Reproduction (economics)

Before reproduction becomes an object of philosophical, and then political and economic understanding, it falls into the field of attention of “practical economists” - “accountants”, scribes who performed the routine functions of accounting for production and expenditure of living means. Behind every large construction site of antiquity, which required the involvement of many thousands of workers, the manufacture and organization of the regular delivery of huge volumes of construction and consumables, there was a powerful debugged accounting and control apparatus. Papyri, fixing the issuance of food to the teams of builders of the Great Pyramids ^[1] , along with the pyramids themselves, today is a monument to the ancient “planned economy”, in which reproduction was planned and regulated on the basis of universal accounting and control , and even up to the Middle Kingdom - without the means of money. The organization of statistical observations also contributes to planning; So, the annual accounting of the levels of the Nile floods. Nilometers ^[2] provided, among other things, the basis for predicting future spills, and hence the expected yield handed over by manufacturers for centralized redistribution.

With the advent of money as a measure of value and the scale of prices ^[3] , a technical prerequisite arises for organizing accounting for reproduction at the microeconomic level, at the level of a separate “capital”. Archaeological research in the 20th century has shown that the technique of registering financial transactions appears before the money itself. 3-4 thousand years ago, in the Sumerian city ​​of Uruk , they successfully used conditional figures sealed in clay containers with the seals of the debtor and the creditor, which made it possible to fix the “amount” of the obligation in physical terms ^[4] . Later, during the time of Hammurabi (XVIII century BC. E.) there is already an almost complete system of money circulation and credit, up to the conversion of personal debt obligations as means of payment ^[4] .

In modern times, the development of accounting principles for private entrepreneurial operations was returned in the 15th-16th centuries (see Luca Pacioli ). Later, the state finally comes to the need for a macroeconomic analysis of the reproduction of the aggregate social product, to study the economic prerequisites for the formation of the treasury , and the formation of the state budget . Each of the various techniques proposed in the treatises of that era reflects both the practical experience of their authors and the historical specifics of the circumstances of their appearance.

In the writings of early Italian, and later English mercantilists, reproduction appears implicitly and partially - in the context of regulating the country's trade balance , which is becoming crucial for the formation of the country's budget , which is actively involved in foreign economic relations. At the same time, many mercantilists , being large merchants themselves (e.g. Thomas Man ), inevitably bring to their recommendations the experience of conducting private bookkeeping, its methodology. In the mentality of the merchant, the reference point is objectively the sphere of circulation; production is only an incoming factor, and the income of a country's subjects is one of the results of the implementation of a particular doctrine.

A qualitative shift in understanding reproduction as an integral macroeconomic process, the foundations of which are laid in the country's national economy, is the merit of French economists. Whereas since the beginning of the era of the Great geographical discoveries, the resources of expanded reproduction in Italy and England were, in the final analysis, the resources of other countries (through the mediation of trade, as in Italy, or through their direct exploitation, as in England), in France they begin to think over the primary source of the country's wealth - the labor of its subjects. Already at the beginning of the XVII century Sully convinces King Henry IV that

agriculture and cattle breeding are two suckers that feed France, for which these two occupations mean the same as the gold veins and treasures of Peru ^[5] .

Original text (Fr.)

Pâturage et labourage sont les deux mamelles dont la France est alimentée, les vraies mines et trésors du Pérou.

By the middle of the XVII century, this view of reproduction was fully developed in the system of teachings of the school of physiocrats . Its founder, Francois Köhne also creates the first model of social reproduction and interindustry balance in the history of economic thought - the so-called. "Economic tables" ^[6] . Methodologically, this model also postulates another crucial point in understanding reproduction as a complex socio-economic category , not limited to mathematical calculations of the volume of resources at the input and output of the next cycle. The basis for differentiating the macroelements of this model, Kene puts not the fiscal fiscal one, as Smith later (types of tax payers: capitalists, landlords, workers), but the social-class principle. It was precisely the Kene tables that subsequently “prompted” Marx to highlight in the process of reproduction, along with the reproduction of the means of life and labor, the reproduction of social relations .

Without entering into direct criticism of the physiocrats, Adam Smith sets out his vision of reproduction in the formula of the so-called. Smith's dogma : the price (exchange value) of an annual product of a company is divided into incomes: wages, profits, and rents.

Karl Marx returns to the analysis of reproduction not only in monetary but also in kind. In his comprehensive socio-economic analysis of social production, it is presented both as a prerequisite for the existence of mankind and as a system-forming factor in the conditions of its existence, which varies depending on specific historical conditions. In Capital, reproduction is seen as a single process.

• reproduction of material goods,
• reproduction of labor
• reproduction of industrial relations.

The models of simple and expanded reproduction set forth by Marx in Capital, as a creative development of the Quesnay Economic Tables method, in turn served as an impetus for in-depth studies, which were usually carried out already beyond the boundaries of political economy as a science. Vasily Leontyev , starting back in the 1920s developing Marx’s ideas with an analysis of the “ Circular Flows in Economics ”, completed this with the development of a model of interindustry balance (input-output model), awarded the 1973 Nobel Prize for the economy.

The political- economic category of reproduction does not methodologically correspond fully to econometric equilibrium economics because it focuses not on comparing static states ( ), but on dynamics, on an economy in motion. The starting point of political economic research is not an abstraction of the equality of supply and demand, achieved under ideal conditions, but the assertion that in order to ensure reproducible economic development (and growth), it is necessary not only to observe quantitative proportions between individual sectors, but also other conditions, including social and technical ones.

In nature (forests, fish stocks, etc.), the norm for long periods is simple reproduction, in which at the end of each next stage (cycle) the number of animals and plants in this area is about the same as in the previous one. Even with simple , that is, not expanding over time, its reproduction cannot be arbitrary; they are predetermined by external factors, since in real life the reproduction of an object is not isolated from the surrounding life.

Thus, flora and fauna over long periods of time demonstrate the simple reproduction of each genus and species. However, the absolute number of each of them is predetermined by the “resource of consumption”, which is given by the number (volume) of actually available means of life: natural goods “eaten” by this species of flora and fauna. The natural balance formed in this way is reproduced from year to year in approximately the same volume - adjusted for known deviations from this "norm".

Until the middle of the 20th century, the natural resources that make up a person’s livelihood were abstractly considered limited (a rarity factor), but in principle inexhaustible. Currently, the category of non-reproducible, non-renewable, exhaustible, excessively depleted natural goods poses one of the most difficult problems for mankind: “simple reproduction” (and, especially, depletion) of natural goods is in conflict with the growing needs of a population that continues to increase. Nevertheless, until now, expanded reproduction is presented in economic theories, economic models as a “norm", as a synonym for progress.

Reproduction Cycle

The reproduction cycle is presented as a closed four-link scheme:

production → distribution → exchange → consumption

Simple reproduction

Karl Marx considers simple reproduction in the 20th chapter of the second volume of Capital, ^[7] bearing the same name. The object of analysis is the aggregate social product (hereinafter referred to as SOP ), which Marx considers at the same time both in kind and in value form. In kind, that is, depending on use value (destination), Marx distinguishes two divisions (below indicated by Roman numerals I and II ):

• Division I - production of means of production
• Division II - production of consumer goods.

This division applies not only to capitalist, but to all social commodity production and reproduction. SOP in terms of value is equal to the sum of the costs of products of all enterprises, which is decomposed into components according to the cost formula

• c - constant capital
• v - variable capital
• m is the surplus value.

Permanent capital in kind is the means of production spent in the production process. The cost spent per year in the production process of permanent capital in each of the two divisions is fully transferred to the value of their annual product. Labor force during the year produces surplus value and adds it to the value of consumed constant capital. Variable capital is spent by the capitalist on the payment of labor and in the value of the annual product is not only reproduced, but also increases by the amount of surplus value.

For the convenience of working with the scheme, Marx assumes that the cost of all products of the first unit is 6000, and the second unit is 3000 arbitrary units. The final system of equations takes the form:

The ratio of the numbers matched by Marx for c , v, and m is no coincidence. In previous chapters, Marx introduced categories

• organic capital structure ( c : v ) reflecting technical equipment, and
• norms of surplus value ( m : v ), reflecting the degree of exploitation.

The numerical coefficients for this example are selected so that for each of the units

The objective of this model is to find the conditions for the implementation of SOPs . In this statement, it is conditionally assumed that there are no: incoming and outgoing balances at the beginning and end of the period, lack of foreign trade, losses, and price stability (guaranteed by gold as a measure of value). Money mediates all acts of sale of goods in this market, however, when consolidating the results for each of the two macro-divisions (I - means of production, II - personal items), transactions made "inside" of each of them do not lead to the release of the corresponding money supply outside the industry.

In other words, the equality of supply and demand is conditionally relied on: on the means of production - within unit I, and on commodities - within unit II. The money expended by the capitalists of the second division for the payment of wages to workers is returned to them when workers sell consumer goods. The expenses of the capitalists of Unit I for the renovation of the means of production are covered from the proceeds from the sale of their productive products.

Thus, the condition for the equivalence of interindustry exchange in the implementation of SOP is expressed by the formula I v + I m = II s , or, in the traditional spelling:

that is, in the interindustry exchange, the demand for the elements of constant capital ( c ) from the producers of consumer goods (II) is balanced by the counter demand for the livelihoods presented by the workers ( v ) and capitalists ( m ) engaged in the production of means of production (I).

This formula expresses the law of simple reproduction of social capital (also the law of movement of social capital in simple reproduction , the first law of reproduction and circulation of social capital :

simple production can take place if v + m I units are equal to II units ^[8]

Denote the total amounts for each unit through I W = 6000 and II W = 3000.

The second law of reproduction and circulation of social capital is expressed by the formula:

deduced from the 1st law by substituting in equation (2) in place II c its value, I ( v + m ). In other words, for the regular circulation of all SOPs, it is necessary that all newly created consumer goods be fully realized. Their buyers are both workers and capitalists, whose demand is represented by wages v and surplus value m . The sum of the latter in the original model (1000 + 1000 + 500 + 500) is equal to the volume of output of the II unit ( II W = 3000).

The third law of reproduction and circulation of social capital is expressed by the formula:

This formula can also be deduced by substituting the values ​​from the exchange formula I ( v + m ) = II c , and logically: all newly created means of production must be consumed, and the demand is made only by the capitalists themselves.

The above formulas do not exhaust the content of the 20th chapter of Volume II of Capital; Marx considers each of these equations even more in depth, illustrating the course and the causally determined sequence of exchange stages within and between subunits with auxiliary equations. At the end of the chapter, Marx pays attention to the analysis of the statement of the first Russian political economist, vice-president of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, academician A. K. Shtorh that “the products that make up the capital of a nation are not subject to consumption” ^[9] .

Enhanced Reproduction

The expanded reproduction is devoted to the 21st chapter of the second volume of Capital ^[7] - “Accumulation and expanded reproduction”.

The system of equations of simple reproduction implies that the capitalists spend all the surplus value m on themselves, that is, they spend (like the workers) everything received only on personal needs: the whole amount I ( v + m ) goes entirely to unit II . This is not a distortion of reality in order to denigrate the ruling class, but a historical fact: in the ancient history of each civilization, centuries-old eras can be indicated, during which the level of productive forces remained practically unchanged, that is, almost the entire surplus product went to non-productive goals, including personal consumption and collective consumption of a superstructure of society. The productive consumption of surplus product in those eras also occurs predominantly in an extensive way - for example, the development of new agricultural land to feed a growing population.

Modern history knows other examples: contrary to the requirements of the law of simple reproduction, capitalists can direct for personal consumption not only surplus value m , and not only part v (workers' pay below the subsistence level), but also part c - depreciation fund . The classical capitalist from Marx’s schemes is obliged to spend the funds “ c ” on major repairs and equipment replacement. Otherwise, he “will not reproduce himself as a capitalist”: there will come a moment when his productive capital, which has become obsolete and worn out, will be reset to zero. Practiced in order to maximize private capitalist profits, the savings on repair and maintenance of fixed capital, the systematic operation of equipment at higher rates (accelerating physical depreciation versus standard) lead, ultimately, to the failure of fixed assets and the inability to continue the operation of the enterprise.

In the theory of expanded reproduction, Marx postulates an immutable law: if the capitalist wants to systematically increase his momentum, expand his production, then the only source of this expansion can be only surplus value m . Only by moderating his personal consumption can a capitalist get resources that, invested in the acquisition of new means of production and the hiring of new labor, will turn out to him at the next stages of the production cycle an increased influx of surplus value. This is illustrated by the following modification of the 1st line of the original system of equations:

So, Marx conditionally believes that the capitalist halves his personal expenses (a formal intersection with the Senior's “theory of abstinence”). At the same time, in the ratio determined by a previously specified indicator of the organic structure of capital :

of the total amount of 500 m will be allocated: 400 c for the purchase of new means of production and 100 v for the hiring of labor (the latter is scooped from the “ reserve army of labor ”). This entails a serious macroeconomic shift: the demand from the I unit (workers and capitalists engaged in the production of means of production) for personal goods is reduced! That is, I ( v + m ) is now not 2000, but 1000 + 500 + 100 = 1600. Thus, the condition for expanded reproduction is expressed, in traditional spelling, by the formula:

In § 3 of Chap.21 of “Capital” - “Schematic representation of accumulation” - Marx explores, in addition, the possibility of expanded reproduction at I ( v + m ) = II s . Moreover, the movement of parts of capital within and between units is considered step by step, with many intermediate equations. Omitting them to simplify the presentation, we present the formulas and digital coefficients of the final state of both divisions, at the end of the first "one-year" cycle of expanded reproduction:

Comparing this system of equations with the similar one given above for the case of simple reproduction, it can be seen that, on the one hand, the total social product ( W I + W II ) increased (9000 → 9800), but this was achieved, inter alia, at the cost of a relative decrease production and labor resources employed in division II : 2000 + 1000 = 3000 for simple and 1500 + 750 = 2250 for expanded reproduction (brought to 1600 + 800 = 2400 by the beginning of the next “year”). It cannot be otherwise: after all, at the very beginning of the cycle, there was a reduction in demand for consumer goods, the corresponding production capacities were inactive, and thereby the total output in these sectors decreased.

Thus, it follows from Marxist schemes that if the “abstinence” of the capitalist creates the resource prerequisite for expanded reproduction, then it is not the only one, but by its macroeconomic consequences, it is not the biggest sacrifice made by society and the entire national economy to the altar of accelerated industrialization . Historical experience shows that from the time of the enclosure in England to the years of industrialization of the USSR, the agro-industrial sector was compelled to become the first source from which the country's economy as a single, interconnected whole could draw resources for updating and building up the 1st unit, production of means of production. To achieve the goal, the main recipient of these resources in Division I should be the producers of “means of production for the production of means of production”, that is, those whose product is wrapped inside this sector. The reverse side is the temporary lack of technology in agriculture, the relative slowdown in the production of means of production for the production of consumer goods is an inevitable tribute. Industrialization brings, after a certain time, a sharp increase in the total product, and even despite a relative lag, the absolute growth of the second unit may turn out to be greater than at a sluggish pace of renewal of industry while maintaining a complete balance of exchange with the agricultural sector. It should be emphasized here that all these schemes presuppose the existence of a fully self-sustaining economy and the absence of any influx of resources from outside (colonies, loans, etc.).

Adam Smith

For a detailed analysis of Smith's dogma and its criticism by Marx, see a special article .

Theory of Destut de Tracy

The French philosopher and economist Destutt de Tracy argued that industrial capitalists make a profit because they sell manufactured goods at higher cost. But they sell:

1. each other;
2. workers
3. idle capitalists and landowners receiving interest and rent.

If in explaining the profit of one capitalist such an illusion can take place, then in explaining the profit of the entire class of capitalists it is finally dispelled. And the analysis of social reproduction obliges us to pose the problem of profit on a social scale ^[10] . In the first volume of Capital, Marx showed that

that is, in terms of game theory, the reproduction of an aggregate social product on a global scale is always a “zero-sum game”.

The Views of Rosa Luxemburg

“The accumulation of capital" ( 1913 ) - the political and economic essay of Rosa Luxemburg , which placed the author, a prominent representative of European Social Democracy and an active political figure in Germany, among the largest theoreticians of Marxism. The Hungarian scientist Georg (György) Lukács considers her “The accumulation of capital”, together with the work “The State and the Revolution ” by V. I. Lenin ( 1917 ), “two fundamental works that begin the theoretical revival of Marxism” ^[12] (in the XX century) . Reissued several times in the USSR ^[13] , “Accumulation of capital” sets forth not only an attempt to develop the teachings of Marx for new historical conditions, imperialism, but also criticism of Marx himself in terms of the methodology for exposing the theme of simple and expanded reproduction in Capital.

Criticism of M. Ryutin (Simple Reproduction and Marxism)

In 1932, one of the opposition figures, Martemian Ryutin , expelled two years earlier from the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “for treacherous and double-dealing behavior and attempted clandestine propaganda of right-opportunist views,” creates the “ Union of Marxist-Leninists ” and draws up an appeal “To all members VKP (b). " Ryutin develops the provisions of this document in his work “Stalin and the Crisis of the Proletarian Dictatorship,” which gained fame in 1992 ^[14] . In the context of the present topic, in this composition, the 8th chapter, “Simple reproduction and Marxism”, is of interest based on the title. This source serves as a relief, but not the only example of offensive writing .

To prove the accusations made by him against JV Stalin of “perverting the teachings of Marx and Lenin”, “unscrupulousness and illiteracy” of the leader:

We find distortions of the teachings of Marx and Lenin in the question of expanded and simple reproduction in small-scale peasant farming. We touched on this issue in passing, already earlier showing Stalin's unprincipledness. Now we will illustrate once again his illiteracy on this issue ^[15] .

M. Ryutin quoted his speech at a conference of Marxist agrarians. To attribute the disputed text to the category of “theoretical discoveries”, as M. Ryutin insists in the opening phrase:

Recall the "theoretical discovery" of Stalin made by him at a conference of Marxist agrarians.

no reason. Stalin does not formulate any new scientific laws and theories here; on the contrary, using the scientific term “expanded reproduction”, well known to him, and assuming that the audience is familiar with the corresponding theory, Stalin notes the abnormality of the current situation in the agriculture of the USSR:

Stalin directly points out that the current state of affairs does not correspond to the norms formulated in the theory of simple and expanded reproduction: “Is it possible for our socialist industry (to move) further at an accelerated pace, having such an agricultural base as a small-peasant economy, incapable of expanded reproduction and representing But the prevailing force in our national economy? No, it is impossible ” ^[17] . Nevertheless, already in an eyeliner M. Ryutin is carrying out a thesis substitution. Raising the quoted statement to the rank of “theoretical discovery”, he begins to dispute it from the standpoint of Karl Marx’s economic doctrine. By asking a rhetorical question:

Karl Marx raised the question of simple reproduction for capitalism?

M. Ryutin quotes the second volume of Capital in response to himself:

“Simple reproduction,” he says, “reproduction on an unchanging scale is an abstraction in the sense that, on the one hand, the absence of any accumulation, or reproduction on an expanded scale, is an implausible assumption if there is a capitalist basis, and, on the other hand, the relationship , in which production takes place, in different years do not remain absolutely unchanged ” ^[18] .

and draws the following conclusion:

According to Marx, thus, even with a capitalist basis, simple reproduction is an “implausible assumption”. According to Stalin, even with a socialist basis, simple reproduction is typical of the bulk of agricultural producers.

Here we see not only incorrect substitution of the quality of the contested thesis, but also incomplete familiarization of Ryutin with the contents of Capital:

1. abstraction as a starting point for the study of a category is a special distinguishing feature of the Marx method. With abstractions, he begins to study not only circulation, but also goods and money. However, the presence in the Capital of formulations of these abstractions does not mean that Marx denies the existence of goods and money as such.
2. the categories of simple and expanded reproduction, as well as the corresponding schemes, Marx displays in Capital for all social production and its aggregate social product. Ryutin, however, seizes a separate industry (or rather, part of it - small-scale farming), and unreasonably extends to it the laws formulated by Marx on a global, macroeconomic scale.
3. in the same Volume II of Capital, Marx gives an example of possible exceptions, that is, he admits the possibility of not only simple reproduction, but also underproduction:

Summarizing the theses of Marx, D. I. Rosenberg , the largest researcher of Capital, states in his “Commentaries on Capital”:

Finally (see “Enhanced Reproduction” above), the very transition from simple reproduction to expanded (or increasing the rate of expansion) by Marx suggests that the source of this macroeconomic shift can only be a reduction in demand for products of Division II, which, all other things being equal, inevitably leads to a temporary crisis in this industry, up to an absolute reduction in volumes and hunger (the closest example to Marx is in Ireland).

• Blaug M. Reproduction Schemes // Economic Thought in Retrospect = Economic Theory in Retrospect. - M .: Delo , 1994 .-- S. 232-234. - XVII, 627 p. - ISBN 5-86461-151-4 .
• Reproduction / Notkin A.I. // Veshin - Gazli. - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1971. - (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia : [in 30 vol.] / Ch. Ed. A. M. Prokhorov ; 1969-1978, vol. 5).
• Lukach G. Rosa Luxemburg as a Marxist - chapter from the book History and Class Consciousness
• Luxembourg R. Capital accumulation. - M. - L .: Sotsekgiz, 1934.
• Marx K. Capital, Volume II. Marx K. , Engels F. Soch., 2nd ed., Vol. 24.
• Types, criteria and indicators of expanded reproduction