Going through this week's readings I had two issues which I found particularly engaging so here goes:
In Das Kapital, Marx notes that merchants' capital "can only have its origin in the twofold advantage gained, over both the selling and the buying producers, by the merchant who parasitically shoves himself in between them" (p. 131). He further reiterates that the transformation of a merchants' money into capital, for his current purpose, can be explained as "the producers being simply cheated". This notion, though still very prevalent I am sure, may possibly be viewed through a different lens in the contemporary context.
I am thinking in terms of the peasant who produces a certain crop in a certain quantity with a view to selling the surplus for profit. However, he lacks the necessary resources and consequent to transfer his goods to the marketplace? The not-so-altruitsic-transportation-owning merchant comes along and for a certain charge offers to sell the farmer's goods in the marketplace. In this scenario, I know that the merchant's actions don't count as value addition in the Marxist framework, but my question is, shouldn't it? (I KNOW I KNOW - UNLESS HE HAS PUT IN ANY LABOR POWER IN THE MANUFACTURING/GROWING IN THIS CASE, HIS EFFORT WILL NOT BE COUNTED AS VALUE ADDING LABOR). However, if in fact, a commodity which had certain use value and was created by Man for the purpose of securing some other commodity in exchange for it (either through a barter system or in the form of money which could be used to buy the other commodity he needs), is not transported and sold in the marketplace, would it not be a waste of the value (and subsequently) the labor power of the peasant? [I am overlooking the issue of the crops being commodified here for discussion purposes- I can almost see Mohan saying "The inherent value of the crop…etc." I guess what I am asking is whether any of the neomarxists have anything to say about what constitutes labor-power in contemporary society?
My second issue of discussion is the concept of constant capital and variable capital. These I thought were some interesting concepts explicated by Marx, but let me get this straight (insertion of cursory oversimplification and reductionist disclaimer) -
Man is a creation of Nature. Hence, no one has paid for the creation of Man, as a means of labor. (Unlike the use value of a machine which has been paid for by the capitalist) However, man does get paid for the labor (by the capitalist) that he is/will put in for the production of a commodity. The distinction lies in the fact that a machine can only produce goods/commodities until its use-value is exhausted; so it almost acts a means of transference of the labor that went into its (the machine's) creation. For eg., a more expensive machine may last longer than a cheaper machine. Hence, a machine will predictably last only to the extent of money that has been spent on it, providing a more or less constant form of capital. (I really hope I'm getting this right)
However, since there is no exact measure of how much Man must be paid for his inherent labor-power,
a) The capitalist sometimes presumably pays him as little as possible while extracting as much labor power as possible and
b) Since the capitalist did not have to pay to get man "manufactured" like a machine, any kind of labor-power that man brings to the table adds surplus value to the commodity being produced, instead of a commodity being produced by a machine, wherein the machine loses (rather transfers) some of its use value each time it produces a new commodity.
Thus, Man (or his labor power) provides a more variable form of capital.
I am just putting this simplified version out there so it can be up for discussion the coming week, since I would love an explication (or correction) of the idea that I have garnered about constant and variable capital.
In Das Kapital, Marx notes that merchants' capital "can only have its origin in the twofold advantage gained, over both the selling and the buying producers, by the merchant who parasitically shoves himself in between them" (p. 131). He further reiterates that the transformation of a merchants' money into capital, for his current purpose, can be explained as "the producers being simply cheated". This notion, though still very prevalent I am sure, may possibly be viewed through a different lens in the contemporary context.
I am thinking in terms of the peasant who produces a certain crop in a certain quantity with a view to selling the surplus for profit. However, he lacks the necessary resources and consequent to transfer his goods to the marketplace? The not-so-altruitsic-transportation-owning merchant comes along and for a certain charge offers to sell the farmer's goods in the marketplace. In this scenario, I know that the merchant's actions don't count as value addition in the Marxist framework, but my question is, shouldn't it? (I KNOW I KNOW - UNLESS HE HAS PUT IN ANY LABOR POWER IN THE MANUFACTURING/GROWING IN THIS CASE, HIS EFFORT WILL NOT BE COUNTED AS VALUE ADDING LABOR). However, if in fact, a commodity which had certain use value and was created by Man for the purpose of securing some other commodity in exchange for it (either through a barter system or in the form of money which could be used to buy the other commodity he needs), is not transported and sold in the marketplace, would it not be a waste of the value (and subsequently) the labor power of the peasant? [I am overlooking the issue of the crops being commodified here for discussion purposes- I can almost see Mohan saying "The inherent value of the crop…etc." I guess what I am asking is whether any of the neomarxists have anything to say about what constitutes labor-power in contemporary society?
My second issue of discussion is the concept of constant capital and variable capital. These I thought were some interesting concepts explicated by Marx, but let me get this straight (insertion of cursory oversimplification and reductionist disclaimer) -
Man is a creation of Nature. Hence, no one has paid for the creation of Man, as a means of labor. (Unlike the use value of a machine which has been paid for by the capitalist) However, man does get paid for the labor (by the capitalist) that he is/will put in for the production of a commodity. The distinction lies in the fact that a machine can only produce goods/commodities until its use-value is exhausted; so it almost acts a means of transference of the labor that went into its (the machine's) creation. For eg., a more expensive machine may last longer than a cheaper machine. Hence, a machine will predictably last only to the extent of money that has been spent on it, providing a more or less constant form of capital. (I really hope I'm getting this right)
However, since there is no exact measure of how much Man must be paid for his inherent labor-power,
a) The capitalist sometimes presumably pays him as little as possible while extracting as much labor power as possible and
b) Since the capitalist did not have to pay to get man "manufactured" like a machine, any kind of labor-power that man brings to the table adds surplus value to the commodity being produced, instead of a commodity being produced by a machine, wherein the machine loses (rather transfers) some of its use value each time it produces a new commodity.
Thus, Man (or his labor power) provides a more variable form of capital.
I am just putting this simplified version out there so it can be up for discussion the coming week, since I would love an explication (or correction) of the idea that I have garnered about constant and variable capital.
Comments