 |
| share the world spare the planet |
Technology and the massively expanded use of machinery, the application of science to production, the endless rationalisation and growth of output, are matters which belong to the history of capitalism. Capitalism emerged before the systematic use of machinery and then – as it developed – seized upon and transformed the instruments of men’s material production, destroying traditional ways of working and substituting its own. As a by-product of its development, capitalism vastly expanded the collective control of men over nature, creating the material possibility of a world of abundance for all.
The labour process under capitalism is not something ‘neutral’, but is shaped by its central’ purpose: the accumulation of capital. It is accumulation of capital which has made capitalist society the dominant form of society in the world. In order to produce commodities for the market, every capitalist must buy other commodities which he uses in production. The things he buys are mainly: machines, raw materials or semi-finished goods, and labour-power. Machines, raw materials or semi-finished goods, although an item of expenditure on the part of one capitalist, are commodities sold by other capitalists and appear as part of their incomes. Those capitalists also spend money on machines, raw materials or semi-finished goods and labour-power, the money spent on machines, raw materials and semi-finished goods being the income of yet another group of capitalists who spend money on ... and so on indefinitely. Whenever one capitalist spends money on machines, etc., that money is part of the income of other capitalists who then hand it over to yet other capitalists for machines, etc. If all the capitalists belonged to one great trust these transactions would not take place and the only buying and selling that there would be is the buying of labour-power by the capitalists and the selling of it by the workers and technicians in exchange for wages and salaries. Taken all in all, the capitalist class (not the individual capitalist) has only one expense – buying labour-power. Whatever remains to that class after its purchase of labour-power is profit (surplus value). Where does profits come from.
That part of the capitalist’s expenditure which is spent on machines, raw materials and unfinished goods goes the rounds from one capitalist to another in a perpetual circle – this is the social wealth that has already been created. If the productive forces of capitalism were to remain static and not increase, this expenditure would appear like a constant, fixed fund thrown from hand to hand in an endless relay race of production, each capitalist handing on to the next the exact amount required to renew his stock of machines and raw materials. No profit would be made on such sales as each capitalist would swap exactly that amount of machines, etc., for an equivalent amount, and, when all the exchanges were done with, everyone would be where he started. There is, however, one item of expenditure which makes all the difference, namely, wages and salaries – the expenditure on labour-power. This expenditure is the only one which is not a transfer of goods already produced from one capitalist to another. It is the only item of expenditure which is productive in the dual sense of producing the wealth of society and in the sense of producing profits for the capitalist. Labour alone produces wealth. The capitalist’s problem is, always and everywhere, to squeeze out of the labour-power he has hired the fullest use he can.
The capitalist controls the physical means of production; the workers control nothing but themselves, the capacity to work. They are driven to work, to sell their labour–power to the capitalist, in order to keep themselves and their families. When they sell, they demand a ‘living wage’ for their labour-power, and, if unions are strong and there is not much unemployment, they usually get it. Of course there are exceptions, but by and large, for the working class as whole, this is true.
If the worker produced exactly that amount of products which he could buy for his weekly wage plus what would replace the raw materials and machinery used up in its production, the capitalist would clearly not make a profit. Profit can only be made when the workers produce more than their wage bill and the depreciation of machinery and the depletion of stocks of raw materials put together, i.e. when they produce surplus value, value over and above the wages necessary to maintain themselves and their families.
A great deal of nonsense has been written about the way in which the most advanced forms of capitalist technology enable the worker to rediscover responsibility and skill. In practice, the chief skill required in the most highly automated plants is the skill of staying awake till the end of the shift. ‘Automation’, ‘modernisation’, ‘rationalisation’, ‘scientific management’, and the like have the effect, above all, of displacing from one sector of production after another great masses of workers, who ‘become available’ for hire in other, more labour-intensive branches of capitalist work. Whole new ‘services’ are now provided for large urban communities, ‘services’ which suck in to employment great masses of ‘surplus labour’, both the labour ‘freed’ from manufacturing industries by machinery and labour ‘freed’ from housework. Office work, like factory work, has been de-skilled to a vast extent, and the office worker turned into as much of a labourer as his or her counterpart in overalls on the shop-floor.
State capitalism was originally a term to refer to government ownership of economic enterprises. But nowadays its meaning has widened to include state intervention in economic activity to aid capitalism to overcome the contradictions and antagonisms which increasingly torment its being. Many on the Left still consider state capitalism a progressive unfolding of a new social order. The theory envisages an organized regulated capitalism which leads to state capitalism and socialism: the theory is of a gradual “growing into” socialism on the basis of the capitalist state. State capitalism is not a form of transition to socialism. State capitalism tries to “unify” the nation and “balance” class-economic antagonisms. State capitalism may make minor concessions to workers, within the limits, but the aim is to restrict workers from acting as an independent class in their own interests.
Money has the magical power of turning things into their opposites. “Gold! Yellow, glittering, precious gold”, can, as Shakespeare said, “make black, white; foul, fair; wrong, right; base, noble; old, young; coward, valiant.” Under capitalism, where everything enters the field of exchange and becomes the object of buying and selling, a man’s worth comes to be estimated, not by his really praiseworthy abilities or actions, but by his bank balance and credit rating.
The liberation of mankind can only be brought about through the world socialist revolution which will concentrate political and economic power in the hands of the working people. A rational planned economy will enable mankind to regain mastery over the means of life and abolish the conditions permitted, and even necessitated, the subjugation of man to man, the rule of the many by the few.
Once everyone’s primary needs are capable of satisfaction, abundance reigns, and the labour time required to produce the necessities of life is reduced to the minimum, then the stage will be set for the abolition of all forms of alienation and for the rounded development of all persons, not at the expense of one another, but in fraternal relation. The abolition of private property must be accompanied by the wiping out of national barriers. The resultant increase in the productive capacities of society will prepare the way for the elimination of the traditional antagonisms between physical and intellectual workers, between the inhabitants of the city and the country, between the advanced and the undeveloped nations. These are the prerequisites for building a harmonious, integrated system. When all compulsory inequalities in social status, in conditions of life and labour, and in access to the means of self-development are done away with, and when individuals no longer are at war with each other—or within themselves then the manifestations of alienation will wither away. Such is the socialist revolution and its reorganisation of society as projected by Marxism.
No comments:
Post a Comment