Piero Sraffa - Free

92 Piero Sraffa(variable plus constant capital). Marx argues, in addition, that the priceof aggregate output remains equal to the total value produced, and thattotal surplus value (or in other words the value of the surplus productexpressed by the quantity of labour directly or indirectly required forits production) remains equal to the mass of profits. This same propertyof equivalence should be found, in his opinion, in a particular sphere ofproduction: the one with the average organic composition of capital,for in that sector the price of production of the output would be equalto its value, and profits would be equal to surplus value.Now, the mass of profits can equal the mass of surplus value if thisequality is chosen as a constraint for the determination of the standardof measure. 22 In this case, however, the other condition of equalitybetween the value and the price of the total product cannot be imposedat the same time without the system being overdetermined. The twoconditions are simultaneously compatible only in the case where thesystem considered corresponds to Sraffa’s standard system. In such acase, indeed, means of production, output and surplus are simply differentamounts of a single composite commodity. In addition, only insuch conditions can there be a composite commodity with the organiccomposition of capital equal to the social average, at any level of therate of profits, and only in such a case can the two equivalence conditionsstated above be simultaneously satisfied. But again, this implies thatthe output and the means of production of the system as a whole aresimply different amounts of the same (average) composite commodity.At any rate, the case of a real system which coincides with its standardsystem must be considered as a very special case: indeed, somethingthat could only occur by a sheer fluke. The simple possibility of theexistence of this particular case, then, cannot be used as the basis forthe Marxian attempt to provide a general proof of the simultaneousequality between the value of output and its price of production, andbetween total surplus value and total profits, either for the system as awhole or for any particular commodity that might be representative ofit, in the sense of being the ‘average’ of the relations occurring in thesystem taken as a whole.22Which is what Sraffa does when he considers the subsistence wage as beingeither included in the means of production or equal to zero, makes the totalquantity of labour employed in the system equal to unity (in this way establishinga physical unit of measure for working time) and sets the price of productionof the aggregate of commodities which make up the surplus or net product equalto unity (thereby establishing a unit of measure for prices). Cf. Sraffa (1960:10–11).The Standard Commodity 93Nonetheless, whatever the validity of any particular thesis put forwardby Marx, it seems evident that the goal he pursued with his research onthe average commodity was not the same as Ricardo’s. In Marx’s casethe importance of the average commodity is subordinate to the propertyof equivalence between profits and surplus value and between the(labour) value and the price of output, which he believed to be valid forthe sector producing the average commodity as well as for the systemas a whole. The analytical relations studied by Marx thus constitute partof a quest in search of a bridge between the system of labour values andthe system of prices of production. In Ricardo’s case, the average commodityis a simple approximation to the desired theoretical standardthat should constitute the perfect point of reference for the study of therelation between changes in relative prices, changes in distribution andchanges in technology. 23 Sraffa solves Ricardo’s problem with the conceptof the standard commodity or, more precisely, he solves only thefirst half of Ricardo’s problem for, as pointed out above, the standardcommodity is not itself invariant to changes in technology.Only confusion between the specific problems tackled by Sraffa andMarx could lead to the conclusion that Sraffa’s standard commodityhas any particular use or significance in solving the problem studiedby Marx. For instance, a linear relation can be established between therate of exploitation (evaluated in terms of labour values) and the rateof profits if the standard commodity is used as the standard of measureand wages are paid or consumed in terms of the standard commodity.But assuming wages are thus paid contradicts either one or the other oftwo fundamental points of Marx’s analysis. Either (a) the assumptionthat wages are paid in terms of the standard commodity contradicts theMarxian theory of money, as Marx sees money as a commodity that ischosen by the process of history and not for its particular characteristicsin the productive process; 24 or (b) the assumption that the workers’23Marx (1894: 202–3) also claims, in relation to the ‘commodity of average composition’,that ‘a rise or fall in wages would not change the price of production,k + p (“cost-price plus profit”) any more that it would change the value of thecommodities, and would merely effect a corresponding opposite movement, afall or a rise, in the rate of profit’. But it seems evident that Marx considers thetwo problems as distinct and that, of the two, the one Ricardo had in mind isattributed only secondary importance by Marx. On this point see also Marx(1905–10, vol. 2: 180).24Particular qualitative characteristics of the chosen commodity may be relevant(its ‘value in use’), namely divisibility, durability, etc., but not its use as a meansof production.