💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000928.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:43:41.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Comrades, friends, fellow workers etc. etc., what follows here are
some of my observations on Jeff Stein's article which appeared
in LLR this summer (Spunk718.txt).
Yours for the end of pre-history,
Mike Ballard
miballar@leland.stanford.edu
Marxism: The Negation of Communism by Jeff Stein
Introduction: Anarchist vs. Marxist Economics
The main points of disagreement between anarchist and
marxist economics are over the issues of self-management and the
free exchange of products (either goods or services). For
anarchists, the single most important requirement of an economic
revolution is workers' self- management, that workers have direct
control over their own production and distribution of goods and
services.
These kinds of separations should be sufficient indication of
where Mike Ballard is making an observation. If not, I'll try
to remember to place MB whenever I feel the need to intervene
in the text.
MB
I've never come upon the phrase, "self-management" in Karl Marx's
works. I have seen it used among people who now or in the past have
labeled themselves, "marxist" and I don't think, for example,
the older Gyoergy Lukacs or Gajo Petrovic would have had any qualms
identifying socialism with the concepts of "workers'
self-management" or that workers should have direct
control over their own production
and distribution of goods and services.
As anyone who is familiar with Marx knows, the man just
did not write much describing what he thought a communist society
might look like. He left that up to the workers of the future
to design. But in places here and there, you'll find hints at
what he wanted, usually in terms of describing a contrast within
pages of critique of the wage system. Just as an example, in
Volume 2 of CAPITAL amidst a chapter on the "Turnover of Variable
Capital" he states, "If we conceive society as being not
capitalistic but communistic, there will be no money-capital at
all in the first place, nor the disguises cloaking the transactions
arising on account of it. The question then comes down to the need
of society to calculate beforehand how much labour, means of
production, and means of subsistence it can invest, without
detriment, in such lines of business as for instance the building of
railways, which do not furnish any means of production or
subsistence, do not produce any useful effect for a long time,a year
or more, while they extract labour, means of production and means of
subsistence from the total annual production." p.315
To my way of thinking this statement and other public statements of
Karl Marx indicate that he would not oppose "self-management" nor
direct control of the product of labor by the workers themselves.
One cannot say the same thing about most of the well known figures
of world history who have called themselves "marxist"; but this
is not Karl's problem, it's theirs and their followers.
For instance when Marx wrote the "Addenda" to the "Theories of
Surplus Value" part 3 page 490, he interrupted his essay on, Revenue
and Its Sources, Vulgar Political Economy, to state that the labor
process, "only becomes a capitalist process and money is converted
into capital only: 1)if 'commodity production', i.e., the production
of products in the form of commodities, becomes the general mode of
production; 2) if the commodity (money) is exchanged against
labour-power (that is, actually against labour) as a commodity, and
consequently if labour is wage-labour; 3) this is the case however
only when the objective conditions, that is (considering the
production process as a whole), the products, confront labour as
independent forces, not as the property of labour but as the
property of someone else, and thus in the form of 'capital'."
If this does not imply direct control over the product, then
it could be the case that I don't understand what direct control
actually means. I endorse both FW Stein's concept of
self-management with direct control of the product of labor by
the producers and Marx's conceptions of how a communistic society
might operate as quoted above. I certainly don't think that the
lenninst and/or social democratic models have anything to do with
socialism for they all involve the continuation of wage-labor and
the alienation of the product from the producer.
FW Stein continues:
With the exception of the pro- capitalist, phoney
"libertarians" for whom "the market" is synonymous with human
freedom, anarchists see the exchange of products between workplace
associations as a sometimes necessary evil to keep the economy
going until the problem of scarcity has been overcome or
sufficient trust has developed among the workers to freely produce
directly for social needs.
MB
To my mind, what FW Stein has written is not that much different
from Marx, again in Volume 2 of CAPITAL, where he describes a
possible socialist scenario as follows: "In the case of socialised
production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes
labour-power and means of production to the different branches of
production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper
vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of the
consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These
vouchers are not money. They do not circulate." p.358
FW Stein continues:
For Marx and his followers, however, production for
exchange (ie.commodities) is the central feature of the capitalist
system. Production for exchange, instead of for local use, is what
distinguishes capitalism from earlier forms of economics, and is
the source of the division of labor, and the alienation and misery
of the workers. Communism, therefore, was defined by Marx largely
in terms of doing away with commodity exchange, and the only way
to assure this would be done was to assert state control over the
economy and plan the economy centrally.
MB:
This is not really a proper characterization of Karl Marx's position
on communism. Marx thought that a socialist society would be
classless and therefore, the State would no longer exist. For Marx
a class based society always governs itself with a State, indeed
the State was thought by him to be the political engine whereby
one class ruled another or others. That was its raison d'etre as
far as he was concerned. This would also be true of a State where
workers were the dominanting class over the bourgeois and landlords.
As long as the State would exist, socialism would not exist,
according to the way Marx saw it.
To give you a glimpse of what Karl Marx actually did envision as
a communist form of society, let me tear a page out of what is
known as the "Grundrisse" (Foundations) in Notebook I page 171-172:
"The labour of the individual looked at in the act of production
itself, is the money with which he directly buys the product, the
object of his particular activity; but it is a 'particular' money,
which buys precisely only this 'specific' product. In order to be
'general money' directly, it would have to be not a 'particular',
but 'general' labour from the outset; i.e. it would have to be
'posited' from the outset as a link in 'general production'. But on
this presuppostion it would not be exchange which gave labour its
general character; but rather its presupposed communal character
would determine the distribution of products. The communal
character of production would make the product into a communal,
general product from the outset. The exchange which originally
takes palce in production--which would not be an exchange of
exchange values but of activities, determined by communal needs and
communal purposes--would from the outset include the participation
of the individual in the communal world of products. On the basis
of exchange values, labour is 'posited' as general only through
'exchange'. But on the foundation it would be 'posited' as such
before exchange; i.e. the exchange of products would in no way be
the 'medium by which the participation of the individual in general
production is mediated. Mediation must, of course, take palce. In
the first case, which proceeds from the independent production of
individuals--no matter how much these independent productions
determine and modify each other 'post festum' through their
interrelations--mediation takes place through the exchange of
commodities, through exchange value and through money; all these are
expressions of one and the same relation. In the second case, the
'presuppostion is itself mediated'; i.e. a communal production,
communality, is presupposed as the basis of production. The labour
of the individual is posited from the outset as social labour.
Thus,whatever the particular material from of the product he creates
or helps to create, what he has bought with the labour is not a
specific and particular product, but rather a specific share of the
communal production. He therefore has no particular product to
exhcange. His product is 'not an exchange value'. The product does
not first have to be tranposed into a particular form in order to
attain a general gharacter for the individual. Instead of a
division of labour, such as is necessarily created with the exchange
of exhcnage values, there would take palce an organization of labour
whose consequence would be the participation of the individual in
communal consumption."
And further down in this rather meaty; but important paragraph
Marx wrote, "Labour on the basis of exchange values presupposes,
precisely, that neither the labour of the indivdual nor his product
are 'directly' general; that the product attains this form only by
passing through an 'objective mediation', by means of a form of
'money' distinct from itself."
In other words, you can't have socialism without abolishing the
wage system, in Marx's view.
FW Stein continues:
This statism of Marx's economics shows up clearly in The
Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels.
...in the most advanced countries, the following [measures] will
be pretty generally applicable... Centralization of credit in the
hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital
and an exclusive monopoly... Centralization of the means of
communication and transportation in the hands of the state...
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
state... Establishment of industrial armies, especially for
agriculture. (p.30)
MB
As I read Marx, the State has historically represented the
government of a ruling class over the ruled classes--a dictatorship
whether its ideological guise is wrapped in Athenian democracy,
slaves excluded; Egyptian divine right, non-gods to the rear of
the pyramid; bourgeois democracy, rich and poor equal under the law;
or even a potential democratic proletarian State, sorry about that
but capitalists,bureaucrats and landlords are becoming useless--
apeared and evolved out of the wreckage of classless
tribal/familial societies. As the wealth of the producers in these
societies began to exceed their subsisitence needs the outlines of
commodity production and exchange began their dawn. This period
coincided with the development of agricultural skills and the
consequent lessening of the dependence for human societies on merely
hunting, gathering and finding the natural wealth in/of the
Earth for survival. Along with the surplus though, came the
beginnings of the class relationships based on the division between
the producers and those who appropriated and controlled the rules by
which that which was produced was distributed. Their control became
enforced by governing bodies which evolved as the State apparatus.
By 1847, classes and the State had reached a point in
Europe where Marx, Engels and many others saw another of the
periodic revolts of the ruled classes against the ruling classes on
the horizon. It was in this context that members of the Communist
League asked M&E to pen the Manifesto of the Communist Party(CM).
It was written between December 1847 and January 1848, about 145
years ago. Indeed, insurrections did break out in 1848. Great
battles between the producing classes of workers and peasants and
the appropriating classes of landlords and aristocrats.
Unfortunately, the working class did not win "prolitical supremacy"
in any of these battles and the program of the CM was shelved in the
various libraries of the world.
It seems to me to be a misreading of Marx (KM) to imply that his
position reflected in the CM's program, part of which have been
reprinted by FW Stein in his article, was his final word on the
State or its relationships to economics. Indeed, appropo of this
article,it should be pointed out that one cannot find a call for an
aboliton of commodity production in the CM, which was, according to
FW Stein, KM's defining factor of capitalism.
What one can find is a prescription for what M&E thought workers,
who has won political supremacy and therefore control of the
governing structiure of society which still included other
classes--the State--might do once they had become the ruling class.
KM wrote in the CM, just above the parts which FW Stein quoted, "The
proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees,
all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of
production in the hands of the State i.e. of the proletariat
organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of
productive forces as rapidly as possible." and then to end the CM on
the next page describing a potential scenario for the extinction of
classes and the State, KM continued, "When in the course of
development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production
has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the
whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.
Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power
of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its
contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of
circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a
revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps
away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along
with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the
existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will
thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class
antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free
development of each is the condition for the free development of
all."
Of course, the idea that the State could or should exist after the
workers had won the battle with the oppressing classes was and is
one of the main issues dividing socialists; but no socialist worth
his or her salt would say that "State socialism" could exist.
FW Stein continues:
Central economic planning, however, precludes worker self-
management and direct control of workers over economic
decision-making. Self-management introduces an unpredictable,
random factor into the economy, which makes central planning
difficult, if not impossible. Even worse, it always presents the
danger of reverting to an exchange economy, if the central plan
collapses. That Marx was hostile to anarchist notions of
self-management is clear in his criticisms of Bakunin: Under
collective [state-owned] property the so-called popular will
disappears to be replaced by the genuine will of the co-
operative...If Mr. Bakunin understood at least the position of a
manager in a co-operative factory, all his illusions about
domination would go to the devil. He ought to have asked himself
what form the functions of management could assume in such a
workers' state, if he chooses to call it thus. ("Conspectus of
Bakunin's Book State and Anarchy", in Anarchism and
Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp.150-151)
MB
How this description squares with FW Stein's notion that Marx was
hostile to self-management is beyond me. I can see that KM was less
than generous with Bakunin's ideas on the State and the quote which
FW Stein uses from KM clearly demonstrates this. But how this quote
relates to KM's alleged inability to conceive of that the workers
could self-manage industry is, in my opinion, not made. Is it any
more inconceivable that part of the necessary labor in an automobile
plant would be the job of coordinating the receipt of doors with the
assembly of bodies and engines? Could a position like this be
delegated by say a vote of the associated producers concerned? Sure
it would be a powerful position; but control of who filled the
position would rest with the producers themselves in a society built
on the principle of self-management. The notion that authroity can
be delegated; but always rest with the rank and file is something I
believe, Bakunin was particularly keen on converying to the workers'
movement and rightfully so. Anthropological studies done since
Marx's death have shown that even classless tribal societies are
often plagued by those who would turn positions based on freely
given respect into thrones of power over other tribal members. The
methods for dealing with these authoritarian behaviors usually
manifest themselves in anti-authroitarian acts, ranging from
shunning to outright assassination. KM's understanding of Bakunin's
point was poor, clouded by his rage, in my opinion, at Bakunin's
characterization of his(KM's) conception of the State and its
relation to authority.
FW Stein continues:
Friedrich Engels, Marx's closest political associate, made
this even clearer:
...if [the anarchists] had but given a little study to economic
questions and conditions in modern industry, they would know that
no joint action of any sort is possible without imposing on some
an extraneous will, ie. an authority. Whether it be the will of a
majority of voters, of a leading committee, or of one man, it is
still a will imposed on the dissentients; but without that single
and directing will, no co-operation is possible. Go and run one of
the big Barcelona factories without direction, that is, without
authority! ("Engels to P. Lafargue in Madrid", in Anarchism and
Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 58)
MB
I'm not sure what the point of bringing in Engels' letter to
Lafargue was. If FW Stein can present an argument which would throw
more light on the question of how direction and authority relate to
each other in a classless environment of self-management, I, for
one, would be grateful. But drawing the conclusion which follows:
FW Stein continues:
The goal of marxist economics is to build one giant,
world-wide, all embracing, harmonious co-operative under central
direction. As Marx described it:
...all labors, in which many individuals co-operate, necessarily
require for the connection and unity of the process one commanding
will, and this performs a function, which does not refer to
fragmentary operations, but to the combined labor of a workshop,
in the same way as does that of a director of an orchestra.
(Capital, Volume III, p.451)
MB:
and then polishing off this assertion with a quote about how
coordination works within a divison of labor, does not prove to me
that KM was opposed to "self-management" or the "free exchange of
products."
FW Stein continues:
The Dialectical Approach to Communism
To understand marxist economics, it is necessary to
understand its roots in Hegelian philosophy. Marx and Engels began
as followers of the German philosopher, Hegel. For Hegel and Marx,
the only truly scientific approach to understanding anything,
whether it is religion, nature, politics, or economics is through
dialectical reasoning. Dialectics begins with a logical assumption
or observation, such as A = A, this is called "unity". This,
however, tells us very little about what A is, so we must contrast
it to something else, such as A is not B, which is called
"opposition". Then assuming we have chosen A and B correctly based
upon an definite relationship between A and B, we can put them
together as a set or "category", a "unity of opposites". Out of
this "unity of opposites" comes motion and change, the opposition
is resolved into a new "unity", starting the whole reasoning
process all over again. Eventually by moving from one category to
the next, a system of categories is developed which is able to
account for all the facts, in other words, a scientific model.
Hegel and his successors, however, claimed that dialectics
was not simply a method of reasoning, but also manifests itself in
nature. All motion and change is a result of opposition to the
current reality. As the philosopher Richard Norman puts it, With
this notion of "development through conflict" we move to a
different concept of contradiction...it introduces a distinctly
new emphasis. What is now asserted is that there are
contradictions in reality in so far as there are conflicts between
antagonistic forces, and that these are the source of all
developments, as evidenced by Newtonian mechanics, the Darwinian
theory of evolution, and the Marxist theory of class struggle.
(Hegel, Marx, and Dialectic, p.56)
From Hegel, Marx took the idea that history evolves
according to a dialectic, in which societies rise and fall because
of their internal "contradictions" or conflicts, and applied it to
the task of creating communism. Marx criticized earlier socialist
theorists, Fourier, Saint Simon, etc. as having a utopian approach
towards socialism. Since socialism does not exist, one cannot
describe a workable socialist system in the form of an exact
blueprint. The closest one can come to describing socialism or
communism is as a "negation" or the opposite of capitalism.
Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and
hence is the actual phase necessary for the next stage of
historical development in the process of human emancipation and
recovery. (Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of
1844, p.114)
MB:
As for the above section on the "Dialectical approach to Communism",
I realize that one cannot be as thorough as one might wish within
the limited space of an article to describe KM's use of the
dialectical method. I would urge readers who are interested in a
more extensive explication to read KM's Introduction to the Second
Edition of Capital, Volume I, writeen in 1873, where on the last two
pages of my copy pp. 27-28 Dietz Verlag Berlin, 1988, he holds forth
on the question of dialectical methodology, with specific reference
to how he differs from Hegel in its application.After reading this
alone, it will become apparent that, "Marx (never MB) took the idea
that history evolves according to a dialectic..." but rather that by
using the dialectical method, he, KM, was able to analyse human
creative actions and thought through time, with the result that he
was able to complete works like Capital.
It is unfortunate that so much of FW Stein's article is based on
what I consider to be a misunderstanding of Marx's use of
dialectical methodology. As I have shown in previous quotes, KM has
more to wrte about communism than what he wrote in 1844. As for the
specifics of the rather mystical sounding formulation, "negation of
the negation", it must be remembered that KM was addressing this
passage to intellectuals who fancied themselves "left-Hegalians".
This milleau was very familiar with the process of sublation
(aufhebung) a movement which both preserves and destroys. It results
from the tension between dialectically connected opposites.
Perhaps, if KM has known how often these Manuscripts would be used
in the future, he would have used less specifically Hegelian terms.
Perhaps not though, as he did use this formulation in other, later
more public works.
FW Stein continues:
A "scientific" approach is to study the history of
economic systems and the factors that cause them to
change. For Marx, the most important factor in bringing about
historical change is the steadily increasing means of production.
Social systems rise and fall because of their ability or inability
to materially improve the lives of their populations. Each new
social system develops because it can do a better job of improving
productivity than the old system. At the same time, however, the
new social system itself is plagued by limitations, or
"contradictions", which can only be resolved by the next
historical stage. Communism, which Marx assumed would be the next
historical stage after capitalism, therefore is to be discovered
by studying the contradictions of capitalism.1
MB:
One could read this paragraph and conclude that KM was a mere
"economic determinist". In my opinion, this was not the case. In
1890, Engels wrote a letter to J. Bloch defending KM from this very
charge: "The economic situation is the basis, but the various
elements of the superstructure--political forms of the class
struggle and its consequences, constitutions established by the
victorious class after a successful battle, etc. forms of law--and
then even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains
of the combattants: political, legal, philosophical theories,
religious ideas and their further development into systems of
dogma--also excercise their influence upon the course of the
historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determing
their 'form'."
The letter is much longer than this brief quote; but I would urge
anyone interested in the question of KM and economic determinism to
read at least this piece in order to gain an understanding of where
KM and Engels thought they stood on the issue.
FW Stein continues:
Dialectical Contradictions of Capitalism
Capitalism is a system of production for exchange instead
of direct use, a commodity economy. All commodities have both a
use value and an exchange value. The exchange value of a commodity
is determined by the average amount of social labor time required
to produce that type of commodity. The value of a commodity,
however, can only be realized by the act of exchange. Thus where
there is no exchange, there has been no value produced, no matter
how much labor time has been spent or how much use might exist for
the product. This is capitalism's first contradiction.
MB:
FW Stein brings out a good point in his this paragraph, namely that
a commodity must be traded--sold in societies which have advanced
passed the barter stage--in order for it to realize its value.
Primary consideration here is the fact that the commodity must have
a perceived use-value by those with money enough to buy it. From
the commodity seller's point of view, this translates into the old
aphorism, "Find a need and fill it." (And BTW, try to get the
highest price you can.) But is it in itself a contradiction that
the exchange-value embodied in a commodity must be sold to be
realized? Perhaps. If FW Stein is implying that some commodities
may not be sold under capitalism even though they fill a need
because the buyers don't have enough cash to purchase them, then
yes, this is indeed a contradiction. If he means that use-value and
exchange-value form a "unity of opposites" to use a dialectical
concept, then yes again, this could be "capitalism's first
contradiction", according to KM.
FW Stein continues:
Furthermore, exchange creates another contradiction for
capitalism, the division of labor. Without the division of labor
into different industries producing different commodities, there
would be no reason for exchange. But for different types of labor
to be easily exchanged for each other (in their form as
commodities), they must be reduced to a common, abstract form.
Commodities, first of all, enter into the process of exchange just
as they are. The process then differentiates them into commodities
and money, and thus produces an external opposition inherent in
them, as being at once use-values and values. Commodities as
use-values now stand opposed to money as exchange value. On the
other hand, both opposing sides are commodities, unities of
use-value and value. But this unity of differences manifests
itself at two opposite poles in an opposite way. (Capital, Vol. I,
p.117)
Money, which is both the measure of value and the
universal commodity (in effect becoming labor value in the
abstract), helps to resolve these contradictions by facilitating
exchange. Money, however, creates a new contradiction. Since money
now mediates exchange, it separates the exchange of commodities
into two different transactions, sale and purchase. In order to
buy the commodities of others, it is necessary to sell one's own
commodities to obtain money. And vice versa, in order to sell, it
is necessary to buy and thus, keep money in circulation. When for
some reason beyond the individual capitalist's control,
circulation slows down or stops (usually because capitalists have
collectively created an oversupply of goods which they are unable
to sell at a profit), the system is thrown into crisis. We see
then, commodities are in love with money, but "the course of true
love never did run smooth". The quantitative division of labor is
brought about in exactly the same spontaneous and accidental
manner as its qualitative division. The owners of commodities
therefore find out that the same division of labour that turns
them into independent private producers, also frees the social
process of production and the relations of the individual
producers to each other within that process, from all dependence
on the will of the producers, and that seeming mutual independence
of the individuals is supplemented by a system of general and
mutual dependence through or by the means of production. (Capital,
Vol. I, p.121) In a crisis, the antithesis between commodities and
their value- form, money, becomes heightened into an absolute
contradiction. (Capital, Vol. I, p. 151)
The only way for the capitalist to survive a crisis is to
have sufficient money on hand to wait it out. This is what drives
the capitalist to accumulate money and continually reinvest it as
capital to make more money. It is not simply a matter of greed,
but survival. However, in order to accumulate, it is necessary to
create a surplus. This drive for "surplus- value" is a source of
new contradictions for capitalism. Since commodities must be
exchanged for other commodities of equal value, the only place
where a surplus can be achieved is in the production process.
Labor must be made to produce more value in commodities than it is
paid in wages. Equality in exchange thus leads to exploitation
and inequality of social classes. The labor theory of value has as
its dialectical corollary, the commodity theory of labor power.
The price of labor power is not the value created by that labor
power, since then there would be no surplus, but the value of
commodities needed to barely sustain the workers and their
families. The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case
of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for
production, and consequently also reproduction, of this special
article...in other words, the value of labour-power is the value
of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the
labourer...(Capital, Vol. I, p. 189)
MB:
As for FW Stein's account of Marx's views of money and value, they
are, I think, fair, until he gets to the point below, where he says:
The capitalist has a number of ways for forcing workers to
produce a surplus. The most important of these is the division of
labor. The production process is divided and sub-divided into
MB:
I should think KM would be more inclined to underline the key to
surplus-value as intimated by FW Stein above, is wage-labor.
On the other hand the question of how KM saw the class struggle is
quite accurate below, in my opinion:
specialized tasks, thus forcing workers to become more efficient,
regardless of the increase in stress and brain-numbing monotony
caused. The contradiction resulting from the division of labor is
that it does away with the old, individually isolated labor of
handicrafts and replaces it with a higher form of "co- operative"
social production. The factory creates the social basis for labor
organization, the collective resistance of the working class to
their exploitation. A struggle develops between workers and
employers over wages and the length of the working day. The
capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser [of labor power]
when he tries to make the working day as long as possible...the
labourer maintains his right as a seller when he wishes to reduce
the working day to one of definite normal duration...Hence it is
that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of
what is a working day, presents itself as the result of a
struggle, a struggle between collective capital, ie.,the class of
capitalists, and collective labor, ie., the working class.
(Capital, Vol I, p.259)
MB:
However the paragraph below is, I think, not an accurate portrayal
of KM's views on automation:
FW Stein continues"
The capitalist seeks to resolve this conflict by
minimizing the need for labor through the introduction of
machinery. Machinery allows labor to become even more simplified,
turning skilled laborers into mere machine tenders. Since machine
tending requires little strength or education, male workers can be
replaced with women and children, thereby undermining labor
unions. At the same time, the unemployment caused by replacing
human labor with machines, creates an "industrial reserve army".
The unemployed, desperate for work at any wage level, help to keep
wage rates down at subsistence level. They also form a labor
reserve which can be moved from industry to industry as they are
needed. The laboring population therefore produces, along with
the accumulation of capital produced by it, the means by which
itself is made relatively superfluous, is turned into a relative
surplus population; and it does this to an always increasing
extent....But if a surplus labouring population is a necessary
product of accumulation or of development of wealth on a
capitalist basis, this surplus population becomes, conversely, the
lever of capitalist accumulation, nay, a condition of existence of
the capitalist mode of production. It forms a disposable
industrial reserve army, that belongs to capital quite as
absolutely as if the latter had bred it at its own cost.
(Capital, Vol I, pp. 692-693)
MB:
The capitalist, accroding to my reading of Marx, doesn't automate
primarily in order to defeat his/her class antagonists, the workers;
but rather in order to win markets from her/his fellow capitalists
in their mutual struggle for commodity buyers i.e. us and others.
Efficient capitalist oriented automation has one purpose--to help
the employed produce cheaper--read less labor intensive--commodities
and thereby drive the capitalist who employs more labor instensive
operations--out of business, thus capturing greater market share.
I shall delete for brevity's sake the paragraphs below this one
which FW Stein wrote on the "reserve army of labor" and the
possiblities for revolution inherent in the system of wage-labor,
which are treated as tenets of orthodoxy.
FW Stein continues:
The Problems with Marxist Economics
Marxist economics were not necessarily the major advance
in socialist economics that some people think. Marx was not the
first to use the labor theory of value, itself a development of
bourgeois economics, as an indictment against the capitalist
system. Neither was he the first to use dialectics to critique the
capitalist system. Marx's claim to originality lies in the
blending of the labor theory of value into his theory of
dialectical materialism. Where earlier socialist economists
criticized capitalism because it did not obey its own law of
value, Marx argued, on the contrary, that it did, and that
ultimately this would lead to its own destruction. What other
labor value theorists ignored, Marx claimed, was that the exchange
of goods at their labor value went hand in hand with the sale of
labor power at its commodity equivalent. Thus any attempt to use
the labor theory of value to create a more just society based on
the free exchange of goods, was utopian at best, if not totally
reactionary.
MB:
It is true that KM studied the labor theory of value from the works
of the likes of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, among others and never
himself laid claim to its authorship. It is also generally true
that KM thought commodities, including labor skills, sold for
prices/wages which, on the average over time, reflected their
exchange value. It must be remembered that price, as distinct from
exchange value, fluctuates with supply and demand, even though it is
anchored, based on exchange value. On can find a fairly accessible
discourse on these differences in the speech by KM, now titled Value
Price and Profit. (Hopefully, I will have deposited this work in
the Marx/Engels archive--gopher csf.colorado.edu--before too much
more time passes). But I really don't understand FW Stein's
comment above, "Thus any attempt..." in light of previous quotes I
have used from KM's work, see further above. I would appreciate
seeing what this conclusion is based on. It could be a critique of
certain groups in the 19th Century who tried to create socalist
communities within the prevailing capitalist system, as a method of
advancing towards a free, classless scoiety. In my opinion, KM did
think that these attempts would all fail and not only divert the
working class from effective organizing but also breed pessimism and
in that sense, they would be reactionary efforts. But if FW Stein
is speaking of KM's views on a post capitalist organization of
production/consumption, I think there is a misunderstanding. Even a
late work like the Critique of the Gotha Program contains ample
indication that KM found the labor theory of value useful as a
potential method for calculating quantitative measures of vlaue
during an intitial stage of communism.
FW Stein continues:
Marx's economic theory rests on a few central ideas, the
labor theory of value, the commodity theory of labor power, and
dialectical materialism. If these ideas can be disproved, the
marxist theoretical edifice collapses. To begin, let's look at the
labor theory of value. Marx's main argument for the labor theory
of value is that labor is the thing which all commodities have in
common, and that therefore thIs has greater value than do commodities made with
raw materials of greater availability. Marx unintentionally
admitted as much in his theory of land rent.
MB:
In the original document, FW Stein begins his critique of the labor
theory of value with what I think is obscured in my online version.
Essentially, he says that some commodities have more than labor in
common, they have "scarce natural resources and energy" too. The
implication is that KM did not take this into account. I will
refrain from extensive quotes here and instead refer the reader to
the scathing critique KM made of the German Social Democrats and
their Gotha Program. Look for the part of their Program stating
that labor creates all wealth. Here, and of course in many many
other places in his work Km makes the distinction between natural
wealth and socially created wealth.
FW Stein also confuses KM's concept of exchange-value with price in
the paragraph. VPP is great as a guide to understanding how KM
thought supply (scarcity) might work on the price of something and
how in turn that price would relate to exchange-value. But the
matter is further complicated below when FW Stein gets into the
question of rent.
FW Stein continues:
admitted as much in his theory of land rent. Marx criticized
Ricardo's theory of rent because Ricardo pointed out that land
rents at different rates based on fertility, without accounting
for "absolute rent", the minimum rental rate based upon the least
fertile land. The source of absolute rent, Marx argued, is the
monopoly of landowners on all fertile land, which prevents
capitalist farmers from producing agricultural goods without
paying the landlord a fee for using the land. Rent, therefore, is
a surplus value extracted from agriculture beyond the surplus
value obtained in the production of agricultural commodities. What
did not occur to Marx is that since land is not itself a
manufactured good and thus has no labor value, the paying of a
"surplus value" to the landlord is qualitatively different than
the extraction of a surplus through the manufacturing of
commodities. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that scarce raw
materials, such as arable land, do have exchangeable value,
regardless of whether the landlord is entitled to receive that
value or not.2
MB:
As Jeff points out, Marx criticized Ricardo's theory of rent. In
fact a very large portion of Part II of the Theories of Surplus
Value is devoted to Ricardo's theory of rent. Needless to say, KM's
critique cannot be summarized in a couple of sentences and where FW
Stein says that ,"Rent, therefore, is a surplus value obtained in
the production of agricultural commodites", he is partially right
but is not taking into account e.g. rent for land used to tear coal
out of the Earth or rent of land on which housing is built etc.
As for the assertion that it "did not occur to Marx" etc. this, in
my opinion is refuted by literally thousands of words written in
just the Theories of Surplus Value. That is, it actually did occur
to KM that land was not a manufactured good and thus has no
exchange-value. It can have a perceive use-value though. And some
may be willing to part with their money to obtain it. Land is owned
and therefore can be sold, only because of juridical power, not
because it contains socially necessary labor time. What did occur
to KM was that rent is paid to landlords from either the wages of
the workers or the profits of the capitalist--wealth which is
created by the sale of commodities made by wage-slaves.
FW Stein continues:
Energy, like scarce raw materials, also contributes to the
value of commodities. As production becomes more mechanized, the
amount of human labor required to produce a commodity decreases.
However, the non-human energy required to produce the commodity
goes up. Energy, since it comes from the consumption of scarce
fuels, has value. Unlike other scarce materials, however, energy
can not be recycled. Unlike machinery, or "constant capital" it
does not accumulate nor depreciate. As production becomes more
mechanized, the labor value of the commodity goes down, while its
energy value rises, and partially offsets the labor saving
involved. The rising cost of energy due to both an increased
demand and diminishing supply, will act to prevent the value of
commodities from falling close to zero, as predicted by Marx's
labor value theory. This trade off between energy and labor,
probably explains the rise of the modern "post-industrial" service
economy, in which manufactured goods of low labor value but high
energy value, are exchanged for labor- intensive services.
MB:
Energy to Marx, like other natural resources--timber for building,
metal for machinery--has no "inherent" exchange-value. According to
my reading of KM, capitalists find natural resources useful and buy
them from their owners when they can be extracted and/or formed into
saleable commodities by wage-laborers.
Once again, FW Stein applies a misunderstanding of price to the
question of the exchange value of energy. Diminishing supplies of
energy when met by increasing demand will drive their prices up over
their exchange values most times. It is also the case that
diminishing supply may involve the application of increasing amounts
of socially necessary labor time, so that the exchange value and
consequently usually, the price, goes up. Of course, other
variables are possible too.
FW Stein continues:
There are, of course, other factors besides scarcity,
labor, and energy, which affect the value of goods and services.
The costs of maintaining the physical and social infrastructure,
come into play, as well as aesthetics, culture, and perhaps many
other influences. The point is that labor power alone, does not
determine exchange value in capitalist society, nor will it in any
future society. Without the labor theory of value, however, the
main driving force in Marx's theory is lost. Capitalism will not
collapse because of its inability to extract a surplus from a
diminishing labor force.
MB:
While FW Stein has every right to disagree with KM over the question
of whether "labor power" alone does not determie echange value in
capitalist society, this article demonstrates, I believe, either a
misunderstanding of KM's critique of political economy or a need for
a more thorough reading from primary sources.
FW Stein continues:
On the other hand, Marx did not solely base his prediction
that capitalism would collapse on the "falling rate of profit",
but also on the increased class conflict due the commodity theory
of labor power. According to this theory, under capitalism labor
power is exchanged just like any other commodity. Its value is not
the whole of the product which it produces, but only that portion
necessary to keep the worker alive and to feed his/her children,
the next generation of workers. Marx, to distinguish his theory
from the so-called "iron law of wages", qualified this theory by
saying that the level of necessary wages was "culturally
determined". Thus the wage levels of workers must include more
than just the bare minimum to stay alive, but also must include
the costs of education, and be able to sustain the workers and
their families at a standard considered appropriate for that
country. Marx acknowledged that the trade unions played a
necessary role in keeping up this standard of living. However, the
increasing mechanization of industry, would undermine the efforts
of the unions by pitting them against a growing reserve army of
the unemployed, driving wage levels ever lower, until the
desperate workers would overthrow capitalism.
Unfortunately, the commodity theory of labor power has
even less to back it up than the labor theory of value. The weak
spot in Marx's argument is his admission that subsistence wages
are "culturally determined" and influenced by union efforts. No
longer are we dealing with economic laws, but with a host of other
variables like the level of union organization, working class
rebelliousness, and cultural expectations about what is an
acceptable standard of living. All these exceptions to the rule
that wage rates are tied to some minimum, invalidate the rule
itself. The history of the past century, the victories won by the
union movement and the rise of the capitalist welfare state,
demonstrate the fallacy of Marx's argument.
MB:
For example, the paragraphs here dealing with the "commodity theory
of labor power" which according to FW Stein "has even less to back
it up than the labor theory of value." According to my
understanding of KM's observations on wage labor, he would not place
the labor theory of value and the so called "commodity theory of
labor power" in separate catagories. As far as I can tell, KM
thought that the skills of workers were sold on the market like
other commodities and like other commodities labor power was,
barring monoploies or other aberrations of supply and demand, sold
at a price which on average coincided with its exchange value. Two
big differences had to be noted though when dealing with
prices/wages of skills: one was that unlike other commodities, labor
power was used to expand the exchange value of the capitalist buyer
and therefore, was seen by the employer as variable capital i.e.
capital which varied or expanded capital when put to use as opoosed
to coantant capital, either fixed like machinery or circulating,
like raw materials, which wen in to the production process. The
second factor which differentiates labor from other commodities like
pork, beans, Coke and steel is that workers have an intellect and
therefore are not mere objects (although they are many time treated
as such by those with power; part of the process I call
commodification of human relations) but subjects, who can directly
influence the conditions of their existence through among other
things, class conscious organization. Humans make their own
history; they are not just victims of circumstance.
This last difference is crucial for understanding KM's contribution
to the critique of political economy, in my opinion, for without it
one can reduce KM's position to one of an economic determinist.
Thus, the notion that KM's critque of wage labor was flawed because
the wage-slaves have had the sense to stand up for their class
interests in struggle with capitalists, landlords and State
bureaucrats reveals a need for more in depth reading of KM's
work--perhaps The Civil War in France.
KM was not a dogmatist who pronounced a series of irrevocable
dictums. Indeed, he identified himself as a socialst/communist, one
who urged workers not to cowardly give way in their struggle with
capital and even to go futher by resolving to abolish the wage
system, to change the world. In this light, it seems absurd to me,
that someone as well read as FW Stein could write:
"The history of the past century, the victories won by the union
movement and the rise of the capitalsit welfare states, demonstrate
the fallacy of Marx's argument". (Of the commodity status of labor
power).MB--Ok, victories, welfare state and so on. I think KM would
have agreed, we proles haven' allowed ourselves to be ground down to
mere subsistence. In the face of the ever increasing GDP pie; a
product of our labor, we have demanded and recieved a few morsals
now and then over and above mere subsistance, usually funneled in
some way shape or form through the State apparatus via the action of
cautious liberals. And the bourgeoisie, ever conscious of their
class interests, have from time to time (now is one of those times)
snatched some of those pieces back, using the vanguard of their
hacks in the State apparatus to launch trial balloons and pass
legislation. Last time I checked though, I still had to sell my
labor time to make a living 'cause if I don't, I'll find myself
sleeping in the doorways of this bloody welfare state and to me, at
least, this sale indicates that my skills are a commodity.
FW Stein continues:
What is more, the labor theory of value and the commodity
theory of labor power contradict each other. According to Marx,
the labor theory of value must result in a falling rate of profit.
Marx tried to prove this mathematically with his equation for
profit rate, p.r.=s/(c+v), where s is surplus value, c is the
amount of constant capital invested in machinery, and v the
variable capital paid out in wages. If the amount of constant
capital, c, rises while the other two variables remain constant
(ie. a constant rate of exploitation of labor, s/v), the overall
rate of profit must fall. However, this ignores the fact that as
commodities become cheaper due to improved production methods,
workers can purchase more goods with less wages. For there to be a
falling rate of profit, workers real wages (purchasing power) have
to rise above subsistence level. On the other hand, this would
mean that the commodity theory of labor power was invalid.3
MB:
FW Stein above here implies that KM ignored the "fact that as
commodities become ceaper due to improved production methods,
workers can purchase more goods with less wages." Compare this to
what KM wrote on the second page of his chapter on the "Tendency of
the Rate of Profit to Fall" in Vol III of Capital, "To this growing
quantity of value of the constant capital--although indicating the
growth of the real mass of use-values of which constant capital
materially consists only approximately--corresponds a prograssive
cheapening of products."
The second assertion in the paragraph claims, "For there to be a
falling rate of profit, workers real wages (purchasing power) have
to rise above subsistence level." Apart from the fact that this
"subsistence level" argument i.e. Marx was an economic determinist
has been effectively demolished, at least to my satisfaction, the
statement does not reflect how KM actually posited his theory of the
rate of profit. On the first page of the chapter on the tendency,
Capital Vol III, KM uses the follwoing hypothectical examples:
C=constant capital V=variable capital P'=rate of profit
If C=50 and v=100 then p'=100/150=66 2/3%
C=100 v=100 then p'=100/200=50%
C=200 v=100 then p'=100/300=33 1/3%
C=300 v=100 then p'=100/400=25%
C=400 v=100 then p'=100/500=20%
Here, as we can see v or approximate wages remains at 100 whereas C
goes up and then the rate of profit drops. How this relates to FW
Stein's argument that a fall in the rate of profit DEPENDS on a rise
in wages, I don't know. It is true that rising wages would lead to
a fall in the rate of profit; but that's not the main thrust of
Marx's theory on the tendency, where it is C, not v. It should be
noted; however that in today's climate of layoffs, firings and
restructurings, lowering of v in the equation may be part of a
capitalist response to the problem of the tendency of the rate of
profit to fall. But this is another kettle of fish.
FW Stein continues:
Marx insisted that both theories were true, regardless of
the contradictions, because they were necessary to his theory of
dialectical materialism. According to Marx, capitalism must
develop the means of production to the point where the private
ownership of the means of production is no longer historically
necessary. This is an article of faith, however, since there is no
reason to conclude that communism must necessarily follow
capitalism. Dialectical materialism reduces history to a single
cause, the quest for greater economic productivity. Supposedly
history can be fitted into so many categories based upon a
civilization's increasingly powerful "mode of production", eg.
asiatic, feudal, capitalist and, by extension, socialist. This
model of historical change leaves out many historical variables,
like the role of political institutions, ideology, culture, etc.,
or treats them as secondary effects or "superstructure". Many
historical events have no economic explanation at all, for
instance, the conquest of the Roman empire by relatively
economically backward invaders.
MB:
The above paragraph is totally impregnated with notions attributed
to Marx which I have shown to be highly questionable: 1. that
"dialectical materialism" was some sort of ideological map which KM
dogmatically imposed on reality. BTW, this notion may be true of
99% of the ideologists who label themselves marxist, but my reading
of KM's works points in the direction of a man with a Ph.D. in
philosophy who employed dialectical methodology as a was of
logically sorting out phenomena emanating from reality. 2. that KM
was an economic determinist. Far from being a producer of articles
of faith or of fixed ideas, KM was a relentless critic of all
reified approaches to knowledge. A basic book on this topic is
Engels' work, Ludwig Feurbach and the end of Classical German
Philosophy. The long and the short of it here is that KM throughout
his 40 odd years of communist activity held to the priciple that the
emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class
themselves i.e. not a reformist/revolutionary party. BTW, this is
in stark contrast to the praxis of most self-described marxists.
Lastly, a word about commodity production and communism. I think,
KM understood commodity production and exchange to be part and
parcel of the processf which genereated the various systems of class
domination maintained by the State. His conclusion, I belive was
that neither wage labor--the foundation of advanced commodity
production and exchange--nor classes, nor the State were compatible
with a socialist society. In fact, I believe, he would argue that
any self-described socialist society retaining these traits would
never be able to free itself from the reproduction of oppressive
human relationships, including dictatorship and slavery.
On that note, I end my commentary on Marxism: The Negation of
Communism. The concluding paragraphs of Jeff Stein's article only
reiterate notions about KM which I have already addressed.
For brevity's sake, I have deleted them from the rest of this text.
Please refer to the original for his conclusion.
While it is true, in my opinion, that most of what passes for
"marxism" is and has been a negation of communism, my own reading
of KM shows him to have been one of the most erudite socialists to
have come along. I would urge my FW's to take what they find useful
from KM's work in the struggle for our common emancipation. His
writing has sure helped me out a lot towards understanding how to
find out what the score is.
My sense of the workers who contribute articles to LLR is that they
are making sincere efforts to develop working class awareness and
consciousness. I offer my commentary in the same spirit, not as a
pointless excercise in factional one upsmanship; but as a
contribution towards the development of a demcratic, libertarian
class wide union of our brothers and sisters. I thank Jeff Stein
for writing his thought provoking article and Jon Bekken for
getting it online.
For education, organization and emancipation,
Mike Ballard