certainly not the simplest pedagogical
approach to the question.
Marx poses the question in the
following way. The number of commodities is very great. They are
interchangeable, which means that they must have a common
quality, because everything which is interchangeable is
comparable and everything which is comparable must have at least
one quality in common. Things which have no quality in common
are, by definition, not comparable with each other.
Let us inspect each of these
commodities. What qualities do they possess? First of all, they
have an infinite set of natural qualities: weight, length,
density, color, size, molecular nature; in short, all their
natural physical, chemical and other qualities. Is there any one
of the physical qualities which can be the basis for comparing
them as commodities, for serving as the common measure of their
exchange value? Could it be weight? Obviously not, since a pound
of butter does not have the same value as a pound of gold. Is it
volume or length? Examples will immediately show that it is none
of these. In short, all those things which make up the natural
quality of a commodity, everything which is a physical or
chemical quality of this commodity, certainly determines its use
value, its relative usefulness, but not its exchange value.
Exchange value must consequently be abstracted from everything
that consists of a natural physical quality in the commodity.
A common quality must be found
in all of these commodities which is not physical. Marx’s
conclusion is that the only common quality in these commodities
which is not physical is their quality of being the products of
human labor, of abstract human labor.
Human labor can be thought of
in two different ways. It can be considered as specific concrete
labor, such as the labor of the baker, butcher, shoemaker,
weaver, blacksmith, etc. But so long as it is thought of as
specific concrete work, it is being viewed in its aspect of
labor which produces only use values.
Under these conditions we are
concerning ourselves only with the physical qualities of
commodities and these are precisely the qualities which are not
comparable. The only thing which commodities have in common from
the viewpoint of exchanging them is that they are all produced
by abstract human labor, that is to say, by producers who are
related to each other on a basis of equivalence as a result of
the fact that they are all producing goods for exchange. The
common quality of commodities, consequently, resides in the fact
that they are the products of abstract human labor and it is
this which supplies the measure of their exchange value, of
their exchangeability. It is, consequently, the quality of
socially necessary labor in the production of commodities which
determines their exchange value.
Let us immediately add that
Marx’s reasoning here is both abstract and difficult and is at
least subject to questioning, a point which many opponents of
Marxism have seized upon and sought to use, without any marked
success, however.
Is the fact that all
commodities are produced by abstract human labor really the only
quality which they have in common, apart from their natural
qualities? There are not a few writers who thought they had
discovered others. In general, however, these have always been
reducible either to physical qualities or to the fact that they
are products of abstract labor.
A third and final proof of the
correctness of the labor theory of value is the proof by
reduction to the absurd. It is, moreover, the most elegant
and most “modern” of the proofs.
Imagine for a moment a society
in which living human labor has completely disappeared, that is
to say, a society in which all production has been 100 per cent
automated. Of course, so long as we remain in the current
intermediate stage, in which some labor is already completely
automated, that is to say, a stage in which plants employing no
workers exist alongside others in which human labor is still
utilized, there is no special theoretical problem, since it is
merely a question of the transfer of surplus value from one
enterprise to another. It is an illustration of the law of
equalization of the profit rate, which will be explored later
on.
But let us imagine that this
development has been pushed to its extreme and human labor has
been completely eliminated from all forms of production and
services. Can value continue to exist under these conditions?
Can there be a society where nobody has an income but
commodities continue to have a value and to be sold? Obviously
such a situation would be absurd. A huge mass of products would
be produced without this production creating any income, since
no human being would be involved in this production. But someone
would want to “sell” these products for which there were no
longer any buyers!
It is obvious that the
distribution of products in such a society would no longer be
effected in the form of a sale of commodities and as a matter of
fact selling would become all the more absurd because of the
abundance produced by general automation.
Expressed another way, a
society in which human labor would be totally eliminated from
production, in the most general sense of the term, with services
included, would be a society in which exchange value had also
been eliminated. This proves the validity of the theory, for at
the moment human labor disappears from production, value, too,
disappears with it.
|