Thirsty Crow
6th June 2012, 15:25
So, recently I've been reading a few articles on the changes in class composition and capital accumulation patterns from the crisis of the 70s onwards, and I stumbled accross this assertion, which is kind of puzzling:
With only a few exceptions Marx could categorically place the whole of commercial [or 'merchant'] capital - capital involved in the process of buying and selling - in the bracket of unproductive capital since "neither the time of purchase nor of sale creates any value"...The wages of workers in this sector belong to the costs of circulation, i. e. they are drain on overall surplus value, even though the work is necessary for the functioning of capital and even though the individual worker "works as well as the next man".
So, starting from the basic premise that profit arises out of surpkus value which itself is a product of labour (or rather the uncompensated labour time of the working class), it would seem that this view on the so called commercial capital asserts that it actually doesn't produce a profit.
But the author (nevermind the source, it's not relevant for the discussion) goes on to state that
...what is unproductive labour for capitalism in value terms is not necessarily unprofitable in financial terms. Financial profit is not the same thing as the production of surplus value.
Which would imply that, let's say, supermarket chains produce profit on the basis of "buying cheap, selling dear" (or how the saying goes), that is, on the basis of exploiting the buyers (themselves, in all probability, workers; but then we have the notion exploitation in circulation and consumption).
So far, this is consistent with the author's remarks on the way Marx conceived of commercial capital, as "unproductive capital" (though it's unclear for me how capital can function as capital and be called "unproductive"; much the same way how an amount of money directed to fund public, free healthcare does not mean the funds act as capital, apart from a metaphorical usage of the term). But there's a remark on transport which would seem at odds with this treatment of Marx's views on commercial capital:
Marx distinguished between transport as a service and therefore unproductive (people) and transport in relation to commodities. In so far as the change of location increases the exchange value of the commodity, i. e. when the labour of the transport workers has imparted value, then transportation is productive for capital. (emphasis mine)
So, it seems obvious that commercial capital is intimately tied to transport - it is an essential part of the functioning of this form of capital (since we can describe it as bringing commodities to their end-users). But then how can we conclude that commercial capital is "unproductive capital"? Again, it seems that all of it employes transport labour which produces new value.
Can anyone help in disentangling this mess?
With only a few exceptions Marx could categorically place the whole of commercial [or 'merchant'] capital - capital involved in the process of buying and selling - in the bracket of unproductive capital since "neither the time of purchase nor of sale creates any value"...The wages of workers in this sector belong to the costs of circulation, i. e. they are drain on overall surplus value, even though the work is necessary for the functioning of capital and even though the individual worker "works as well as the next man".
So, starting from the basic premise that profit arises out of surpkus value which itself is a product of labour (or rather the uncompensated labour time of the working class), it would seem that this view on the so called commercial capital asserts that it actually doesn't produce a profit.
But the author (nevermind the source, it's not relevant for the discussion) goes on to state that
...what is unproductive labour for capitalism in value terms is not necessarily unprofitable in financial terms. Financial profit is not the same thing as the production of surplus value.
Which would imply that, let's say, supermarket chains produce profit on the basis of "buying cheap, selling dear" (or how the saying goes), that is, on the basis of exploiting the buyers (themselves, in all probability, workers; but then we have the notion exploitation in circulation and consumption).
So far, this is consistent with the author's remarks on the way Marx conceived of commercial capital, as "unproductive capital" (though it's unclear for me how capital can function as capital and be called "unproductive"; much the same way how an amount of money directed to fund public, free healthcare does not mean the funds act as capital, apart from a metaphorical usage of the term). But there's a remark on transport which would seem at odds with this treatment of Marx's views on commercial capital:
Marx distinguished between transport as a service and therefore unproductive (people) and transport in relation to commodities. In so far as the change of location increases the exchange value of the commodity, i. e. when the labour of the transport workers has imparted value, then transportation is productive for capital. (emphasis mine)
So, it seems obvious that commercial capital is intimately tied to transport - it is an essential part of the functioning of this form of capital (since we can describe it as bringing commodities to their end-users). But then how can we conclude that commercial capital is "unproductive capital"? Again, it seems that all of it employes transport labour which produces new value.
Can anyone help in disentangling this mess?