Marx and Marini on Absolute and Relative Surplus Value

Abstract

The paper presents the concepts of absolute and relative surplus value with a view to specifying how these categories are used by the Latin American Marxist, Ruy Mauro Marini in his theory of labor power superexploitation and subimperialism. It is argued that both types of extraction of surplus value are derived logically and historically by Marx. On this basis, the paper explains the controversy concerning the specificity of the dependent capitalist economy by pointing out that it has its roots, in theoretical terms, in the question of the generalization of relative surplus value throughout the entire world, and in practical terms, in the issue of how political action can construct a socialist society on the periphery of the capitalist system.

Keywords:

• surplus value
• Dependency Theory
• reform and revolution
• Marx
• Marini

Acknowledgements

This is an expanded version of a paper presented at the Dependency Theory panel during the AHE/IIPPE/FAPE joint conference Political Economy and the Outlook for Capitalism, Paris, July 5 to 7, 2012. The research benefited from various debates within the Working Group Teoria Marxista da Dependência hosted by the Brazilian Society of Political Economy (SEP).

Notes

¹Ruy Mauro Marini (1932–1997) began his formal studies in law during the 1950s in Rio de Janeiro. In the 1960s, together with other Brazilian academic Marxists, he organized a study group that would later provide the basis for the formulating of Dependency Theory. Marini was forced to move to Mexico and Chile after the Brazilian Military Putsch in 1964. He made most of his intellectual contributions while in these countries, and returned to Brazil only in the 1990s. For a brief autobiography by Marini see http://www.marini-escritos.unam.mx/002_memoria_es.htm. On the exclusion of Marini's intellectual legacy from debates in Brazil, see Prado (2011).

²The price system is in fact the original foundation that allows the construction and organization of all social accounting and economic data, without which no economic planning is possible. This scientific discovery is in great part a result of the struggle to respond to Mises (1920). On the relation of the contradiction between the system of values and prices and economic planning, see the works of Cockshott and Cottrell (1989, 1997). See also the solution provided by Farjoun and Machover (1983) to the question of how values are transformed into prices of production. For an adequate introduction to the problem of socialist economic calculation, see Lange (1936) and Lange (1937). For a recent evaluation and analysis of the possible combination of planning and decentralized allocation mechanisms for the construction of socialism, see Laibman (2011).

³It is important to note that the difference between these two categories is not that they are composed of distinct qualities. The quality measured by exchange value is always the same as when the reference is to surplus value. The difference lies in the way this surplus value is obtained in the production process. When we compare absolute with relative surplus value, we are actually comparing two modalities of producing surplus value.

⁴Marx acknowledged that it was the periphery, during colonial times, that made possible the accumulation that underlay the industrial revolution, i.e., that the colonial system acted as the foundation for the rise of the production of relative surplus value. But he did not argue that the extraction of surplus value on the periphery should be based forever on the production of absolute surplus value; he did not exclude the possibility of industrialization taking place there. Of course, he was unable to analyze this question empirically, since machinery appeared in these regions only in the twentieth century. We point out in this case that there is nothing in theory to prevent industrialization in these areas. This would imply that the widespread production of relative surplus value is not impossible. See the last section of this paper for further analysis on this point.

⁵From Marini's writings, it is easy to infer that because of this difference, the increase in exploitation is greater on the periphery. Further, it is easy to conclude from his arguments that exploitation is greater on the periphery than in the center. Why is Marini's perspective so attractive? It is strange to think that the European population, living in constantly increasing material comfort, is more exploited than the working poor. But if we follow Marx, for whom the degree of exploitation was defined by the ratio between necessary labor and surplus labor, we can never say beforehand that this latter group of workers is more exploited than the first. Such a statement would be a conclusion drawn exclusively from an analysis of appearances, and would therefore be superficial.

⁶The controversy was conducted in Portuguese and Spanish. To retrace the route of the controversy in Portuguese, see the presentations by Wagner (2005) and Prado (2011).

⁷On the controversy between Cardoso and Marini, see Prado (2011). For a succinct presentation of the overall positions of Marxist Dependency Theory as developed in Latin America, see Santos (1970). The current restoration of Marini's legacy in Brazil is being conducted mainly by a network of researchers from various universities. The group is called GT Teoria Marxista da Dependência and is hosted by the Brazilian Society of Political Economy (SEP).

⁸Marx deals ironically here with MacCulloch, Ure, Senior, and others who invert the logic of capital to put it in absolute harmony with labor. See Marx ([1867] 1887).

⁹For Marini's interpretation of the Brazilian military putsch of 1964 and its consequences for the Brazilian Left and the dynamics of Brazilian capital, see Marini ([1971] 2012, 174–82) and Marini (1972).

¹⁰BRICS stands for the initials of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The initial meetings between foreign ministers and other officials of these countries were held in 2006 and 2008, in order to establish common policies for development.

¹¹Modern slavery appears in various forms including child labor and human trafficking associated with sex work. For an account of modern slavery in West Africa, see Manzo (2005).

¹²This division was due to changes in the methodology used by the Brazilian National Accounting system, in line with recommendations from the UN System of National Accounts. The degree of exploitation was calculated by reaching an approximation of m/v from a selection of appropriate items in the National Accounts. Surplus value was computed as value added (selected sectors in order to accord with Marxist criteria for capitalist productivity) minus the variable capital (selected labor income sectors that match the Marxist criteria for productive labor). Araujo's (2012) selection of the National Accounts items used an adaptation of Shaikh and Tonak's (1994) procedure because of the peculiarities of the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) data.

¹³It is important to note that this reduction of necessary labor may not be related exclusively to the classic mechanism for the production of relative surplus value. It may be due to the increased intensity of labor and to the reduction of workers' consumption, as Marini proposes. This is a very complex point, which leads us to append some remarks at the end of section 4.1 and in our treatment of the theoretical differences between labor productivity and labor intensity.

¹⁴We follow Martínez González (1996) here. The idea is that this variable captures the changes in the rate of surplus value associated with the increase of the working day, as well as with the increase in the intensity of labor and with the reduction of real wages. It must therefore be related to the direct conflict between necessary and surplus labor time.

¹⁵For the idea of revolution and of the transition to socialism in Marini, see Marini (1974) and Marini (1992). On the relationship between the intellectual Left and the Brazilian revolutionary process, see Mantega (1997) and Bresser-Pereira (1982). For a concise presentation of the more abstract framework, namely, the theory of uneven and combined development that was put forward by Trotsky ([1932] 2008) and that influenced Latin American intellectuals in their reassessment of “etapismo” and dualism from the 1960s, see Novack (2008) and the analysis of this influence provided by Demier (2007).

¹⁶The original text is: “Este es el ‘camino al socialismo’ que proponen los autores de las Desventuras: la subordinación de la clase obrera al Estado, teniendo como programa el desarrollo del subimperialismo brasileño” (Marini 1978).