Re: Unequal exchange

Mon, 20 Jul 1998 10:31:30 -0400 (EDT)
Andrew Wayne Austin (aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)

Hi,

Because there is a lack of equivalents, Rivero says that one cannot say
that something "produces more apples than the meat it consumes," whereas
one can say that something "produces more grain that it consumes." But how
is it that we understand that cows must consume so much more grain (food)
than the meat they produce (food)? Because we are able to measure food in
terms of volume, calories, weight, all sorts of quantification terms.
Because meat is determined by the money value and not the amount of food
it produces, the profit motive determines that cows are produced at a loss
of food volume. Similarly, we can calculate how labor can produce more
than it consumes: because the money-value the laborer consumes in
reproducing her labor is less than the money the laborer produces in
money-value. To use Rivero's example, a worker who consumes X amount of
meat worth Y amount of dollars can produce Z amount of apples worth more
than the X amount of meat. As Alejandro must see, his argument fails: it
makes just as much sense to talk in terms of something producing more
apples than the meat it consumes because both meat and apples are measured
by the same quantification terms, in this case money-value.

Alejandro wants to "solve" the "problem" of my argument by saying that
something "produces more capital than it consumes," and that when you say
this "you have a consistent definition of surplus." But the problem is
that when you do this, Alejandro asserts, you have created a circular
argument. So, evidently, we have not solved the problem at all: making the
definition of surplus consistent is to make it circular.

First, it should strike us that Alejandro has (not very subtly) set up the
problem as a catch-22. He says first that it only makes sense to say that
something "produces more grain that it consumes," and that saying that
something "produces more apples than meat it consumes" does not make any
sense. We have shown that saying that something "produces more apples than
meat it consumes" makes perfect sense. But putting Alejandro's first error
aside for the moment, Alejandro *now* claims that saying something
"produces more grain that it consumes" is circular, since it has the form
of "produces more capital than it consumes." Over the course of two short
paragraphs Alejandro has contradicted himself.

Alejandro writes of the formulation he himself has created: "Only that
it is circular, as your capital is built (defined) in terms of surplus. Of
course there is also an abstract definition of capital, but no proof about
if it is actually a measurable concept, which you need in order to use the
word 'more'. Of course money is measurable per se, but capital is not."
Whatever we might say for the convolutions presented here, how do they
follow from the twisted premise that sets them up?

As for the statement "money is measurable," this is like saying that "a
ruler is measurable."

> The whole point is that the benefit of the owner is not linearly related
> to any measurable quantity attached to labour.

The point is that the quantity of labor contained in a commodity is the
one substance than all commodities share - since they differ in shape,
size, material, composition, function, etc. - and that therefore it is the
labor substance that is exchanged, since what is common to all becomes the
common measure. Understanding common measure prevents fundamental logic
errors found in such assertions as 'something cannot produce more apples
than the meat it consumes.'

> I like this concept of "expanding" capital, from there it is clear that
> no conserved object lies under it, and then you dont need the concept
> of surplus to make capital to increase.

How is capital to expand if its animation does not produce more than it
costs to replace the capital used up in production? The concept of surplus
is essential to understanding how capital expands, since it is a surplus
of capital (generally in the form of commodity-capital) that adds itself
to capital existing, causing capital to expand.

> But I don't understand the need of "fixed" and "variable" capitals,
> perhaps it is only a trick to restore again the need of "surplus"?

The terms are very important. Fixed capital, e.g., raw materials, or
machinery, cannot produce more value than it costs. These forms of capital
are used up in the production process. Raw materials are consumed and must
be replaced. Machinery is used up, must be repaired, replaced, modified,
and so on. The one capital input that can produce more value than it costs
is labor power. Human beings are unique in this way: you can exploit them.
It therefore makes sense to differentiate labor inputs from other forms of
capital inputs. So we say that revenue that replaces raw materials,
machinery, etc., are "fixed" capital, whereas revenue that replaces labor
(wages) are "variable" capital, since it produces more than is consumed.

> The other one bas the use of "surplus". And, from your explanation,
> I think that it is more a rhetorical word than a real point of
> the theory.

I hope Alejandro now realizes that surplus is not rhetorical but essential.
Furthermore, surplus is not just theoretically essential: surplus is a
material fact to be explained, not a theory about some unobservable.
Surplus is a mind independent fact: the producer of surplus need not be
aware that he is producing surplus for surplus to be produced.

> I think you use "surplus labour" as a synonym of "labour."

No, it is not. While all surplus must ultimately be the work of labor, not
all labor produces surplus. This is the second time Alejandro has made
this particular logical error. We can see how to correctly think about
this from a simple analogy: "Having sex expends energy, but not all
expended energy is sexually expended energy."

> at least it seems that your whole answer can be formulated without this
> adjective. Probably "necessary" amd "surplus" were two good buzzwords
> for revolutionary propaganda, but no more.

As Alejandro should realize by now, if all labor does not produce surplus,
then the term "surplus" is an absolutely necessary qualifier, since it
refers to a particular sort of labor and not all labor. "Necessary" and
"surplus" in relation to labor are not "buzzwords," but empirical facts to
be described and explained. Since if humans do not eat they will die, and
this will extinguish their labor, it is necessary for them to eat so their
capacity to labor will be restored. And since they can produce more than
they consume, which is true because of the empirical fact of surplus, then
labor produces more than is necessary. Alejandro, in his zeal to vanquish
"revolutionary propaganda" has denied features - the most basic features -
of empirical reality!

> Generically, the main problem I see in this focus is that it seems to
> imply that the whole production under socialism must be, at best, of the
> same order that under capitalism.

How so?

> From here, one deduces that the only goal is redistribution, making the
> standards of living of some "families" to fall down.

Redistribution is one goal, and a very important one. Some families should
have their standards of living reduced and reduced dramatically.

> With the marxist "language", it seems a difficult task to proof that
> socialism would be in fact more productive that capitalism. For
> instance, is very difficult to show that destruction of capital is
> actually a legitimate source of income for capitalists.

This will have to be clarified and explained.

Andy