“In a slave system, the money-capital invested in the purchase of slaves plays the role of the fixed capital in money-form, which is but gradually replaced after the expiration of the active life period of the slaves. Among the Athenians, therefore, the gain realized by a slave owner through the industrial employment of his slaves, or indirectly by hiring them out to other industrial employers (for instance mine owners), was regarded merely as an interest (with sinking fund) on the advanced money-capital, just as the industrial capitalist under capitalist production places a portion of the surplus-value plus the depreciation of his fixed capital to the account of interest and renewal of his fixed capital. This is also the rule in the case of capitalists offering fixed capital, such as houses, machinery, etc., for rent. Mere household slaves, who perform the necessary services or are kept as luxuries are not considered here. They correspond to the modern servant class. But the slave system—so long as it is the dominant form of productive labor in agriculture, manufacture, navigation, etc., as it was in the advanced states of Greece and Rome—preserves an element of natural economy. The slave market maintains its supply of labor-power by war, piracy, etc., and this rape is not promoted by a process of circulation, but by the natural appropriation of the labor-power of others by physical force. Even in the United States, after the conversion of the neutral territory between the wage labor states of the North and the slave labor states of the South into a slave breeding region for the South, where the slave thus raised for the market had become an element of annual reproduction, this method did not suffice for a long time, so that the African slave trade was continued as long as possible for the purpose of supplying the market.” (Marx 1907: 558–559).Here Marx seems to be saying that slaves are fixed capital, and since Marx regarded fixed capital as a type of constant capital, it would follow that – if he was not confused or his theory incoherent – he must have thought that slaves were a form of constant capital too.
Furthermore, in this quotation Marx states that the return that the slave owner gets “through the industrial employment of his slaves” or “indirectly by hiring them out to other industrial employers” was merely “interest” (along with a sinking fund for the replacement of the slaves) on his fixed capital. This appears to rule out that slaves produce surplus value.
However, as I pointed out in the previous post, in ancient Rome there was the practice called the peculium in which a slave master could allow his slave to run and effectively own a business which produced commodities for sale or even work as a labourer and earn wages which he kept, and later even buy his freedom (Plessis 2015: 96; Berger 1953: 624). So did slaves in such circumstances produce surplus value? Marx never seems to have thought of this problem, or answered it.
Even worse, how do slave-owners using slaves to produce commodities regularly get money profits from the sale of these commodities if profits are caused by surplus value and slaves cannot produce surplus value?
That Marx sees slaves as fixed capital is confirmed in volume 1 of Capital where Marx describes slaves in these terms:
“The slave-owner buys his labourer as he buys his horse. If he loses his slave, he loses capital that can only be restored by new outlay in the slave-mart.” (Marx 1906: 292).Since Marx regards working animals used in production as a kind of fixed capital (Brewer 1984: 98), this is consistent with Marx regarding slaves as fixed capital, and hence as a form of constant capital.
In addition, we have this from volume 3 of Capital in Chapter 37 where Marx says:
“The same reason would, in that case, serve also to justify slavery, since the returns from the labor of the slave, whom the slave holder has bought, represent merely the interest on the capital invested in this purchase.” (Marx 1909: 732).That is, the return from slaves as fixed capital is only interest on money capital invested in them.
But in volume 3 of Capital in Chapter 47, we also have this cryptic passage:
“Take, for instance, the slavery system. The price paid for a slave is nothing but the anticipated and capitalized surplus-value or profit, which is to be ground out of him. But the capital paid for the purchase of a slave does not belong to the capital, by which profit, surplus labor, is extracted from him. On the contrary. It is capital, which the slave holder gives away, it is a deduction from the capital, which he has available for actual production. It has ceased to exist for him, just as the capital invested in the purchase of land has ceased to exist for agriculture. The best proof of this is the fact, that it does not come back into existence for the slave holder or the land owner, until he sells the slave or the land once more. Then the same condition of things holds good for the buyer. The fact that he has bought the slave does not enable him to exploit the slave without further ceremony. He is not able to do so until he invests some other capital in production by means of the slave.” (Marx 1909: 940).It is difficult to make sense of this. The crucial three sentences are as follows:
“Take, for instance, the slavery system. The price paid for a slave is nothing but the anticipated and capitalized surplus-value or profit, which is to be ground out of him. But the capital paid for the purchase of a slave does not belong to the capital, by which profit, surplus labor, is extracted from him.” (Marx 1909: 940).First, Marx seems to be saying that surplus value can be “ground” out of slaves, but then immediately seems to deny that.
Elsewhere Marx says that slaves are fixed capital, and that only variable capital as the labour-power of free workers creates surplus value, which seems to rule out that slaves can create it.
In short, even if Marx thinks that slaves can and do produce surplus labour value in this quotation (which is questionable), then that radically contradicts what he wrote elsewhere: that labour-power is the sole source of surplus value, but a person needs to be free (not a slave) to sell labour-power (Marx 1906: 186). Moreover, interpreters of Marx like Brewer (1984: 36) and Harvey (2010: 98) agree that this is what Marx said and thought: you cannot be a slave and produce surplus labour value.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berger, A. 1953. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
Brewer, Anthony. 1984. A Guide to Marx’s Capital. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Harvey, David. 2010. A Companion to Marx’s Capital. Verso, London and New York.
Marx, Karl. 1906. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy (vol. 1; rev. trans. by Ernest Untermann from 4th German edn.). The Modern Library, New York.
Marx, Karl. 1907. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. The Process of the Circulation of Capital (vol. 2; trans. by Ernst Untermann from 2nd German edn.). Charles H. Kerr & Co., Chicago, and Swan Sonnenschein & Co., London.
Marx, Karl. 1909. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy (vol. 3; trans. Ernst Untermann from 1st German edn.). Charles H. Kerr & Co., Chicago.
Plessis, Paul du. 2015. Borkowski’s Textbook on Roman Law (5th edn.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
You confuse slaves in ancient societies and slaves in capitalism. Marx makes the distinction quite clear. Quotes I gave you about plantation were about slaves in capitalism, not in ancient Rome. In ancient Rome slaves could produce surplus-labor, but not surplus-value. There was no surplus-value in ancient systems. BTW Harvey's book is really not a good guide.
ReplyDeleteSo your position is:
Delete(1) slaves in ancient societies did not produce surplus value
(2) but slaves in modern plantation modes of production in 19th century America did produce surplus value.
This is still incoherent. In ancient Rome, they had highly developed plantation modes of production using slaves -- just as in 19th century America. So why didn't ancient slaves produce surplus value?
Also, what is your precise definition of "surplus-labor"?
Don't you see any difference between economic systems in ancient Greece and modern world? Marx did see a difference. The difference is a development of capital as a specific social relation. According to Marx there was no capital in slave societies. Here are some quotes: "direct forced labor was the foundation of ancient society", "wealth confronts direct forced labour not as capital, but rather as a relation of domination" and very important quote: "as long as slavery is predominant the capital relationship can only be sporadic and subordinate, not dominant". So this is why Marx wrote about surplus-labor, not surplus-value, because slaves in ancient Greece couldn't contribute to the production and circulation of value. The difference is in the production of commodities. Marx believes that ancient societies didn't do that. Next quote (about peculium castrense):
Delete"This holds for the period when the Roman army was no longer a citizens army but a mercenary army. This is here likewise a free sale of labour on the part of the soldier. But the state does not buy it with the production of values as aim . And thus, although the wage form may seem to occur originally in armies, this pay system is nevertheless essentially different from wage labour. There is some similarity in the fact that the state uses up the army in order to gain an increase in power and wealth."
(1) This reply is incoherent.
Delete(i) first, you say that Marx says that "there was no capital in slave societies".
(ii) then you give a quote contradicting (1) with Marx say that "as long as slavery is predominant the capital relationship can only be sporadic and subordinate" -- which requires that capital does exist to a small extent.
(2) You have not sensibly answered my question: In ancient Rome, they had highly developed plantation modes of production using slaves -- just as in 19th century America. So why didn't ancient slaves produce surplus value?
You seem to be saying that where capital exists, slaves can produce surplus value. Yet capital did exist in ancient times to some degree, so why couldn't slaves in plantation modes of production in ancient Rome produce value?
It's the matter of degree. Role of capital (or rather of money-capital as Marx calls it) and free-wage labor in ancient societies is marginal. In capitalism the majority of surplus is produced by free-wage labor. In a physiological way there is of course no difference between labor on a plantation in 19th century or in ancient Greece, but there is a difference in a, let's say, social way, because slaves on a 19th plantation produced commodities (in a Marx's sense) for profit. American plantations were part of a global capitalism and had overseas markets.Therefore social conditions were completely different.
Delete"American plantations were part of a global capitalism and had overseas markets.Therefore social conditions were completely different."
DeleteWrong.
In ancient Rome, the great latifundia (plantations using slave labour) were often producing commodities mainly for export markets, such as grain, olive oil, or wine, and this very profitable.
So presumably the ancient Roman slaves were producing surplus value?
(2) and yet again you have failed to adequately address the point that if slaves in US plantations were producing surplus value, then this radically contradicts what Marx says in Chapter 6 of volume 1 of Capital.
"In ancient Rome, the great latifundia (plantations using slave labour) were often producing commodities mainly for export markets, such as grain, olive oil, or wine, and this very profitable."
DeleteAnd were they a majority? Marx doesn't deny that money capital existed in that kind of societies, but it had a marginal character, so that they couldn't produce surplus-value. The fundamental part of whole surplus was produced by slaves, not free wage labor.
2. I would say he relaxes introductory, general and more analytical remarks to include more historical, contingent view of capitalism in Capital vol. III.
Another interesting quote:
"where commercial speculations figure from the start and production is intended for the world market, the capitalist mode of production exists, although only in a formal sense, since the slavery of Negroes precludes free wage-labor, which is the basis of capitalist production. But the business in which slaves are used is conducted by capitalists. The method of production which they introduce has not arisen out of slavery but is grafted on to it. In this case the same person is capitalist and landowner"
(1) so your position appears to be that slave labour in an economy where capitalist modes of production are dominant produces surplus value and you think Marx believed this. If so, this is still a major contradiction with the view Marx expresses in volume 1 of Capital.
Delete(2) "I would say he relaxes introductory, general and more analytical remarks"
This is just another way of saying that the theory in volume 1 is grossly unrealistic and cannot be accepted as an empirically tenable theory.
Like many Marxists, it seems like you refuse to accept that Marx ever made any error, ever contradicted himself, that his theory was ever internally inconsistent, or that it was flawed in any way.
Do you think Marx ever made any errors?
This is not a major contradiction, because it can be very easily reconciled and that interpretation is textually justified. If you consider that a major contradiction and you don't see the difference between the character of analysis in first and third volume of Capital that's fine, that's your problem. I did my job. Two days ago you even didn't realize that Marx acknowledged that slaves can produce surplus value. Of course you can compare two sentences Marx wrote and say "look, he contradicts himself". Of course he does, but does that settle what Marx wanted to say about role of slaves in capitalism? Or it settles what role plays free-wage labor in capitalism?
DeleteWhat do you mean by empirically tenable theory? Which economic theories are empirically tenable?
Yes, I do think that Marx made errors, but I try to interpret Marx in a way to make sense of him and to learn something from him. You try to read Marx in a way to not make any sense of him. You prefer to remain at the level of "major contradictions", because it suits your point of view and it's fine, I don't care, but do you read Keynes in the same way? And do you think Marx ever did something right?
"Two days ago you even didn't realize that Marx acknowledged that slaves can produce surplus value."
DeleteIn fact, you have not even demonstrated this.
What you did was selectively quote this:
“Take, for instance, the slavery system. The price paid for a slave is nothing but the anticipated and capitalized surplus-value or profit, which is to be ground out of him. But the capital paid for the purchase of a slave does not belong to the capital, by which profit, surplus labor, is extracted from him. On the contrary.” (Marx 1909: 940).
But then you suppressed the words in bold which immediately contradict the words before.
" The entire surplus-labour of the labourers, which is manifested here in the surplus-product, is extracted from them directly by the owner of all instruments of production, to which belong the land and, under the original form of slavery, the immediate producers themselves. Where the capitalist outlook prevails, as on American plantations. this entire surplus-value is regarded as profit ; where neither the capitalist mode of production itself exists, nor the corresponding outlook has been transferred from capitalist countries, it appears as rent. At any rate, this form presents no difficulties. The income of the landlord, whatever it may be called, the available surplus-product appropriated by him, is here the normal and prevailing form, whereby the entire unpaid surplus-labour is directly appropriated, and landed property forms the basis of such appropriation."
Deletehttp://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/07/marx-on-slave-based-plantation-systems.html
DeleteMarx did not think that you could produce an economic theory which covered all possible forms of social organisation. As such, an economic theory which described classical economies would be different from that which described a capitalist one.
ReplyDeleteIn both systems there was a surplus product created by the direct workers (slaves or wage-slaves) which were appropriated by the owning class (slavers or landlord/capitalists). How that surplus product was monopolised differed between systems -- but both was rooted in workers producing more than they were "paid" (in wages or in produce for slaves).
So both would have a "profit" in terms of a surplus but both systems would have different dynamics and laws.
Given that Marx was focused on capitalism (i.e., wage-labour) as it was the dominant economic system of his time, I would not be surprised if his scattered comments on slavery - whether in ancient societies or which still existed under capitalism (e.g., the american south) -- were not particularly well developed.
As Marx finally recognised around 1857, capitalism was not marked by market exchange but rather wage-labour. This was how the labour-surplus produced by workers did remain in their hands (as Proudhon had been arguing since 1840). It was this which produced a distinction between "value" and "surplus-value", with the former being a feature of capitalism.
So, slaves (like serfs) preformed surplus-labour and this was appropriated by the owning class. Surplus-value is just one form of this surplus-labour, the form specific to wage-labour (capitalism)
Iain
An Anarchist FAQ
http://www.anarchistfaq.org
I think you fail to see that if Marx only has "scattered comments on slavery" and his view of it is incoherent, then the whole LTV is undermined. For then it is just as Piero Sraffa said:
Deletehttp://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/03/piero-sraffas-damning-verdict-on-labour.html
However, as I pointed out in the previous post, in ancient Rome there was the practice called the peculium...
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out in previous posts (even if we allow the relevance of the case to modern economics, per the important point anon raises above), if a slave is (temporarily) free to pursue other incomes, then he is (temporarily) free, and does not act in the capacity of a slave. Similarly, if I remove the leather strap that controls the fit of my pants and use it to stanch the flow of blood from a wound, then it has gone from being a "belt" to being a "tourniquet," and the material consequences of its use reflect this (what with pants falling down and blood loss halted), even if it will at some time go back to "belt."
If a dentist moonlights as a bouncer at a bar, would you suppose him incapable of hurling a rowdy drunk bodily out the door, just because by day he gives oral checkups? Is he metaphysically branded "dentist" in all things he does forevermore?
Even worse, how do slave-owners using slaves to produce commodities regularly get money profits from the sale of these commodities if profits are caused by surplus value and slaves cannot produce surplus value?
Recap: Because they produce those goods more cheaply than people who don't employ slaves, since slaves are very often the equivalent of a significant technological advantage. If everyone used slaves to produce that particular commodity, then the advantage would fade, and it'd be all the more clear that the relation of slavedrivers to slaves mirrors that of workers to machines. Slaves, as a rule, are not generally motivated by some sense of selfless generosity towards their masters, nor machines to their owners.
While the two cases are in no way morally comparable, they are virtually indistinguishable in bookkeeping terms, and therefore to capital.
(1) "As I pointed out in previous posts (even if we allow the relevance of the case to modern economics, per the important point anon raises above), if a slave is (temporarily) free to pursue other incomes, then he is (temporarily) free, and does not act in the capacity of a slave. etc. "
ReplyDeleteExcept that is not what Marx says, and you can cite no passage from Marx's works defending this as what he believed. At the very least, an honest Marxist would admit that Marx's theory as it stands is problematic and needs revisions.
It is clear more and more that when you speak of Marx's economic theory, it is often just a fantasy in your own mind and not derived from Marx's actually statements in Capital.
"If everyone used slaves to produce that particular commodity, then the advantage would fade, and it'd be all the more clear that the relation of slavedrivers to slaves mirrors that of workers to machines."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet we can point to many instances in history where some commodity is mainly produced by slave labour, but slave-owners still enjoy money profits and profitable businesses. Your thinking is so warped and corrupted by Marxist idiocy that you cannot see that where demand for a good exists and businesses can charge a price above a cost of production, profits will exist. The LTV and the very concept of surplus labour value are redundant and absurd dogmas.