C A P I T A L A N D V A L U E

in the following manner. Process 1 uscsnztl units of the commodity produced by process 1 and a2l units of the commodity produced by process 2, together with labour of 0.5, for the production of one unit of the commodity. Similarly, process 2 combines a12

units of the commodity produced by process 1 and a22 units of the commodity produced by process 2 with labour of 0.25 to produce one unit of the commodity. The conditions which are required technologically are only a11 + a21 = 0.25 and a1 2 -ha22 = 0.5, so that atjS may be taken as:

an = °-25> «21 = °> ¿12 = °*25> «22 = °*25*

Then we have the value-determination equations

Ai = o.25A1 +0.5,

A2 = o.25Aj + o.25A2 + 0.25,

where A1 denotes the value of the commodity produced by pro­cess 1 and A2 the value of that produced by process 2. If the value ought to be determined uniquely for each commodity, Ax and A2 should be equalized. However, solving the above equations, we have Aj = § and A2 = §. Obviously, Ax 4= A2; thus a situation contradicting the uniqueness postulate is generated, as the same commodity has different actual values simultaneously.

We have so far assumed that all labour is homogeneous. In recognizing its heterogeneity, however, Marx wrote: £As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use-values, so also are the two forms of labour that produce them, tailoring and weaving. Were these two objects not qualitatively different, not produced respectively by labour of different quality, they could not stand to each other in the relation of commodities. Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use-value is not exchanged for another of the same kind.5 (1, pp. 41-2.) He also said: 'Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production.5 (h p. 39-)

In the calculation of values, these different varieties of labour embodied in the different kinds of commodities are reduced to their common quality of'hum an labour in the abstract5. 'I t is

i g O

T H E L A B O U R T H E O R Y OE V A L U E R E V I S I T E D KJI

the expenditure of simple labour-power, i.e. of tin- labour power which, on the average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given. Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour.’ (i, p. 44.) ‘All are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.’ (1, p. 38.)

Marx admitted that the distinction commonly drawn between skilled and unskilled labour was ambiguous. In his words: ‘ The distinction between skilled and unskilled labour rests in part on pure illusion, or, to say the least, on distinctions that have long since ceased to be real, and that survive only by virtue of a tradi­tional convention; in part on the helpless condition of some groups of the working-class, a condition that prevents them from exacting equally with the rest the value of their labour-power. Accidental circumstances here play so great a part, that these two forms of labour sometimes change places.’ (x, pp. 197-8.) Therefore he proposed a scientific formula by which all kinds of actual labour could be reduced to their common character of being human labour generally: ‘ In order to modify the human organism, so that it may acquire skill and handiness in a given branch of industry, and become labour-power of a special kind, a special education or training is requisite, and this, on its part, costs an equivalent in commodities of a greater or less amount. This amount varies according to the more or less complicated character of the labour-power. The expenses of this education (excessively small in the case of ordinary labour-power), enter pro tanto into the total value spent in its production.’ (1, p. 172.)

In spite of this formula, Marx assumed every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour. However, it is not difficult to revise his value-determination equations so as to allow for different kinds of labour. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that there are no joint products and no alternative processes. We also do not group commodities into capital goods, wage goods and luxury goods, and assume that there are h goods and n + 1 kinds of labour. To produce a unit of good 1 , un'tsgood?' {i = and l,,,units of labour k( = i , ...,«+ 1) are

C A P I T A L A ND V A L U E

required, while to produce a unit of labour; ( j — 1, units of good i (i — i , h) and mkj units of labour k (k = 1, tH- 1) are required. We take labour n + 1 as the standard labour, i.e., the unskilled, simple labour or human labour in the abstract. Then the values of the commodities A = (Ax, Xh) and the conversion ratios of skilled into unskilled labour 0 = (8 l y 8 n) are determined by the following equations:

A = A/l + OR + /, (21)

0 = AQ + QT+m , (22)where

192

A =A 1 •• a l h

, Q =

A i QIn

A i * • a h h . A h i ••* tfhn-

R =

11 - kh, T =

~mn ..■ Win

Jn 1 • * * nh~ ■■■■ ™nn-

— (^n+l, 1 *** n-f 1, h) ) m ~~ \m n+l, 1 * * * m n+l, n) •

If the production of commodities and skilled labour is £ produc­tive the values and the conversion ratios are simultaneously determined to be positive. With the 0 thus obtained, (21) can bewritten as A A A t T / xA - A A + L , (23)

where L = QR + l; (23) can further be partitioned into two sets of equations for capital goods and for wage and luxury goods, as has been done elsewhere in this book.

This generalization of Marx’s labour theory of value might seem, at first sight, to give rise to no difficulty, as Marx believed. However, a closer examination enables us to see that it is in conflict with his theory of exploitation, unless the conversion ratios are determined to be proportional to the wage rates of the various kinds of labour. Let (oi be the number of consumption baskets which the worker who offers a unit of labour i for one hour can buy by spending his hourly wages. Then a unit of the zth labour power is valued at coi Al l c in terms of unskilled labour, where A n is the vector of the values of wage goods and c the vector of the quantities of wage goods contained in a unit of the

T H E L A B O U R T H E O R Y OF V A L U E R E V I S I T E D 193

basket. On [hr oth>" hand, a v.ff. of lab™» / < .*;•••! a 0 i uuiu> of unskilled labour. Hence the worker i is exploited at the rate

w i An^{l - I 0,

where 9 i = ï for ¿ = 72+1. It is now seen that there prevails a uniform rate of exploitation throughout n 4-1 different kinds of labour, e1 = e% = ... = en+1, if and only if coJ(jjv hl = £k for all i = 1, n.

However, there is no reason why &>s should be proportional to Os. As the previous quotation from Marx shows, it is possible that a more skilled labourer with a larger 0 i may be paid a lower wage rate. Then we may have several groups of workers exploited at different rates, in contradiction to Marx’s two-class view of the capitalist economy. To avoid this difficulty, we have to abandon the scientific determination of the conversion rates by the formulas (21) and (22), and simply convert different kinds of labour into unskilled labour in proportion to their wages. That is to say, the values of commodities are determined by

A = A/i-f L*,

where Z* = WR + l and W = ..., wnlwn+i) 9 wi beingthe money-wage rate of labour. In this case, although the rate of exploitation is equalized throughout all kinds of labour, the values do not satisfy the postulate of independence from market conditions and may easily fluctuate from period to period as relative wages change.

We conclude by suggesting to Marxian economists that they ought radically to change their attitude towards the labour theory of value. If it has to determine the amounts of labour which the techniques of production actually adopted in a capi­talist economy require, directly and indirectly, in order to pro­duce commodities, it is not a satisfactory theory at all. As has been seen above, the value system may be determined to be negative, indefinite or even contradictory to the postulate of the uniform rate of exploitation. These findings urge us to abandon the theory.

For a thorough-going Marxist it would be impossible to con­ceive of Marxian economics without the labour theory of value. Since it provides the workers with an inspiring ideological