Philosophy 版 (精华区)
发信人: dogcat (评论员), 信区: Philosophy
标 题: What is Marxism?
发信站: 哈工大紫丁香 (2001年09月23日21:20:07 星期天), 站内信件
发信人: lianxing (小铁 ★ 拼音加加，小鸭嘎嘎), 信区: Philosophy
标 题: What is Marxism?
发信站: BBS 水木清华站 (Tue Sep 5 00:03:18 2000)
What is Marxism?
We are reproducing a slightly edited version of 'What is Marxism?'by Rob
Sewell and Alan Woods, last published in 1983 to celebrate thecentenary of
the death of Karl Marx. The three articles on thefundamental aspects of
Marxism, Marxist Economics,
DialecticalMaterialism and Historical Materialism were originally
publishedseparately in the 1970s. These articles are a good, briefintroduction
to the basic methods of Marxism and can serve as a firstapproach to the
ideas developed by Marx and Engels.
An Introduction to Dialectical Materialism
Introduction to Historical Materialism
Introduction to Marxist Economics
1983 Introduction
Marxism, or Scientific Socialism, is the name given to the body ofideas first
worked out by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels(1820-1895). In their
totality, these ideas provide a fullyworked-out theoretical basis for the
struggle of the
working class toattain a higher form of human society--socialism.
While the conceptions of Marxism have been subsequently developedand enriched
by the historical experience of the working classitself, the fundamental
ideas remain unshaken, providing a firmfoundation for the Labour Movement
today. Neither before, nor
sincethe lifetime of Marx and Engels have any superior, more truthful
orscientific theories been advanced to explain the movement of societyand the
role of the working class in that movement. A knowledge ofMarxism therefore
equips the proletariat
theoretically for the greathistoric task of the Socialist transformation of
Society.
It is this fact which explains the constant and bitter attacks onall aspects
of Marxism which have been delivered by every conceivabledefender of the
existing social order--from the Tory to the Fabian,from the Jesuit priest to
the University professor.
From the veryspleen of these attacks, to the fact that they have to be kept
upcontinuously despite the fact that every single one of the pundits inturn
claims to have "finally disposed" of Marxism, the thinkingmember of the
Labour Movement can deduce
Labour Movement can deduce
two facts. First, that thedefenders of capitalism recognise in Marxism the
most dangerouschallenge to their system, and thereby also instantly confess
thetruth in it, despite all their attempts to "disprove" it. Second,that far
from disappearing under
the heap of abuse, quack"exposures", and flagrant distortions, the theories
of Marx andEngels are steadily gaining ground, particularly within the
activelayers of the Labour Movement, as increasing numbers of workers,under
the impact of the crisis of
capitalism, strive to discover thereal meaning of the forces which shape
their lives, in order to beable to consciously influence and determine their
own destiny.
The theories of Marxism provide the thinking worker with such anunderstanding-
-a thread which is capable of leading him through theconfused labyrinth of
events, of the complex processes of society, ofeconomics, of the struggle of
classes, of politics.
Armed with thissword the worker can cut the Gordian knot which binds him to
themightiest obstacle in the way of the advancement of himself and
hisclass--ignorance.
It is to keep this knot firmly in place that the hiredrepresentatives of the
ruling class struggle with might and main todiscredit Marxism in the eyes of
the working class. It is the duty ofevery serious worker of the Labour
Movement to conquer for
himself orherself the theories of Marx and Engels, as an essential
prerequisitefor the conquest of society by the working people.
Yet there are obstacles in the path of the worker's struggle fortheory and
understanding far more intractable than the scribblings ofpriests and
professors. A man or woman who is obliged to toil longhours in industry, who
has not had the benefit of a
decent educationand consequently lacks the habit of reading, finds great
difficultyin absorbing some of the more complex ideas, especially at
theoutset. Yet it was for workers that Marx and Engels wrote, and notfor
"clever" students and middle class
people. "Every beginning isdifficult" no matter what science we are talking
about. Marxism is ascience and therefore makes heavy demands upon the
beginner. Butevery worker who is active in the trade unions or Labour Party
knowsthat nothing is
worthwhile if attained without a degree of struggleand sacrifice. It is the
activists in the Labour Movement at whom thepresent pamphlet is aimed. To the
active worker who is prepared topersevere, one promise can be made: once the
initial effort is
madeto come to grips with unfamiliar and new ideas, the theories ofMarxism
madeto come to grips with unfamiliar and new ideas, the theories ofMarxism
will be found to be basically straight-forward and simple.Moreover--and this
should be emphasised--the worker who acquires bypatient effort an
understanding of Marxism will turn
out to be abetter theoretician than most students, just because he can grasp
theideas not merely in the abstract, but concretely, as applied to hisown
life and work.
All exploiting classes attempt to morally justify their class ruleby
portraying them, as the highest, most natural form of socialdevelopment,
deliberately concealing the system of exploitation bydisguising and
distorting the truth. The present day
capitalistclass, through their professional hirelings and hangers on,
haveelaborately evolved a whole new philosophy and morality to justifytheir
ruling position in society.
The working class, on the contrary, has no material interest indistorting the
truth, and sets itself the task of laying bare therealities of capitalism in
order to consciously prepare for itsemancipation. Far from seeking a special
position for itself,
theworking class has the aim of abolishing capitalism and with it allclass
distinctions and privileges. To do so it must reject theoutlook of the
capitalists, and seek for itself a new Marxist methodof understanding.
The Marxist method provides a richer, fuller, more comprehensiveview of
society and life in general, and clears away the veil ofmysticism in
understanding human and social development. Marxistphilosophy explains that
the driving force of history is
neither"Great Men" nor the super-natural, but stems from the development
ofthe productive forces (industry, science, technique, etc.)themselves. It is
economics, in the last analysis, that determinesthe conditions of life, the
habits and consciousness
of human beings.
Each new re-organisation of society--be it slavery, feudalism orcapitalism--ha
s ushered in an enormous development of the productiveforces which in turn
gave men and women greater powers over nature.As soon as a social system
proves unable to develop
these forces ofproduction, then that society enters an epoch of revolution.
However,in the case of the change from capitalism to socialism, the processis
not automatic but requires the conscious intervention of theworking class to
carry through this
task of history. Failure to do soin the long run would pave the way for the
advent of reaction andeventual world war.
Capitalism has once again entered a new world economic crisisresulting in
mass unemployment on the lines of the 1930s. The quacktheories of capitalist
economists have proved utterly incapable ofpreventing recessions, which has
driven the ruling class
to ditchKeynesianism and re-adopt the old measures of "sound finance",
ofmonetarism. Rather than rescue the situation this latter programmehas
served to deepen and prolong the crisis!
Only Marxism has been able to expose the contradictions ofCapitalism which
result periodically in depression and slump.Capitalism has now completely
exhausted its historical role indeveloping the productive basis of society.
Hemmed in by the
nationstate and private ownership, the productive forces are systematicallydes
troyed in the face of the mass overproduction of commodities andcapital.
As Marx himself explained: "In these crises there breaks out anepidemic that
in all earlier epochs, would have seemed anabsurdity--the epidemic of
overproduction.
"Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of monetarybarbarism; it
appears as if a famine, a universal war of destructionhas cut off the supply
of every means of subsistence; industry andcommerce seem to be destroyed. And
why? Because there
is too muchcivilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry,
toomuch commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society nolonger
tend to further the development of the conditions of Bourgeoisproperty; on
the contrary they have
become too powerful for theseconditions by which they are fettered, and so as
soon as theyovercome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole
ofBourgeois society, endanger the existence of Bourgeois property."
The present pamphlet brings together for the first time the threesupplements
of the South Wales Bulletin of Marxist Studies (firstpublished in the 1970s)
as a small contribution to the increasingthirst for the ideas of Marxism. It
is also fitting that
the issue ofthe pamphlet coincides with the centenary of Karl Marx's death,
on 14March 1883, the co-founder with Engels, of scientific socialism.
This pamphlet however is not intended to provide a completeexposition of
Marxism, but to assist the worker-student in hisapproach to the subject by
giving a rough outline of some basicideas, plus a selected reading list with
which he may continue
hisstudies. Marx and Engels themselves wrote many brief pamphlets andshorter
explanatory works aimed at popularising their theories amongthe working
explanatory works aimed at popularising their theories amongthe working
class, and these provide the basis of the suggestedreading list.
The study of Marxism falls under three main headings,corresponding broadly to
philosophy, social history and economics,or, to give them their correct
names, Dialectical Materialism,Historical Materialism and the Labour Theory
of Value. These are
thefamous "three component parts of Marxism" of which Lenin wrote.
Rob Sewell and Alan Woods
18 February, 1983
THE METHOD OF MARXISM
AN INTRODUCTIONTO DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
What is a philosophy?
At each stage in human history, men and women have worked out somesort of
picture of the world and their place in it. They develop aPhilosophy. The
pieces they use to make up this picture have beenobtained by observing nature
and through generalising
their day today experiences.
Some people believe they have no need of such a philosophy orworld outlook.
Yet in practise everyone has a philosophy, even if itis not consciously
worked out. People who live by rule of thumb or"common sense" and think they
are doing without theory,
in practicethink in the traditional way. Marx once said that the dominant
ideasof society are those of the ruling class. To maintain and justify
itsrule, the capitalist class makes use of every available means todistort
the consciousness of the worker.
The school, church, TV, andpress are used to foster the ideology of the
ruling class andindoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the
mostnatural permanent form of society. In the absence of a conscioussocialist
philosophy, they accept
unconsciously the capitalist one.
At each point in class society, the rising revolutionary class,aiming to
change society, have to fight for a new world outlook andhave to attack the
old philosophy, which, being based on the oldorder, justified and defended it.
Idealism and materialism
Throughout the history of philosophy we find two camps, theIdealist and the
Materialist. The common idea of "Idealism" (i.e.honesty, uprightness in the
pursuit of ideals) and "Materialism"(i.e. base, greedy, money-grabbing
egoism) has nothing to do
withphilosophical idealism and philosophical materialism.
Many great thinkers of the past were Idealists, notably Plato andHegel. This
school of thought looks upon nature and history as areflection of ideas or
spirit. The theory that men and women andevery material thing was created by
a divine Spirit, is a
basicconcept of idealism. This outlook is expressed in a number of ways,yet
its basis is that ideas govern the development of the materialworld. History
is explained as a history of thought. People's actionsare seen as resulting
from abstract thoughts,
and not from theirmaterial needs. Hegel went one step further, being a
consistentidealist, and turned thoughts into an independent "Idea"
existingoutside of the brain and independent of the material world. Thelatter
was merely a reflection of this
Idea. Religion is part andparcel of philosophical idealism.
The Materialist thinkers on the other hand, have maintained thatthe material
world is real and that nature or matter is primary. Themind or ideas are a
product of the brain. The brain, and thereforeideas, arose at a certain stage
in the development of
living matter.The basic corner-stones of Materialism are as follows:
(a) The material world, known to us by our senses andexplored by science, is
real. The development of the world is due toits own natural laws, without any
recourse to the supernatural.
(b) There is only one world, the material one. Thought is aproduct of matter
(the brain) without which there can be no separateideas. Therefore minds or
ideas cannot exist in isolation apart frommatter. General ideas are only
reflections of the
material world. "Tome," wrote Marx, "the idea is nothing else than the
material worldreflected in the human mind, and translated into forms of
thought."And further, "Social being determines consciousness".
The Idealists conceive of consciousness, of thought, as somethingexternal,
and opposed to matter, to nature. This opposition issomething entirely false
and artificial. There is a close correlationbetween the laws of thought and
the laws of nature,
because theformer follow and reflect the latter. Thought cannot derive
itscategories from itself, but only from the external world. Even themost
itscategories from itself, but only from the external world. Even themost
seemingly abstract thoughts are in fact derived from theobservation of the
material world.
Even an apparently abstract science like pure mathematics has, inthe last
analysis, been derived from material reality, and is notspun from the brain.
The school-child secretly counts his materialfingers under a material desk
before solving an abstract
arithmeticalproblem. In so doing, he is re-creating the origins of
mathematicsitself. We base ourselves upon the decimal system because we have
tenfingers. The Roman numerals were originally based on therepresentation of
fingers.
According to Lenin, "this is materialism: matter acting on oursense organs
produces sensation. Sensations depend upon the brain,nerves, retina, etc.,
i.e., matter is primary. Sensation, thought,consciousness are the supreme
product of matter".
People are a part of nature, who develop their ideas ininteraction with the
rest of the world. Mental processes are realenough, but they are not
something absolute, outside nature. Theyshould be studied in their material
and social circumstances in
whichthey arise. "The phantoms formed in the human brain," stated Marx,"are é
necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process." Laterhe concluded,
"morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest ofideology and their
corresponding forms of
consciousness, thus nolonger retain the semblance of independence. They have
no history, nodevelopment, but men, developing their material production and
theirmaterial intercourses, alter along with this their real existencetheir
thinking and the
product of their thinking. Life is notdetermined by consciousness, but
consciousness by life."
The origins of materialism
"The original home of all modern materialism," wrote Engels, "fromthe
seventeenth century onwards, is England." At this time, the oldfeudal
aristocracy and monarchy were being challenged by the newlyemerged middle
classes. The bastion of feudalism was
the RomanCatholic church, which provided the divine justification for
themonarchy and feudal institutions. This, therefore, had to beundermined
before feudalism could be overthrown. The risingbourgeoisie challenged the
old ideas and divine concepts
that the oldorder was based upon.
"Parallel with the rise of the middle classes went on the greatrevival of
science; astronomy, mechanics, physics, anatomy,physiology, were again
cultivated. And the bourgeoisie for thedevelopment of its industrial
production, required a science
whichascertained the physical properties of natural objects and the modesof
action of the forces of Nature. Now up to then science had butbeen the humble
handmaid of the church, had not been allowed tooverstep the limits set by
faith, and for that
reason had been noscience at all. [In the 17th century, Galileo demonstrated
the truthof Copernicus' theory that the earth and planets revolved around
theSun. The professors of the day ridiculed these ideas and used thepower of
the Index and the
Inquisition against Galileo to force himto recant his views. RS] (Science
rebelled against the church; thebourgeoisie could not do without science, and
therefore, had to joinin the rebellion.)" (F. Engels.)
It was at this time that Francis Bacon (1561-1626) developed hisrevolutionary
ideas of materialism. According to him the senses wereinfallible and the
source of all knowledge. All science was basedupon experience, and consisted
in subjecting the data
to a rationalmethod of investigation; induction, analysis, comparison,
observationand experiment. It was, however, left to Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
tocontinue and develop Bacon's materialism into a system. He realisedthat
ideas and concepts were only
a reflection of the material world,and that "it is impossible to separate
thought from matter thatthinks". Later, the English thinker John Locke
(1632-1704) providedproof of this materialism.
The materialist school of philosophy passed from England toFrance, to be
taken up and developed further by Rene Descartes(1596-1650) and his
followers. These French materialists did notlimit themselves to criticisms of
religion, but extended them to
allinstitutions and ideas. They challenged these things in the name ofReason,
and gave ammunition to the developing bourgeoisie in theirstruggle with the
monarchy. The birth of the great French BourgeoisRevolution of 1789-93 took
as its creed
materialist philosophy.Unlike the English Revolution in the mid-17th century,
its Frenchcounter-part completely destroyed the old feudal order. As
Engelslater pointed out: "We know today that this kingdom of reason
wasnothing more than the idealised
kingdom of the bourgeoisie."
The defect, however, of this materialism from Bacon onwards wasits rigid,
mechanical interpretation of Nature. Not accidentally, theEnglish school of
mechanical interpretation of Nature. Not accidentally, theEnglish school of
materialist philosophy flourished in the 18thcentury, when the discoveries of
Isaac Newton made
"mechanics" themost advanced and important science. In the words of Engels:
"Thespecific limitation of this materialism lay in its inability tocomprehend
the universe as a process, as matter undergoinguninterrupted historical
development."
The French Revolution had a profound effect upon the civilisedworld, similar
to the Russian Revolution of 1917. It revolutionisedthinking in every field,
politics, philosophy, science and art. Theferment of ideas emerging from this
bourgeois democratic
revolutionushered in advances in natural science, geology, botany, chemistry
aswell as political economy.
It was in this period that a criticism was made of the mechanicalapproach of
the materialists. A German philosopher, Immanuel Kant(1724-1804), made the
first breakthrough in the old mechanistic wayswith his discovery that the
Earth and the solar system
had come intobeing, and had not existed eternally. The same also applies
togeography, geology, plants and animals.
This revolutionary idea of Kant was comprehensively developed byanother
brilliant German thinker, George Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel wasa philosophical
idealist, believing that the world could be explainedas a manifestation or
reflection of a "Universal
Mind" or "Idea",i.e., some form of God.
Hegel looked upon the world not as an active participant insociety and human
history, but as a philosopher, contemplating eventsfrom afar. He set himself
up as a measuring rod of the world,interpreting history according to his
prejudices as the history
ofthought, the world as the world of ideas, an Ideal World. Thus forHegel,
problems and contradictions were posed not in real terms butin terms of
thought, and could therefore find their solution only interms of thought.
Instead of contradictions in
society being solvedby the actions of men and women, by the class struggle,
they insteadfind their solution in the philosopher's head, in the Absolute
Idea!
Nevertheless, Hegel recognised the errors and shortcomings of theold
mechanistic outlook. He also pointed out the inadequacies offormal logic and
set about the creation of a new world outlook whichcould explain the
contradictions of change and
movement. (See below).
movement. (See below).
Although Hegel rediscovered and analysed the laws of motion andchange, his
idealism placed everything on its head. It was thestruggle and criticism of
the Young Hegelians, led by LudwigFeuerbach (1804-1872), which tried to
correct and place
philosophyback on its feet. Yet even Feuerbach--"the under half of him
wasmaterialist, the upper half idealist" (Engels)--was not able to fullypurge
Hegelianism of its idealist outlook. This work was left to Marxand Engels,
who were able to rescue the
dialectical method from itsmystical shell. Hegelian dialectics were fused
with modernmaterialism to produce the revolutionary understanding of
dialecticalmaterialism.
What are dialectics?
We have seen that modern materialism is the concept that matter isprimary and
the mind or ideas are the product of the brain. But whatis dialectical
thinking or dialectics?
"Dialectics is nothing more than the science of the general lawsof motion and
development of nature, human society and thought."(Engels, Anti-Dühring.)
The dialectical method of thinking already had a long existencebefore Marx
and Engels developed it scientifically as a means ofunderstanding the
evolution of human society.
The ancient Greeks produced some great dialectical thinkers,including Plato,
Zenon and Aristotle. As early as 500 B.C.,Heraclitus advanced the idea that
"everything is and is not, foreverything is in flux, is constantly changing,
constantly coming
intobeing and passing away". And further, "all things flow, all change.It is
impossible to enter twice into one and the same stream". Thisstatement
already contains the fundamental conception of dialecticsthat everything in
nature is in a constant
state of change, and thatthis change unfolds through a series of
contradictions.
"...the great basic thought that the world is not to becomprehended as a
complex of ready made things, but as a complex ofprocesses, in which things
apparently stable, no less than theirmental images in our heads, concepts go
through an
uninterruptedchange of coming into being and passing away." (Engels,Anti-Dü
hring,)
"For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. Itreveals the
transitory character of everything and in everything:nothing can endure
before it except the uninterrupted process ofbecoming and of passing away, of
endless ascendancy from
the lower tothe higher. And dialectical philosophy is nothing more than the
merereflection of this process in the thinking brain." (Ibid.)
Dialectics and metaphysics
The Greek Philosophers brilliantly anticipated the laterdevelopment of
dialectics as of other sciences. But they could notthemselves carry this
anticipation to its logical conclusion owing tothe low development of the
means of production, and the lack
ofadequate information about the detailed workings of the universe.Their
ideas gave a more-or-less correct general picture, but theywere often more in
the nature of inspired guesses than scientificallyworked out theories. In
order to carry human
thought further, it wasnecessary to abandon these old methods to arrive at a
generalunderstanding of the universe, and concentrate on the smaller,
moremundane tasks of collecting, sorting out and labelling a host
ofindividual facts, of testing
particular theories by experiment, ofdefining, etc.
This empirical, experimental, factual approach provided anenormous boost to
human thought and science. Investigations into theworkings of nature could
now be carried out scientifically, analysingeach particular problem and
testing each conclusion. But
in theprocess, the old ability to deal with things in their connection,
notseparately, in their movement, not statically, in their life not intheir
death, was lost. The narrow, empirical mode of thought whichconsequently
arose is termed the
"Metaphysical" approach. It stilldominates modern capitalist philosophy and
science. In politics it isreflected in Harold Wilson's famous "pragmatism"
("if it works, itmust be right") and the constant appeals to "the Facts".
But facts do not select themselves. They have to be chosen byindividuals. The
order and sequence in which they are arranged, andthe conclusions drawn from
them depend upon the preconceived notionsof the individual. Thus such appeals
for "the Facts",
which aresupposed to convey the impression of scientific impartiality,
areusually just a smokescreen to conceal the prejudices of the speaker.
Dialectics deals not only with facts, but with facts in theirconnection, i.e.
processes, not only with isolated ideas, but withlaws, not only with the
ith isolated ideas, but withlaws, not only with the
particular, but with the general.
Dialectical thinking stands in the same relationship tometaphysics as a
motion picture to a still photograph. The one doesnot contradict the other,
but compliments it. However, the truer,more complete approximation of reality
is contained in the movie.
For everyday purposes and simple calculations, metaphysicalthought, or
"common sense", suffices. But it has its limitations, andbeyond these the
application of "common sense" turns truth into itsopposite. The fundamental
shortcoming of this type of
thinking is itsinability to conceive of motion and development, and its
rejection ofall contradiction. However, movement and change imply
contradiction.
"To the metaphysician things and their mental reflexes, ideas, areisolated,
are to be considered one after the other and apart fromeach other, are
objects of investigation, fixed, rigid, given onceand for all. He thinks in
absolutely irreconcilable
antithesis é Forhim a thing either exists or does not exist: a thing cannot
at thesame time be itself and something else. Positive and negativeabsolutely
exclude one another: cause and effect stand in rigidantithesis one to the
ntithesis one to the
other." (Anti-Dühring,
p. 34.)
For everyday purposes, for instance, it is possible to say with adegree of
certainty whether an individual, plant or animal is aliveor dead. But in
reality the question is not so simple, as legal caseson abortion and the
"rights of the foetus"
indicate. At what pointprecisely does human life begin? At what point does it
end? Death,also is not a simple event but a protracted process, as
Heraclitusunderstood: "It is the same thing in us that is living and
dead,asleep and awake, young and old;
each changes place and becomes theother. We step and we do not step into the
same stream: we are andare not."
Trotsky, in his ABC of Materialist Dialectics characterised thedialectic as
"a science of the forms of our thinking insofar as it isnot limited to the
daily problems of life but attempts to arrive atan understanding of more
complicated and drawn-out
processes."
He compared dialectics and formal logic (metaphysics) to higherand lower
mathematics. It was Aristotle who first developed the lawsof formal logic,
istotle who first developed the lawsof formal logic,
and his system of logic has been accepted ever sinceby the metaphysicians as
the only possible method of
scientificthinking.
"The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism is accepted as anaxiom for a
multitude of practical human activities and elementarygeneralisations. The
postulate starts from the proposition that 'A' ='A'. But in reality 'A' is
not equal to 'A'. This is
quite easy toprove if we observe these two letters under a lens--they are
quitedifferent from each other. But, one can object, the question is notof
the size or form of the letters, since they are only symbols forequal
quantities, for instance, a pound
of sugar. The objection isbeside the point--in reality a pound of sugar is
never equal to apound of sugar--a more delicate scale will always disclose
adifference. Again one can object; but a pound of sugar is equal toitself.
Neither is this true--all
bodies change uninterruptedly insize, weight, colour, etc. They are never
equal to themselves. Asophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to
itself 'at anygiven moment'. Aside from the extremely dubious practical value
ofthe 'axiom' it does
not withstand theoretical criticism, either. Howshould we really conceive the
word 'moment' a purely mathematicalabstraction, that is a zero of time? But
s a zero of time? But
everything exists in time:and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of
transformation:time
is subsequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus theaxiom 'A' is
equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if itdoes not exist.
"At first glance it could seem that these 'subtleties' areuseless. In reality
they are of decisive significance. The axiom 'Aequals A' appears on the one
hand to be the point of departure forall knowledge on the other hand the
point of departure for
all errorsin our knowledge. To make use of the axiom 'A equals A' with
impunityis possible only within certain limits. When quantitative changes
in'A' are negligible for the task at hand, then we can presume that 'Aequals
A'. This is, for example, the
manner in which a buyer and aseller both consider a pound of sugar. We
consider the Sun'stemperature likewise. Until recently we considered the
buying powerof the dollar in the same way. But quantitative changes
beyondcertain limits become qualitative.
A pound of sugar subjected to theaction of water or Kerosene cease to be a
pound of sugar. A dollar inthe embraces of a president ceases to be a dollar.
To determine theright moment, the critical point where quantity changes to
quality isone of the
most important and difficult tasks in all spheres ofknowledge, including
most important and difficult tasks in all spheres ofknowledge, including
sociology." (Trotsky, ABC of MaterialistDialectic)
Hegel
The old dialectical method of reasoning, which had fallen intodisuse from
medieval times on, was revived in the early 19th centuryby the great German
philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, (1770-1831). Hegel, oneof the most encyclopaedic
minds of his time,
subjected the forms offormal logic to a detailed criticism, and demonstrated
theirlimitations and one-sidedness. Hegel produced the first reallycomprehensi
ve analysis of the laws of dialectics, which served as abasis upon which Marx
and Engels later
developed their theory ofdialectical materialism. Lenin characterised
Hegelian dialectics as"the most comprehensive, the most right in content and
the mostprofound doctrine of development". In comparison with this,
everyother formulation was "one-sided
and poor in content, and distortingand mutilating the real course of
development (which often proceedsin leaps, catastrophes and revolutions) in
nature and society".(Lenin, Karl Marx.)
Hegel's View of things was that of "A development that seeminglyrepeats the
stages already passed, but repeats them differently, on ahigher basis
(negation of the negation), a development, so to speak,in spirals, not in a
straight line; a development
by leaps,catastrophes, revolutions; breaks in continuity; the transformationso
f quantity into quality; the inner impulses of development, impartedby the
contradictions and conflict of the various forces andtendencies acting on a
given body, or within a
given phenomenon, orwithin a given society: the interdependence and the
closest,indissoluble connection of all sides of every phenomenon
(whilehistory constantly discloses ever new sides), a connection thatprovides
a uniform, a law-governed, universal
process of motion, suchare some of the features of dialectics as a richer
(than theordinary) doctrine of developmenté" (Ibid.)
"This new German philosophy culminated in the Hegelian system. Inthis
system--and herein is its great merit--for the first time thewhole world,
natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as aprocess, i.e., as in
constant motion, change,
transformation,development; and the attempt is made to trace out the
internalconnection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement
anddevelopment. From this point of view the history of mankind no
longerappeared as a wild whirl of senseless
deeds of violence, as equallycondemnable at the judgement-seat of mature
deeds of violence, as equallycondemnable at the judgement-seat of mature
philosophic reason, andwhich are best forgotten as quickly as possible, but
as the processof evolution of man himself. It was now the task of the
intellect tofollow the gradual
march of this process through all its devious waysand to trace out the inner
laws running through all its apparentlyaccidental phenomena." (Engels, Anti-D
ühring, p. 37.)
Hegel brilliantly posed the problem, but was prevented fromsolving it by his
idealist preconceptions. It was, in Engels' words"a colossal miscarriage".
Despite its mystical side, Hegel'sphilosophy already explained the most
important laws of
dialectics:Quantity and quality, the interpenetration of opposites and
negationof the negation.
Quantity and quality
"In spite of all gradualness, the transition from one form ofmotion to
another always remains a leap, a decisive change". (Engels,Anti-Dühring.)
The idea of change and evolution is now generally accepted, butthe forms by
which changes occur in nature and society have only beenexplained by Marxian
dialectics. The common view of evolution as apeaceful, smooth and
uninterrupted development is both
one-sided andfalse. In politics it is the "gradualist" theory of
socialchange--the basic theoretical plank of reformism.
Hegel developed the idea of a "nodal line of measurerelations"--in which at a
definite nodal point, the purelyquantitative increase or decrease gives rise
to a qualitative leap:for example in the case of heated water, where boiling
point andfreezing
point are the nodes at which under normal pressure the leapinto a new state
of aggregation takes place, and where consequentlyquantity is transformed
into quality." (Engels, Anti-Dühring.)
Thus, in the example cited, the transformation of water from aliquid to
vapour or solid ice do not occur by a gradual congealing ordissipation, but
suddenly at a particular temperature (0°C,100°C). The cumulative effect of
numerous changes of the
speedof the molecules eventually produces a change of state--quantity
intoquality.
Examples may be produced at will, from all the branches ofscience, from
sociology and even from everyday life (e.g., the pointat which the addition
of salt changes the soup from somethingpalatable to something undrinkable).
of salt changes the soup from somethingpalatable to something undrinkable).
The Hegelian nodal line of measurement and the law of thetransition of
quantity into quality and vice-versa are of crucialimportance not only to
science (where, like other dialectical laws,they are used unconsciously by
scientists who are not
consciousdialecticians) but above all in an analysis of history, society
andthe movement of the working class.
The interpenetration of opposites
Just as "common sense" metaphysics seeks to eliminatecontradiction from
thought and revolution from evolution, it alsotries to prove that all
opposing ideas and forces are mutuallyexclusive. However, "we find upon
closer examination that the twopoles
of an antithesis, positive and negative, e.g., are asinseparable as they are
opposed, and that despite all theiropposition they mutually interpenetrate.
And we find, in like mannerthat cause and effect are conception to individual
cases, but as soonas
we consider the individual cases in their general connection withthe universe
as a whole, they run into each other, and they becomeconfounded when we
contemplate that universal action and interactionin which causes and effects
are eternally changing
places, so thatwhat is effect here and now will be cause there and then
andvice-versa". (Engels, Anti-Dühring, p. 36.)
Dialectics is the science of inter-connections, in contrast tometaphysics
which treats phenomena as separate and isolated.Dialectics seeks to uncover
the countless threads, transition, causeand effect which bind together the
universe. The first task of
adialectical analysis is therefore to trace the "Necessary connection,the
objective connection of all the aspects, forces, tendencies etc.,of the given
sphere of phenomena". (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks,p. 97.)
Dialectics approaches a given phenomenon from the point of view ofits
development, its own movement and life; how it arises andhow it passes away;
it also considers the internal contradictorytendencies and sides of this
thing.
Motion is the mode of existence of the entire material universe.Energy and
matter are inseparable. Furthermore, motion is notimparted "from without",
but the manifestation of the internaltensions that are inseparable not only
from life, but from all
formsof matter. Development and change takes place through internalcontradicti
ons. Thus dialectical analysis begins by laying bare byempirical
aying bare byempirical
investigation the inner contradictions which give rise todevelopment and
change.
From the dialectical standpoint all "polar opposites" areone-sided and
inadequate, including the contradiction between "truthand error". Marxism
does not accept the existence of any "EternalTruths". All "truths" and
"errors" are relative. What is true
in onetime and context becomes false in another: truth and error pass
intoeach other.
Thus the progress of knowledge and science does not proceed fromthe mere
negation of "incorrect theories". All theories are relative,grasping one side
of reality. Initially they are assumed to haveuniversal validity and
application. They are "true".
But at a certainpoint, deficiencies in the theory are noticed; they are
notapplicable to all circumstances, exceptions to the rule are found.These
have to be explained, and at a certain point, new theories aredeveloped which
can account for the
exceptions. But the new theoriesnot only "negate" the old, but incorporate
them in a new form.
We can exclude contradictions only by regarding objects aslifeless, at rest
by regarding objects aslifeless, at rest
and individually juxtaposed, i.e. metaphysically.But as soon as we consider
things in their motion and change, intheir life, their mutual interdependence
and interaction, we
come upagainst a series of contradictions.
Motion itself is a contradiction between being in the sameplace and somewhere
else at the same time.
Life, equally, is a contradiction that "a being is at eachmoment itself and
yet something else". (Engels, Anti-Dühring, p.167.)
Living structures constantly absorb substances from theenvironment,
assimilate them and simultaneously other parts of thebody decay, disintegrate
and are expelled. Constant transformationsoccur also in the world of organic
nature; e.g., a rock
whichdisintegrated under the pressure of the elements. Everything istherefore
constantly itself and something else at one and the sametime. Thus, the
desire to eliminate contradictions is the desire toeliminate reality.
Negation of the negation
Engels characterises this as "an extremely general and for thisreason
remely general and for thisreason
extremely far-reaching and important law of development ofnature, history and
thought; a law which é holds good in the animaland plant kingdoms, in
geology, in mathematics, in
history andphilosophy". (Ibid., p. 193.)
This law, the workings of which were observed in nature longbefore it was
written down, was first clearly elaborated by Hegel,who gives a whole series
of concrete examples which are reiterated inAnti-Dühring. (Ibid., pp.
186-190.)
The law of the negation of the negation deals with the nature ofdevelopment
through a series of contradictions, which appear toannul, or negate a
previous fact, theory, or form of existence, onlyto be later negated in its
turn. Motion, change and
development thusmoves through an uninterrupted series of negations.
However, negation in the dialectical sense does not signify a mereannulment
or obliteration whereby the earlier stage is both overcomeand preserved at
the same time. Negation, in this sense, is both apositive and a negative act.
Hegel gives a simple example in his book, The Phenomenology of theMind: "The
bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and wemight say that the
s through, and wemight say that the
former is refuted by the latter; in the same waywhen the fruit comes the
blossom may be explained to
be a false formof the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true
nature inplace of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated,they
supplement one another as being incomparable with one another.But the
ceaseless activity of their
own inherent nature makes them atthe same time moments of an organic unity,
where they do not merelycontradict one another, but where one is as necessary
as the other;and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and
therebythe life of the
whole."
In this process of endless self-annulment, the disappearance ofcertain forms
and the emergence of others, a pattern frequentlyemerges which seem to be a
repetition of forms, events and theoriesalready surpassed. Thus, it is a
commonplace that "history
repeatsitself". Reactionary bourgeois historians have thus tried to provethat
history itself is merely a meaningless repetition, proceeding ina
never-ending circle.
Dialectics, on the contrary, discerns within these seemingrepetitions an
actual é development from lower to higher, anevolution in which the same
igher, anevolution in which the same
forms may repeat themselves, but on ahigher level, enriched by previous
developments.
This can be seen most clearly from the process of development ofhuman ideas.
Hegel already showed how philosophy developed through aseries of
contradictions; one school of thought negating another, butsimultaneously
absorbing the older theories into
its own system ofthought.
Similarly with the development of science. The alchemists of theMiddle Ages
were motivated for the search for the "Philosophers'Stone" which could turn
base metal into gold. Owing to the low levelof the productive forces and the
lack of scientific
technique, theseearly attempts at the "transmutation" of the elements was in
realitya utopian fantasy. However, in the process of these vain attempts,the
alchemists actually discovered a whole series of valuable factsabout
chemicals and experimental
apparatus which later provided thebasis of modern chemistry.
With the rise of capitalism, industry and technique, chemistrybecomes a
science which rejected the early "crazy" notions of thetransmutation of the
elements which was thus negated. However, allthat was valuable and scientific
allthat was valuable and scientific
in the discoveries of
alchemy werepreserved in the new chemistry, which maintained that the
elementswere "immutable" and could not be transformed one into another.
The 20th century has seen the revolutionising of science andtechnique with
the discovery of nuclear physics, by means of whichone element can actually
be transformed into another. In fact, itwould be theoretically possible to
turn lead into gold, in
moderntimes, but the process would be too expensive to be justifiedeconomicall
y. Thus this particular process seems to have turned fullcircle:
(a) transmutation of elements
(b) non transmutation of elements
(c) transmutation of elements
But the repetition is only apparent. In reality, modern science,which in one
sense has returned to an idea of the ancient alchemists,includes within
itself all the enormous discoveries of the 19thcentury and 18th century
science. Thus, one generation
stands on theshoulders of another. Ideas which have apparently been
"disproved" or"negated" make their re-appearance, but on a higher level,
enrichedby the previous experiences and discoveries.
Dialectics bases itself upon determinism: the thought that nothingin nature,
society or thought is accidental; that seeming "accidents"arise only as the
result of a deeper necessity.
Superficial historians have written that the First World War was"caused" by
the assassination of a Crown Prince at Sarajevo. To aMarxist this event was
an historical accident, in the sense that thischance event served as the
pretext, or catalyst, for
the worldconflict which had already been made inevitable by the
economic,political and military contradictions of imperialism. If the
assassinhad missed, or if the Crown Prince had never been born, the war
wouldstill have taken place, on some other
diplomatic pretext. Necessitywould have expressed itself through a different
"accident".
Everything which exists, exists of necessity. But, equally,everything which
exists is doomed to perish, to be transformed intosomething else. Thus what
is "necessary" in one time and placebecomes "unnecessary" in another.
Everything begets its
oppositewhich is destined to overcome and negate it. This is true
ofindividual living things as much as societies.
Every type of human society exists because it is necessary at thegiven time
when it arises: "No special order ever disappears beforeall the productive
forces for which there is room in it, have beendeveloped: and new higher
relations of production
never appear beforethe material conditions of their existence have matured in
the wombof the old society. Therefore mankind always takes up only
suchproblems as it can solve, since, looking at the matter more closely,we
will always find that the
problem itself arises only when thematerial conditions necessary for its
solution already exist or atleast are in the process of formation". (Marx,
Critique of PoliticalEconomy.)
Slavery, in its day, represented an enormous leap forward overbarbarism. It
was a necessary stage in the development of productiveforces, culture and
human society. As Hegel put it: "It is not somuch from slavery as through
slavery that man
becomesfree".
Similarly capitalism was originally a necessary and progressivestage in human
society. However, like slavery, primitive communismand feudalism (see section
2), capitalism has long since ceased torepresent a necessary and progressive
social system. It
social system. It
has founderedupon the deep contradictions inherent in it, and is doomed to
beovercome by the rising forces of socialism, represented by the
modemproletariat. Private ownership of the means of production and thenation
state, the basic features of
capitalist society, whichoriginally marked a great step forward, now serve
only to fetter andundermine the productive forces and threaten all the gains
made incenturies of human development.
Capitalism is now a thoroughly decrepit, degenerate social system,which must
be overthrown and replaced by its opposite, Socialism, ifhuman culture is to
survive. Marxism is determinist, but notfatalist, because the working out of
contradictions in
society canonly be achieved by men and women consciously striving for
thetransformation of society. This struggle of the classes is notpre-determine
d. Who succeeds depends on many factors, and a rising,progressive class has
many advantages over the
old, decrepit force ofreaction. But ultimately, the result must depend upon
which side hasthe stronger will, the greater organisation and the most
skilful andresolute leadership.
The Marxist philosophy is therefore essentially a guide to action:"Philosopher
s have only interpreted the world in various ways; thepoint is, however, to
change it". (Marx, Theses on Feuerbach.)
The victory of socialism will mark a new and qualitativelydifferent stage of
human history. To be more accurate it will markthe end of the prehistory of
the human race, and start a realhistory.
However on the other hand, socialism marks a return to theearliest form of
human society--tribal communism--but on a muchhigher level, which stands upon
all the enormous gains of thousandsof years of class society. The economy of
superabundance, will
bemade possible by the application of socialist planning to theindustry,
science and technique established by capitalism, on a worldscale. This in
turn will once and for all make redundant the divisionof labour, the
difference between mental and manual
labour, betweentown and countryside, and the wasteful and barbaric class
struggleand enable the human race at least to set its resources to
theconquest of nature: to use Engels' famous phrase, "Mankind's leapfrom the
realms of necessity to the Realm of
Freedom".
INTRODUCTION TOHISTORICAL MATERIALISM
When one looks at history, it appears to be a mass ofcontradictions. Events
When one looks at history, it appears to be a mass ofcontradictions. Events
are lost in a maze of revolutions, wars,periods of progress and of decline.
Conflicts of classes and nationsswirl around in the chaos of social
development. How is it
possibleto understand and explain these events, when it appears that theyhave
no rational basis?
From the beginning, human beings have sought to discover the lawswhich govern
their existence. Theories ranging from supernaturalguidance to the leadership
of "Great Men" have attempted in one wayor another, at one time or another to
provide such an
explanation.Some believe that as people act independently of each other,
theoriesof human development are utterly worthless!
For almost 2,000 years the ideas of Genesis dominated the outlookof Western
Europe. Those who attempted to undermine this concept werebranded as
disciples of the Devil. It is only in very recent timesthat the "heretical"
view of history, evolution, has
been generallyaccepted although even then in a one-sided fashion.
For the capitalist class and their functionaries in theuniversities, schools
and places of learning, history has to betaught in an academic and biased
fashion with absolutely no relevanceto the present day. They continue to
peddle the myth that classes
andprivate property have always existed in a bid to justify the"eternal"
nature of capitalist exploitation and the economic anarchyinherent within it.
Volumes and volumes have been written by leadingacademics and professors to
disprove the writings of
Marxism andabove all its Materialist Conception of History.
Marxists attach enormous importance to the study of history; notfor its own
sake but so as to study the great lessons it contains.Without that
understanding of the development of events, it is notpossible to foresee
future perspectives. Lenin, for
example, preparedthe Bolshevik Party for the October 1917 Revolution by a
meticulousanalysis of the experience of the Paris Commune and the events
inRussia of 1905 and February 1917.
It is precisely in this sense that we study and learn fromhistory. Marxism is
the science of perspectives, using its method ofDialectical Materialism to
unravel the complex processes ofhistorical development.
Marxist philosophy examines things not as static entities but intheir
development, movement and life. Historical events are seen asprocesses.
Evolution, however, is not simply the movement from thelower to the higher.
Evolution, however, is not simply the movement from thelower to the higher.
Life and society develop in a
contradictory way,through "spirals not in a straight line; a development by
leaps,catastrophes, and revolutions; breaks in continuity; thetransformation
of quantity into quality; inner impulses towardsdevelopment, imparted by the
contradiction and
conflict of thevarious forces and tendenciesé" (Lenin.)
Engels expressed dialectics as being "the great basic thought thatthe world
is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-madethings, but as a complex
of processes, in which the things apparentlystable no less than their mind
images in our heads, the
concepts, gothrough an uninterrupted change of coming into being and
passingawayé" (Anti-Duhring).
This method is also materialist in outlook. Ideas, theories, partyprogrammes,
etc., do not fall from the sky but always reflect thematerial world and
material interests. As Marx explained, "the modeof production of material
life conditioned the social,
political andintellectual life processes in general. It is not the
consciousnessof men that determines their being, but on the contrary their
socialbeing that determines their consciousness".
Using this method, Marx was able to indicate "the way to an allembracing and
comprehensive study of the processes of the rise,development, and decline of
social-economic systems. People maketheir own history, but what determines
the motives of people,
of themass of people, i.e. what gives rise to the clash of conflictingideas
and strivings? What is the sum total of all these clashes inthe mass of human
societies? What are the objective conditions ofproduction of material life
that form the basis of
all of man'shistorical activity? What is the law of development of
theseconditions? To all these Marx drew attention and indicated the way toa
scientific study of history as a single process which, with all itsimmense
variety and contradictoriness, is
governed by definite laws".(Lenin, Three Sources and Component Parts of
Marxism.)
Primitive communism
Early humans evolved some three million years ago out of a highlyevolved
species of ape. Slowly primitive "humans" moved away from theforests and into
the plains; a transition which was accompanied by animprovement in the
flexibility and dexterity of
the hand. The postureof the body became more erect. Whereas other animals had
differentorgans for defence (cutting digging, shovelling and coats
forwarmth), humans had none of these. To survive they had to developtheir
only resources which were their
hands and brain. Through trialand error, humans learned various skills, which
had to be handed downfrom one generation to another. Communication through
speech became avital necessity. As Engels explained, "mastery over nature
began withthe development
of the hand, with labour, and widened man's horizonat every new advance". Men
and women were social animals forced toband together and co-operate in order
to survive. Unlike the rest ofthe animal kingdom, they developed the ability
to generalise
andthink abstractly. Labour begins with the making of tools. With thesetools,
humans change their surrounding to meet their needs. "Theanimal merely uses
its environment," says Engels, "and brings aboutchanges in it simply by his
presence; Man by his
changes makes itserve his ends, masters it. This is the final, essential
distinctionbetween Man and other animals, and once again it is labour
thatbrings about this distinction."
The economic forms were very simple. Humans, were very rareanimals, and they
roamed around in groups in search of food. Thisnomadic life was completely
dominated with food gathering.Archaeologists call this period the old stone
dominated with food gathering.Archaeologists call this period the old stone
age. Henry Morgan,
anearly anthropologist, termed the period savagery. Then and for
manythousands of years to come, private property did not exist.Everything
that was made, collected, or produced was consideredcommon property.
Between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago, a new higher period emergedknown as the
new stone age or Barbarism. Instead of roaming for food,advances were made in
cultivating crops and domesticating animals.Men and women became free to
settle in a particular
place and as aresult new tools were fashioned to assist the new work, and a
foodproducing economy was created. Stable tribes and communities arose atthis
time. Even today, for a variety of reasons, many tribes inAfrica, the South
Pacific and South
America exist at this stage ofBarbarism.
Yet with the birth of the permanent settlement, private dwellingsdid not come
into being; on the contrary, the large ones that werebuilt were for common
use. In this period, no private family existed.The children belonged to the
entire tribe.
In the stage of primitive communism (savagery and barbarism, eachbeing a
lower and higher stage respectively), no private property,classes, privileged
elites, police or special coercive apparatus (thestate) existed. The tribes
themselves were divided
into social unitscalled clans or gentes (singular gens). These, in fact, were
verylarge family groups, which traced their descent from the female
linealone. This is what is termed a matriarchal society. How else couldit be
when it was impossible to
identify the real father of a child?It was forbidden for a man to cohabit
with a woman from his own clanor gens, thus the tribes were made up from a
coalition of clans. Atcertain times, a form of group marriage existed between
the clansthemselves.
This classless form of society was extremely democratic in itscharacter.
Everyone would participate in a general assembly to decidethe important
issues as they occurred, and their chiefs and officerswould be elected for
particular purposes. As Engels
pointed out inhis book, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the
State:
"How wonderful this gentle constitution is in all its naturalsimplicity! No
soldiers, gendarmes and policemen, no nobility, kings,regents, prefects or
judges, no prisons, no law-suits, and stillaffairs run smoothly. All quarrels
and disputes are
and disputes are
settled by theentire community involved in them, either the Gens or the tribe
orthe various Gentes amongst themselves. Only in very rare cases theblood
revenge is threatened as an extreme measure. Our capitalpunishment is simply
a civilised form of it,
afflicted with all theadvantages and drawbacks of civilisation é the
communistic householdis shared by a number of families, the land belongs to
the tribe,only the gardens are temporarily assigned to the households é
Therecannot be any poor and
destitute--the communistic households and theGentes know their duties towards
the aged, sick and disabled. All arefree and equal--the women included. There
is no room yet for slaves,nor for the subjection of foreign tribes".
To the narrow philistine, who sees private property as a sacredgod, these
societies are looked upon with contempt. To thetribespeople, private property
is completely alien. "The Indians,"explains the historian Heckewelder, "think
that the great spirit
hasmade the earth, and all that it contains, for the common good ofmankind,
when he stocked the country and gave them plenty of game, itwas not for the
good of the few, but of all. Everything is given incommon to the sons of men.
Whatever liveth on the
land, whatevergroweth out of the earth, and all that is in the rivers and
waterswas given jointly to all, and everyone is entitled to his share".
Common tribal property came under growing strain from thedevelopment with the
private family, with private houses growing upalongside the communal
dwellings. As time went on Common Land becamelater divided up to form the
collective property of each
family. TheMatriarchal family gave way to the Patriarchal (male dominated)
form,which became essential to the maintenance of the collective property.
This "family", however, must not be looked up on as similar tothat of today.
As Paul Lafargue says, "the family was not reduced toits last and simplest
expression, as it is in our day, where it iscomposed of three indispensable
elements: the father,
the mother andthe offspring; it consisted of the father, the recognised head
of thefamily; of the legitimate wife, and his concubines, living under
thesame roof; of his children, his younger brothers, with their wivesand
children, and his unmarried
sisters: such a family comprised manymembers".
The growth of private property in the later stages of primitivecommunism is
regarded by Marxists as elements of the new societywithin the old. Eventually
the qualitative accumulation of these newelements led to the qualitative
break up of the old
break up of the old
society.
With the growth of new means of production, particularly inagriculture, the
question arose who should own them? The possessionof tools, weapons, new
metals, but above all the means to makethem, enabled a family to rise above
the terrible life and
deathstruggle with the force of nature.
Then with the further development (trade developed at firstbetween the
different communities) of the productive forces,inequality began to appear
within society. This had a profound effectupon the Old Order. For the first
time, men and women were able
toproduce a surplus above and beyond his own needs, resulting ina
revolutionary leap forward for humanity.
In the past, where war broke out between two tribes, it wasuneconomic to take
captives as slaves. After all, a captive wouldonly have been able to produce
sufficient food for himself. Nosurplus was produced. The only use for a
captive, given the
shortageof food, was as a source of meat. This was the economic foundation
ofcannibalism.
But once a surplus was produced, it became economically viable tokeep a slave
who was forced to work for his master. The surplusobtained from a growing
number of slaves was then appropriated by thenew class of slave owners. But
how were the slaves to
be controlledand forced to work? The old tribes had no police force or means
ofcoercion. Every individual was free and was a warrior.
The production of a surplus product smashed the old forms ofsociety, enabling
classes to crystallise. The existence of theseclasses required an apparatus
of force to subject one class byanother. Rich and poor, landowner and tenant,
creditor and debtor
allmade their appearance in society. The clans which were social unitsof
originally blood relations, began to disintegrate. The rich ofdifferent clans
had more in common with each other than they had withthe poor of their own
clan.
Slave society
Despite all the horrors which accompanied it, the emergence ofclass society
was enormously progressive in further developingsociety. For the first time
since humans evolved from the ape, asection of society was freed from the
labour of eking out
anexistence. Those who were freed from work could now devote their timeto
science, philosophy and culture. Class society brought with itpriests,
clerks, officials and specialised craftsmen. The historicaljustification and
function of the new ruling
class was to develop theproductive forces and take society forward. It was at
this stage thatcivilisation first emerged.
Special institutions were now created to protect the interests ofthe ruling
class. Special armed bodies of men, with their gaols,courts, executioners,
etc., as well as new laws were all needed toprotect private property of the
slave owner. The state
together withits appendages came into being and the freedom and equality of
theold gentile system fell into ruins. New ideas and morals developed
tojustify the new social and economic order.
By the 7th century B.C. the tribal aristocracy of Greece hadbecome a ruling
class of well-endowed slave owning landlords.According to the Ancient Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, the majorityof the population of Attica had been
enslaved by this time.
With the growth of the city-states, the increase in the divisionof labour
greatly accelerated. Not only between town and country, butbetween branches
butbetween branches
of trade and finance, merchant and usurer; newcrafts sprung up together with
a growing band of artists
catering forthe tastes and culture of the upper class.
The drive of the city-states for more and more slaves, resulted incontinuous
war. In the war against Macedonia by the Romans in 169B.C., 70 cities in
Epirus alone were sacked and 150,000 of theirinhabitants sold as slaves. The
slave economy was
extremely wastefuland needed for its survival a continuous supply of slaves
to replacethose who had been injured or died. However the natural
reproductionamongst slaves was very slow owing to the harshness of their
lot,thus the only real method of
replenishment was by conquest.
Although the slave was much less productive than the free peasanton the land,
the low cost of his maintenance made slavery far moreprofitable. The
ruination of the free peasants led to large numbersfleeing to the town
forming the de-classed
lumpenproletariat of theslave societies. The latter relied upon the charity
of the upperclasses, who provided them with circuses for their amusement.
It was in this period that the revolutionary Christian movementemerged.
It was in this period that the revolutionary Christian movementemerged.
Originally a group of primitive Communist sects with a deephatred of the
conquering Romans and their rich lackeys, they won muchsupport from the poor
and oppressed. These early
Christianrevolutionaries were prepared to use violent means to overthrow
theupper classes and bring about "Heaven on Earth". They were thereforehounded
by the authorities and were ruthlessly executed for treasonagainst the
Emperor. Later, Christianity
was raised to the positionof state religion after being purged of its class
hatred. The rulingclass used it as a weapon to dupe and pacify the lower
classes intoaccepting their earthly lot and to encourage their illusions in
abetter life after death.
The greater the surpluses the slave-owners obtained from theexploitation of
the slaves, the greater became their extravagance,brilliance, arrogance and
idleness. As more and more wars had to bewaged to increase the slave
population by conquest, the
Roman Empireoverstretched itself. Wars cannot be fought without soldiers and
thebest soldiers were the peasants. They were rapidly disappearing andthus
had to be replaced by highly paid foreign mercenaries. The ageof the "cheap
slave" came to a rapid
end bringing with it the declineof the slave empires.
Despite the various slave rebellions--the most famous being led
bySpartacus--the slave did not prove to be a revolutionary class thatcould
take society forward. As Marx was to point out, the classstruggle would end
"either in a revolutionary
reconstruction ofsociety at large, or in the common ruin of the contending
classes".Karl Kautsky, the German Marxist, explained that "the
greatmigrations, the flooding of the Roman Empire by the swarms of
savageGermans did not mean the premature
destruction of a flourishing highculture, but merely the conclusion of a
dying civilisation and theformation of the basis for a new upswing of
civilisation".
The mighty slave civilisations had produced an enormous leapforward for
society. One is amazed at the cultural achievements ofAncient Egypt and
Babylon. The Greeks and Romans developed scientificknowledge to tremendous
heights. Hero, the philosopher,
haddiscovered the basic principles of the steam engine. Thecontributions of
Archimedes, Pythagoras and Euclid advancedmathematics to the stage where the
beginnings of mechanicalengineering would have been possible. Nevertheless,
slave society
hadreached its limits and internal decay and external factors were tobring it
to destruction.
to destruction.
The rise of feudalism
"The last centuries of the declining Roman Empire and its conquestby the
Barbarians destroyed a number of productive forces:agriculture had declined,
industry had decayed for want of a market,trade had died out or had been
violently suspended, the
ruralpopulation and urban population had decreased." (Karl Marx, TheGerman
Ideology.)
Over the centuries, the barbarian masses overran Europe; in theEast, the
Goths, Germans and Huns; in the North and West, theScandinavian; in the
South, the Arabs. In their conquest ofterritories they proceeded to ransack
the towns, and settle down
inthe countryside, where they lived by means of primitive agriculture.
In these communities, they elected their village chiefs, however,as time
passed by, chiefs were always chosen from the same family.The head of the
privileged family, through succession, became thenatural chief. The villages
were at constant war with
theirneighbours, resulting in conquered lands being divided up with
thegreater share accruing to the chief. He thus became the most powerfuland
propertied man in the community. In times of strife, he wouldguarantee the
protection of those under him
while in turn they wereduty bound to grant military service to him. These
peasants werelater able to forgo their military service for a tribute in some
formor another.
The authority of these village lords was extended into thesurrounding
countryside. The lord "owed justice, aid, and protectionto his vassals, and
these, in their turn, owed fidelity and homage totheir lord". (Lafargue, The
Evolution of Property.) Wars
andconquests served to crystallise these feudal relationships. The lordsand
barons together with their men-at-arms formed a new socialhierarchy,
sustained by the labour provided by their vassals. AsLafargue expressed it:
"So soon as the authority of
the feudalnobility was constituted, it became in its turn, a source of
troubleto the country whose defence it had been charged with. The barons,
inorder to enlarge their territories and thereby extend their power,carried
on continual warfare among
themselves, only interrupted nowand again by a short truce necessitated by
the tillage of the fieldsé The vanquished, when not killed outright or
utterly despoiled,became the vassals of the conqueror, who seized upon a
portion oftheir lands and
portion oftheir lands and
vassals. The petty barons disappeared for the benefitof the great ones, who
became potent feudatories, and establishedducal courts at which the lords in
vassalage were bound to attend".
As feudal relations matured, the majority of farm land in Europebecame
divided into areas known as manors, each manor possessing itsown lord and
officials whose task was to manage the estate. Thearable land was divided
into two parts, about a third of
it belongedto the lord (called a Demesne), while the rest was divided
amongsthis vassals. Pastures, wood and meadows were used as Common
Land--asurvival in fact from the days of Primitive Communism. Agriculturewas
to make great strides forward with the
introduction of the threefield system. The vassals share of the land,
however, was furtherdivided up into separate strips scattered throughout the
fields whichmeant a massive drain on productivity.
The social structure which developed under Feudalism, gave rise tonew classes
and groups. The social framework resembled a pyramidstructure, headed by the
king, aristocracy, the great churchmen andbishops. Under them were the
privileged barons, dukes,
counts andknights. On the bottom rungs of the social order were the
freeman,serfs (Bordars, Cotters, Villeins), and slaves.
Unlike today, where the main body of wealth is created in thefactories the
land produced nearly all of social requirement. So landbecame the most
important possession of the Feudal system. The moreland one held, the more
powerful one became. The ruling
class ruledby their virtual monopoly of land to which the serfs were
tied.Theoretically, the King owned all the land but in reality areas
anddomains were granted to dukes, who in turn granted tenancy to counts,who
would have many vassals under him
granted tenancy of much smallerparcels of land. All had to provide services
to their superiors inguaranteeing men-at-arms, payment of rent, etc.
Unlike the slave who owned nothing, the serf was a tenant of thelord. Unlike
the slave, the serf has a vested interest in his plot ofland. He had more
rights than the slave: he could not be sold(neither could his family),
providing some security,
although thedegree of serfdom and obligations varied. In return for this land
and"rights", the serf was forced to work for the lord of the manor forcertain
periods of the week, without pay. Other services weredemanded of him (Boon
Days) at harvest
time, and whenever the lordneeded assistance. The lords' needs came first.
The serf could notleave the land, had to have the lords' permission if his
The serf could notleave the land, had to have the lords' permission if his
childrenwere to marry outside his demesne. Taxes were imposed on a
serf'sinheritance and female heirs
to land had to get the permission oftheir overlord.
The new organisation of society based on landed property gave riseto a
further development of the productive forces. This time thesurplus value
created by the serf's labour was appropriated by thearistocratic lay and
ecclesiastical ruling class.
In the words of the historian Meilly: "It is an economic maximthat
productiveness increases in proportion as the freer constitutionof society
insures the workers an absolutely larger and more secureportion of the
product of their labour. In other
words, freer socialforms have the direct effect of stimulating production."
As the new classes crystallised, new forms of state apparatus alsocame into
existence to preserve the feudal property forms. The newmorality and ideology
that arose from these forms cemented socialrelationships. The Church, which
became more and more
powerful,provided the spiritual foundations of the new order and with it
thePopes became more powerful than King or Emperor, with churchlandsextending
to between a third and a half of the land in Christendom.The tithe that is
collected amounted to a 10
per cent tax on allincome, goods, etc.
In general the feudal state remained centrally weak until the riseof the
absolute monarchies of the 16th century. As a result,continual baronial wars
shook the outlying provinces where robberbarons built up their power and
prestige, threatening the
position ofthe central monarch. The struggle of the central monarch to
subduethe regions is a characteristic feature of the period. The
eventualdefeat of these provincial lords, with their constant strife and
war,enabled trade to develop to a higher
level.
Trade was at a low level. The land, in fact, produced practicallyeverything.
It was a "natural" economy geared towardsself-sufficiency. However, with the
launching of the crusades, theexpeditions to the Holy Land, new needs arose,
and the merchants
whosupplied these needs, began to establish huge fairs in France,Belgium,
England, Germany and Italy. These periodic fairs played anessential part in
the growth of European trade, and helped toestablish a strong class of rich
merchants. Money relations
began toerode the straight jacket of feudal society.
began toerode the straight jacket of feudal society.
Hand in hand with the development of trade, went the growth of thetowns. The
merchant class that arose in the town clashed with thetraditional standards
and restrictions of feudalism.
The Church, for instance, considered the practice of usury as asin, using the
threat of excommunication against those who promotedit.
In his very good book, Man's Worldly Goods, Leo Huberinan explainsthe nature
of the conflict: "The whole atmosphere of feudalism wasone of confinement,
whereas the whole atmosphere of merchant activityin the town was one of
freedom. Town land belonged
to feudal lords,bishops, nobles, kings. These feudal lords at first looked
upon theirtown land in no different light from that in which they looked on
theother land é All these forms (feudal dues, taxes, services) werefeudal,
based on the ownership of
the soil. And all these forms hadchanged as far the towns were concerned.
Feudal regulations andfeudal justice were fixed by custom and difficult to
alter. But tradeby its very nature is active, changing, and impatient of
barriers. Itcould not fit into
the rigid feudal frame."
Therefore old relationships had to be challenged and changed. Thetowns began
to demand their freedom and independence, and graduallytown charters were
conceded, some by agreement, others by force.
Trade itself gave rise to new forms of wealth. No longer was landthe sole
source of power and privilege, as money acquired in tradingassumed a much
greater importance. In the towns was born the wealthymerchant oligarchy which
controlled and regulated
the small scaleindividual production, through the guild system. With the
furtherdivision of labour, Craft Guilds were established comprising theguild
master, apprentices and journeymen. As more and more wealth wascreated
through production the guild
masters (employers of labour)came into sharp conflict with their journeymen
(workers). By the 15thcentury, actual journeymen's unions were formed to
protect theirinterests.
The introduction of the money economy (which had only a verylimited character
in slave society) slowly undermined the basis ofthe feudal system. Its laws
and customs were modified to correspondwith the new development. As serfs ran
away to the towns to
maketheir fortunes, money values began to transcend the oldrelationships,
Labour dues being replaced by rented property. Theimpact of the Black Death,
in the mid-14th century, greatlyaccelerated the process. Historians have
estimated between 30 and
50per cent of the population of England, Germany, the Low Countries,and
France were wiped out by the Great Plague. This in turn resultedin the
chronic shortage of labour, which forced many landowners tointroduce wage
labour to overcome their
difficulties.
The rise of the absolute monarch
The nation-state as we know it today did not always exist.Peoples'
allegiances at this time belonged not to the nation but tothe lord, the town,
the locality, or the guild. People consideredthemselves not French, English,
etc., but people of a town or
city.Every Christian was a member of the Roman Catholic Church, which inturn
ruled over Christendom, and thus was the greatest power of all.
With the growth of wealth in the towns, a capitalist class beganto arise
which demanded conditions suitable for the unhindereddevelopment of trade and
commerce. They wanted order and security.The struggle for independence of the
towns from their
feudaloverlords, the continuous battles between local barons, the
feudaloverlords, the continuous battles between local barons, the
pillagingthat followed, all gave rise to the need for a central authority,
anation state.
The conflict between the central monarch and the great barons (astruggle
between two sections of the ruling class) ended with avictory for the king.
He was supported by the merchants and middleclass, who provided the money to
raise the armies he
required. Theemergence of the nation state together with the centralised
monarchyushered in a great economic advance. For their support, the
monarchgranted certain monopolies and privileges to sections of the
middleclass and the next stage was set for
the clash between the nationalmonarch and the interests of the international
church.
The late 15th century saw the beginning of the voyages ofdiscovery. Men such
as Columbus and Vasco Da Gama were financed byrich merchants to seek new
areas of exploitation and "spread the Wordof God". Joint stock companies were
established to promote
thefinancing of greater exploitation, for plunder and profit.
With the massive profits from the voyages, many merchants andfinanciers
became the real centres of power and wealth. Nobles,aristocrats and monarchs
became debtors to the rich merchants. Onebanking family, the Fuggors, were
even able to decide who was
to bemade Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire!
The new economic developments were giving rise to a capitalistformation. The
basis of the feudal economy had begun to disintegratewith the growth in power
and wealth of the rising bourgeoisie. Newvalues, ideas, philosophies, and
morals evolved out of
the newrelationships. The old ruling class stubbornly resisted the changes.
As Marx explained: "At a certain stage of development, thematerial productive
forces of society come into conflict with theexisting relation of production
or--this merely expresses the samething in legal terms--with the property
relations within
theframework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms ofdevelopment
of the productive forces these relations turn into theirfetters. Then begins
an era of social revolution". Later on, Marxadds: "No social order is ever
destroyed before all the
productiveforces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and
newsuperior relations of production never replace older ones before
thematerial conditions for their existence have matured within theframework
of the old society."
of the old society."
The old society has been undermined during the previous period.Probably one
of the greatest challenges to the old order was theattack on Catholicism. In
this period, the Church was not just areligious institution but the chief
bulwark of the social
order.Apart from being a powerful landowner, it collected a tithe
fromeveryone, had its courts and special privileges, controlled educationand
shaped the political and moral outlook of the people. As CharlesI once said:
"People are governed by the
pulpit more than the swordin times of peace." The Church censored books, and
used the threat ofexcommunication against dissenters. It is said that this
was a veryreligious period but this is wildly exaggerated by historians.
Ratherthan people actually
living according to the precepts of the Bible,religion was rather used to
justify the Old Order. Everything,including political thought, was expressed
in religious terms. Thosewho wished to undermine the system, had to first
challenge themonopoly of
Catholicism.
In the early 16th century, the absolute monarchies came intoconflict with the
Catholic Church themselves. The ProtestantReformation ushered in by Luther,
supplied the weapons in thestruggle against Papal power. In England, Henry
VIII broke
withCatholicism and raided the wealth of the monasteries, which wasdissipated
in expensive European and Irish wars.
The capitalist revolution
The Puritanism of the Calvin variety suited the outlook andmorality of the
rising middle class in town and country with itsemphasis on self-reliance and
personal success. The middle class wasnow set to rise quickly after adapting
to the inflation
rampantbetween 1540-1640, in which prices rose by more than fourfold andcame
increasingly into conflict with the old ruling class.
In England, the struggle between the new bourgeoisie and the oldorder took
the form of the civil war. The New Model Army of OliverCromwell led the
middle class into the armed struggle against theKing and Old Order. In 1649,
the King was beheaded and a
capitalistrepublic declared. Cromwell, resting for support on the
army,established himself as the head of a Bonapartist militarydictatorship.
The elements of left-wing democracy and its proponents(the levellers and
diggers), who threatened capitalist
propertyrights, had to be mercilessly quashed. From then on the regime
propertyrights, had to be mercilessly quashed. From then on the regime
restedon a narrow social basis--the armed forces. The capitalist regimeunder
these critical crises circumstances reduced itself in theBonapartist fashion
to the rule of one man.
The feudal structures were dismantled together with the House ofLords and
monarchy. The old ruling class had been defeated, and thelower classes kept
in their place. The struggle of theParliamentarians against the King has been
seen by historians
andeven by some contemporaries as a struggle against tyranny and forreligious
liberty but as Marx commented: "Just as one does not judgean individual by
what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judgesuch a period of
transformation by its
consciousness, but on thecontrary, this consciousness must be explained from
the contradictionof material life, from the conflict existing between the
socialforces of production and the relations of production".
Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution, oncenoted:
"Revolutions have always in history been followed bycounter-revolutions.
Counter-revolutions have always thrown societyback, but never as far back as
the starting point of the
revolution".So it was in 1660 and 1689, where the big bourgeoisie hurriedly
madea compromise with the "bourgeois" elements of the aristocracy.
Themonarchy and House of Lords were restored although from then on theycould
never play the same role as
their predecessors, on thecontrary, they became part and parcel of the
capitalist state. Thebourgeois men of property concerned themselves with
their future, andof keeping the lower orders in their place with their power
carefullychecked.
One hundred years later, the French Capitalist revolution wascarried through
to completion without any compromise being struck.The French Revolution, like
its English counter-part, began with asplit in the ruling class. The King and
his ministers
clashed over ascheme to avoid state bankruptcy, with the Parliament
(whichrepresented the nobility, higher clergy, the court clique, etc.).
Thelatter's appeal against the government tyranny took on unforeseenflesh and
rioting broke out in the streets
of the towns and cities.It brought to a head all the simmering discontent of
the middle classand lower orders against the regime. "The revolt of the
nobilitywas," explains George Rude, "perhaps, a curtain-raiser rather than
arevolution which, by
associating the middle and lower classes incommon action against King and
aristocracy, was unique incontemporary Europe." Despite the attempts at
reform from above, theywere insufficient to prevent revolution from below.
reform from above, theywere insufficient to prevent revolution from below.
As in all popular revolutions the masses burst onto the scene ofhistory. The
most self-sacrificing came to the fore, and pushed therevolution far to the
left. Between 1789 and 1793 the old feudalregime and aristocracy had been
completely swept away.
The regime washeaded by the revolutionary middle class, the Jacobins, who
weresupported and pushed by the plebeian masses made up of wage-earnersand
small craftsmen. A shift to the right occurred in 1794 with thegovernment of
the Directory coming to
power. This in its turn gaveway to a new political counter-revolution, which
brought to power thelaw and order type regime of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Nevertheless, theold order had been broken, and the new bourgeois property
rights wereto remain intact.
The shift of political power was not accompanied bya social change backwards,
i.e., it did not bring a return to thefeudal order but was a political change
brought about through thestruggles of different sections of the capitalist
class itself.
The triumph of capitalism
The great Bourgeois revolutions cleared the path for Capitalism.The agrarian
changes ensured the growth of capitalist agriculture,where the old feudal
estates had been broken up and distributed tothe peasants. In England, the
conversion of a section of
thearistocracy before the revolution prepared the way for the ruinationof the
peasantry itself. Governments now, instead of acting as abrake on trade and
industry, actually championed its cause.
Through robbery, enclosure and plunder and competition, the meansof
production became concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Theruination of
the peasantry provided a pool of labour-power in thetowns and cities. The
class structure became more
simplified. On theone hand were the capitalists and on the other the
propertylessproletarians. All that these workers possessed was their ability
towork. The only way they could remain alive was to sell theirlabour-power to
the capitalists in return
for wages. In the processof production, the proletarian produces more value
than he receivesin wages, the surplus value being expropriated by the
capitalists. Inits search for profit, amidst competition from rivals, the
capitalistclass is forced to
introduce new methods of production, in this wayCapitalism has, historically,
played a progressive role continuallyrevolutionising the productive forces.
Its export of commodities and then Capital leads the capitalistclass to
Its export of commodities and then Capital leads the capitalistclass to
create "a world after its own image". The productive forces,technique and
science gradually outgrew the nation state whichprotected it.
Imperialism
The period from 1870 to 1900 saw the division of the world amongstthe main
powers. In 1870 one-tenth of Africa had been divided up; by1900 some
nine-tenths of the "Dark Continent" were in the hands ofBritain, France or
one of the other European
Empires. By 1914 thisprocess of world division had been completed, and
capitalism enteredits highest stage of Imperialism. Huge trusts and
monopolies hadgrown out of the earlier period of competition. "The state had
moreand more fused with the
monopolies and financial institutions andacted increasingly in their
interest. Production in this epoch isaccompanied by the export of capital
itself." (Lenin)
The imperialist stage brings with it the threat of world war, inthe struggle
for new markets, etc. Due to the carving up of the worldand the tremendous
growth in production, markets can now only beobtained by a new re-division of
the world which
inevitably leads toconflict on a world scale. World war indicates the
contradictionsbetween the private ownership of the means of production on the
onehand and the nation state on the other. But unlike previous
societiesCapitalism has furnished the
material pre-requisites for the newsocialist order that can guarantee plenty
for all.
The proletariat is the only consistent revolutionary class capableof carrying
through to a conclusion the Socialist Revolution. Thisstems from its
particular place in social production. The workingclass is disciplined in the
factories and forced to
co-operate in theproductive process. It organises itself into large trade
unions andthen into its own independent party. Marxism, as opposed to all
othertheories, provides it with a clear ideology and tasks in its missionto
overthrow Capitalism. The
Bolshevik Party, led by Lenin andTrotsky, provided a living model to the
workers of the world.
The peasantry and the middle classes are incapable of playing aleading role,
due to their social position. The peasantry isscattered in the countryside,
and have no real conception of unity orinternationalism. These middle layers
of society follow
either thebourgeoisie or the proletariat.
either thebourgeoisie or the proletariat.
The peasantry have been in fact, the classical tool ofBonapartism--a regime
based on the armed forces, balancing betweenthe classes. In the epoch of
imperialism and the decay of monopolycapitalism, if the working class fails
to win the middle layers
toits Socialist banner, they will be driven into the arms of reaction.
The law of uneven and combined development
From a progressive social system, Capitalism has now become afetter upon
production and the further development of humanity. Marxbelieved that the
proletariat would come to power first in theadvanced capitalist countries of
Britain, Germany, and
France.However, with the emergence of Imperialism, Capitalism, in the wordsof
Lenin, "broke at its weakest link" in backward Russia.
Society does not develop in a straight line, but according to itslaws of
uneven and combined development. The uneven growth of societyon the world
scale is constantly cut across by the introduction ofnew products and ideas
from different social
systems. Thebackwardness of semi-feudal Russia was supplemented by the
mostmodern techniques of production in its cities, due to the enormousamount
of foreign capital from France and Britain. The new industrialproletariat
which had recently come into
being accepted the mostadvanced ideas of the working class: Marxism.
In many of the under-developed countries the festering sores ofmuch needed
land reform, autocracy, national oppression, and economicstagnation, have
resulted in enormous discontent. The tasks of thebourgeois democratic
revolution, which would have laid
the basis forcapitalist development, have either only been partially carried
outor not at all.
In these countries the Capitalist class has come on the scene toolate to play
a similar role as its revolutionary counter-part of the17th and 18th century.
As in Russia before 1917, they are too weakand tied by a thousand
strings--through marriage and
mortgage--to theland owners and imperialists. They both now acquire a common
hatredof the emerging proletariat. The nationalist capitalist class prefersto
cling to the old order rather than appeal to the lower classes tocarry
through the anti-feudal
revolution.
The only class capable of carrying out the revolution is theproletariat by
The only class capable of carrying out the revolution is theproletariat by
uniting around itself the poorer sections of thepeasantry. Once the working
class comes to power as in October 1917,it is then able to give the land to
the peasants, expel
theimperialists and unify the country. However, the proletariat wouldnot stop
at these measures but would then proceed to the socialisttasks:
nationalisation of the basic industries, land, and financialinstitutions.
The Russian Revolution was the greatest event in the whole ofhuman history.
For the first time the working class took power, sweptout the Capitalists,
landlords and gangsters and organised a"democratic workers' state". It was to
be the beginning of
theinternational socialist revolution and fully confirmed the theory
ofPermanent Revolution.
Unfortunately, the betrayal of the socialist revolution inGermany, and other
countries, led to the isolation of the revolutionin a backward, devastated
country. The destruction of the War, massilliteracy, civil war, exhaustion,
placed terrible strains
upon theweak working class, and contributed to the degeneration of
therevolution. It was these objective conditions which encouraged thegrowth
of bureaucratism in the state, trade unions and the Party.Stalin rose to
power on the back of this new
bureaucratic caste. Theindividual in history represents not himself, but the
interests of agroup, caste or class in society.
Stalinism and its monstrous dictatorship grew not from theBolshevik Party or
socialist revolution, but out of the isolation andmaterial backwardness of
Russia. It destroyed the workers' democracyin order to preserve its
privileges and power.
The Stalinist regime nevertheless rested on the new property formsof
nationalised industry and the plan of production. The Soviets(Workers'
Councils) and workers democracy were crushed in theStalinist political
counter-revolution. Only by a
newpolitical revolution could the Russian working class haverestored the
workers' democracy which existed under Lenin andTrotsky. This would not mean
a return to capitalism, but an end tothe privileged bureaucratic elite, as
the masses themselves
becomeinvolved in the running of society and the state.
The socialist transformation
The socialist transformation ushers in a new and higher form ofsociety by
breaking the fetters on the development of the productiveforces. The obstacle
roductiveforces. The obstacle
of private property and the nation state areswept away, allowing the
socialised property to be
planned in theinterests of the majority.
The Socialist Revolution cannot be confined to one country, butputs the world
revolution on the order of the day. The world economyand the world division
of labour created by capitalism demands aninternational solution. A Socialist
United States of
Europe wouldprepare the ground for a World Federation of Socialist States,
andthe international planning of production. This in turn would providethe
basis for the "planned and harmonious production of goods for thesatisfaction
of human wants".
One of the first tasks of the victorious working class would bethe
destruction of the old state machine. In all class societies thestate came
into existence as "an organ of class rule, an organ forthe oppression of one
class by another". This raises
the question,does the working class need a state? The anarchists reply no.
Butthey fail to understand that some form of force is required to keepthe old
landowners, bankers and capitalists in their place. Theproletariat therefore
has to construct a new
type of state torepresent its interests. In a workers' state, the majority
ts interests. In a workers' state, the majority
areholding a tiny minority of ex-capitalists in check and therefore
themassive bureaucratic state of the past is not needed. This"Dictatorship of
the Proletariat" or Workers'
Democracy, as Trotskypreferred to call it, vastly broadened and extended the
highest formsof bourgeois democracy.
Bourgeois democracy was defined by Marx as the workers decidingevery five
years which section of the ruling class would misrepresenttheir interests in
Parliament. Everyone could say what they liked,provided that the boards of
the monopolies could
actually decide whatwas to be done.
The new workers state would extend democracy from the political tothe
economic sphere with the nationalisation of the major monopolies.New organs
of power, such as the Soviets in Russia, based on thearmed people, constitute
"working bodies, executive
and legislativeat the same time". Bureaucracy would be replaced by the
involvementof the masses in the running of the state and society. In order
toprevent the growth of officialdom, the proletariat of Paris in 1871and of
Russia in 1917 introduced the
following measures:
(1) Election of all officials, with the right to recall.
(2) No standing army, but an armed people.
(3) No official to receive more than a skilled worker.
(4) Positions in the state to be rotated amongst the people.
With the reduction of the working week, the masses are given theopportunity
to involve themselves in the state, and obtain the key toculture, science and
art. For as Engels once said, if art, scienceand government remain the
preserve of the minority,
they will use andabuse this position in their own interest, as was the case
in theStalinist countries.
The state arose historically with the emergence of class society.Thus, from
its very inception, the workers' state begins to witheraway, as classes
themselves dissolve within society. This is whyEngels characterised the
proletarian state as a
"semi-state".
"Under socialism much of 'primitive' democracy will inevitably berevived,
since, for the first time in the history of civilisedsociety, the mass of the
people will rise to taking anindependent part, not only in voting and
elections, butalso in the
everyday administration of the state. Under Socialismall will govern in turn
and will soon become accustomed to no onegoverning". (Lenin, State and
Revolution.)
In this lower stage of Socialism as Marx called it, one seessociety, "just as
it emerges from capitalist society; which isthus in every respect,
economically, morally and intellectually,still stamped with the birthmarks of
the old society from whose
wombit comes". (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme.) Although
theexploitation of man by man has been ended, production has not yetreached a
high enough level to completely eradicate inequality orclass differences.
People still have to follow the
principle: "He whodoes not work shall not eat". The state, despite its
transitorycharacter, remains the guardian of inequality.
Socialism, the classless society
Yet with huge strides forward in production, based on the mostadvanced
science and conscious planning, humanity enters the higherrealms of real
society. Classes and the state will have completelywithered away, as society
now adopts the slogan "From
each accordingto his ability, to each according to his needs". The antitheses
oftown and country, and mental and physical labour disappear with thefurther
oftown and country, and mental and physical labour disappear with thefurther
revolution in the productive forces. In the words of Lenin,"the narrow
horizon of bourgeois law",
which compels one to calculatewith the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one
has not worked halfan hour more than somebody else, whether one is getting
less pay thansomebody else--this narrow horizon will then be left behind.
Therewill then be no need
for society, in distributing the products, toregulate the quantity to be
received by each; each will take freelyaccording to his needs.
The barbarous nature of class society would have ended once andfor all. The
prehistory of humankind would have been completed. Theproductive forces built
up over thousands of years of class rule nowlaid the basis for classless
society where the state
and division oflabour were rendered superfluous. Humanity sets itself the
task ofconquering nature, and opens up the tremendous wonders of science
andtechnology. In the words of Engels, "the government of persons isreplaced
by the administration of
things".
And Trotsky pointed out that, "Once he has done with the anarchicforces of
his own society man will set to work on himself, in thepestle and retort of
the chemist. For the first time mankind willregard itself as raw material, or
at best as a physical
and psychicsemi-finished product. Socialism will mean a leap from the realm
ofnecessity into the realm of freedom in this sense also, that the manof
today, with all his contradictions and lack of harmony, will openthe road for
a new and happier race".
(Leon Trotsky, In Defence ofOctober.)
INTRODUCTION TO MARXISTECONOMICS
Introduction
Today, under the impact of the capitalist crisis, many workershave developed
a thirst for economics. They are attempting tounderstand the forces which
dominate their lives. This briefintroduction to Marxist economics attempts to
provide the
classconscious worker not with a complete account of economics, but aguide to
the basic laws of motion of capitalist society dominatinghis existence.
The shallowness of capitalist economics is demonstrated by theirinability to
understand the crisis affecting their system. Its roleis to cover up the
exploitation of the working class and to "prove"the superiority of capitalist
society. Their quack
"theories" and"solutions" are incapable of patching up the rotten and
"theories" and"solutions" are incapable of patching up the rotten and
diseasednature of capitalism. Only the transformation of society on
socialistlines and the introduction of a planned economy can end the
nightmareof unemployment, slump and chaos.
The right wing labour leaders have rejected their old god Keynes,to be
replaced by "orthodox" economic solutions: cuts, wage restraintand deflation.
The left reformists still cling to the capitalistpolicies of yesterday
(reflation, import controls,
etc.), which havebeen recognised as totally ineffective under capitalism.
Only with a Marxist understanding of capitalist society can theconscious
worker cut through the lies and distortion of thecapitalist economists and
combat their influence within the LabourMovement.
Conditions for capitalism
Today, modern production is concentrated in the hands of giantcompanies.
Unilever, ICI, Fords, British Petroleum, are some examplesof the firms which
dominate our lives. Although it is true that smallbusinesses do exist, they
really represent the
production of the pastand not the present. Modern production is essentially a
mass,large-scale business.
At present, 200 top companies together with 35 banks and financehouses
control the British economy, and account for 85 per cent ofoutput. This
development has come about over the past few hundredyears through ruthless
competition, crisis and war. At
the time whenthe classical economists predicted free trade in the future,
Marxexplained the development of monopoly from competition as the weakerfirms
went to the wall. Monopoly capitalism grew out of and abolishedfree
competition.
At first sight, it looks as if goods and things are producedmainly for
people's needs. Obviously every society has to do this.But under capitalism,
goods are not merely produced to satisfysomeone's want or need, but primarily
for sale. That is the
paramountfunction of capitalist industry.
In the famous words of the ex-chairman of British Leyland, LordStokes, "I'm
in business to make money, not cars!" This is a perfectexpression of the
aspirations of the entire capitalist class.
The capitalist process of production requires the existence ofcertain
conditions. Firstly, the existence of a large class ofpropertyless workers
ass ofpropertyless workers
who are obliged to sell themselves piece-meal inorder to live. Thus the Tory
conception of a "property
owningdemocracy" is an absurdity under capitalism, because if the mass ofthe
population owned sufficient property to be self-sufficient, thecapitalists
would not find the workers to produce their profits.Secondly, the means of
production must be
concentrated in the handsof the capitalists. Over the centuries, the peasants
and those whoowned their own means of subsistence were ruthlessly crushed
andtheir means of life appropriated by the capitalists and landlords.They in
turn hire the workers
to work these means of production andproduce surplus value.
Value and commodities
How does capitalism work? How are workers exploited? Where doesprofit come
from? How are slumps caused?
In order to answer these questions, we first need to learn the keyto the
mystery: what is value? Having solved this problem, the otheranswers fall
into place. An understanding of value is essential, foran understanding of
the economics of capitalist
society.
society.
To begin with, all the capitalist firms produce goods or services,or more
correctly they produce commodities. That is a good or serviceproduced for
sale only. Of course, someone may make something for hisor her own personal
use. Before capitalism
existed, many people hadto. But this is not a commodity. Capitalist
production is above allthe creation and "immense accumulation of
commodities". That is whyMarx himself started his investigation of capitalism
with an analysisof the character of the
commodity itself.
Every commodity has a use-value for people. That means they areuseful to
someone otherwise they could not be sold. This use-value islimited to the
physical properties of the commodity.
They also contain a value. What is it and how can it be shown?
If we leave the use of money out for the time being, commodities,when they
are exchanged, fall into certain proportions.
For example:
1 pair of shoes )
1 watch ) = 10 yards of cloth
3 bottles of whisky )
1 car tyre )
Each of the items on the left can be exchanged for 10 yards ofcloth. They
also, in the same amounts, can be exchanged with oneanother.
This simple example shows that the exchange value of thesedifferent
commodities expresses something contained in them. But whatmakes a pair of
shoes = 10 yards of cloth? Or 1 watch = 3 bottles ofwhisky? And so oné
Well, obviously, there must be something common to all. Clearly itis neither
weight, colour, nor hardness. Again, it is not becausethey are useful. Bread
after all is worth less than a Roll Royce, yetone is a necessity and the
other luxury. So what is
the commonquality? The only thing in common is they are all products of
humanlabour.
The amount of human labour contained in a commodity is expressedin time:
weeks, days, hours, minutes.
To go back to the example: all these commodities can be expressedin terms of
their common factor, labour-time.
5 hours (labour) worth of shoes
5 hours (labour) worth of tyres
5 hours (labour) worth of watches
5 hours (labour) worth of whisky
5 hours (labour) worth of cloth
Average labour
If we look at commodities as use-values (their utility), we seethem as a
"shoe", "watch", etc., as products of a particular kind oflabour é the
labour of the cobbler, watchmaker, etc. But in exchange,commodities are
looked at differently. The special
character is lostsight of and they appear as so many units of average labour.
Inexchange we are now comparing the amounts of human labour in
generalcontained in the commodities. All labour, in exchange, is reduced
toaverage simple units of labour.
It is true that the commodity produced by skilled labour containsmore value
than that produced by unskilled. Therefore in exchange,the units of skilled
labour are reduced to so many units ofunskilled, simple labour. For example,
the ratio of 1 skilled
the ratio of 1 skilled
unit =3 unskilled units, or simply skilled labour is worth three times asmuch
as unskilled.
Explained simply, the value of commodity is determined by theamount of
average labour used in its production. (Or how long ittakes to produce). But
left like this, it appears that the lazyworker produces more values than the
most efficient worker!
Let us take the example of a shoemaker who decides to use theoutdated methods
of the Middle Ages to produce shoes. Using thismethod, it takes him a whole
day to make a pair of shoes. When hetries to sell them on the market, he will
find that they will
onlyfetch the same as shoes produced by the better equipped more
modernfactories.
If these factories produce a pair of shoes in, say half an hour,they will
contain less labour (and therefore less value) and will besold cheaper. This
will drive the shoemaker using medieval methodsout of business. His labour
producing a pair of shoes
after half anhour is wasted labour, and unnecessary under modern conditions.
Onpain of extinction he will be forced to introduce modern techniquesand
produce shoes at least equal to the necessary time developed bysociety.
At any given time, using the average labour, machines, methods,etc., all
commodities take a particular time to make. This isgoverned by the level of
technique in society. In the words of Marx,all commodities must be produced
in a socially necessary
time. Anymore labour-time spent over and above this will be useless
labour,causing costs to rise and making the firm uncompetitive.
So to be more precise, the value of a commodity is determined bythe amount of
socially necessary labour in the article. Naturally,this labour time is
continually changing as new techniques andmethods of work are introduced.
Competition drives the
inefficient tothe wall.
Thus we can also understand why precious gems have more value thaneveryday
items. More socially necessary labour time is needed tofind, and extract the
gems, than the production of ordinarycommodities. Their value therefore being
considerably higher.
Again a thing can be a use value without having any value, i.e. auseful thing
that has had no labour time spent on its production:air, rivers, virgin soil,
natural meadows, etc. Therefore labour isnot the only source of wealth, i.e.
natural meadows, etc. Therefore labour isnot the only source of wealth, i.e.
use values, but
nature too is asource.
From the above we can see that an increase in productivity willincrease the
amount of things produced (material wealth), but canreduce the value of the
things concerned, i.e. the amount of labourin each commodity is less.
Increased productivity
therefore resultsin an increase in wealth. With two coats two people can be
clothed,with one coat only one person. Nevertheless, the increase in
thequantity of material wealth may correspond with a fall in themagnitude of
its value.
Money
As a result of the difficulties in exchange by using the methodsof barter,
more frequently a common article was used as "money". Overthe centuries one
commodity--gold--became singled out to play thisrole as the "universal
equivalent".
Instead of saying a good is worth so much butter, meat, cloth,etc., it became
expressed in terms of gold. The money expression ofvalue is price. Gold was
used because of its qualities. Itconcentrates much value in a small amount,
can easily be divided
intocoins, and is also hard wearing.
As with all commodities, the value of gold itself is determined bythe amount
of labour-time spent on its production. For example, sayit takes 40 hours
labour to produce one ounce of gold. Then all theother goods that take the
same time to produce are
equal to thatounce of gold. Those that take half the time equal half the
amount,etc.
One ounce of gold = 40 hours labour
1/2 ounce of gold = 20 hours labour
1/4 ounce of gold = 10 hours of labour
Therefore:
One car (40 hours labour) = 1 ounce of gold
One table (10 hours labour) = 1/4 ounce of gold
Due to the changes in productive technique and the increase in
theproductivity of labour, all the values of commodities are continuallyfluctu
ating, like so many trains in a station pulling in and out atdiffering times.
If you take any train as a
standard which is movingoff to gauge the movement of others, it would lead to
confusion. Onlyby standing on the firm platform can you judge accurately what
confusion. Onlyby standing on the firm platform can you judge accurately what
ishappening. In relation to the changes of all goods, gold acts as
themeasure. Although the most
stable, even this is in constant motion,as no commodity has a totally fixed
value.
Prices of commodities
The law of value governs the price of goods. As explained earlier,the value
of commodities is equal to the amount of labour containedin it. In theory,
the value is equal to its price. Yet, in reality,the price of a commodity
tends to be either above or
below its realvalue. This fluctuation is caused by different influences on
marketprice, such as the growth of monopoly. The differences of supply
anddemand also have a great effect. For instance, there may be a surplusof a
commodity in the market, and
the price that day may be far belowthe real value, or if there was a
shortage, the price would riseabove it. The effects of supply and demand have
led bourgeoiseconomists to believe that this law is the sole factor in
determiningprice. What they were
unable to explain was that prices alwaysfluctuate around a definite level.
What that level is, is notdetermined by supply and demand, but by the labour
time spent in thearticles' production. A lorry will always be more expensive
than aplastic bucket.
Profits
Some "clever" people have invented the theory that profits arisefrom buying
cheap and selling dear. In Wage, Labour and Capital, Marxexplains the
nonsense of this argument:
"What a man would certainly win as a seller he would lose as apurchaser. It
would not do to say that there are men who are buyerswithout being sellers or
consumers without being producers. Whatthese people pay to the producers,
they must first get from
them fornothing. If a man first takes your money and afterwards returns
thatmoney in buying your commodities you will never enrich yourself byselling
your commodities too dear to that same man. This sort oftransaction might
diminish a loss, but would
help in realising aprofit".
Labour power
In obtaining the "factors of production", the capitalist looks onthe "labour
market" as just another branch of the general market forcommodities. The
market" as just another branch of the general market forcommodities. The
abilities and energies of the worker are seen asjust another commodity. He
advertises for so many
"hands".
What we have to be clear about is what the capitalist has bought.The worker
has sold not his labour but his ability to work.This Marx calls his labour
power.
Labour power is a commodity governed by the same laws as othercommodities.
Its value is determined by the labour-time necessary forits production.
Labour power is the ability of the worker to work. Itis "consumed" by the
capitalist in the actual
labour-process. Butthis presupposes the existence and health and strength of
the worker.The production of labour power therefore means the worker'sself-mai
ntenance and the reproduction of his species, to provide newgenerations of
"hands" for the
capitalist.
The labour-time necessary for the worker's maintenance is thelabour-time it
takes to produce the means of subsistence for him andhis family: food,
clothing, fuel, etc. The amount of this varies indifferent countries,
different climates, and different
historicalperiods. What is adequate subsistence for a labourer in
Calcuttawould not be adequate for a Welsh miner. What was adequate for aWelsh
miner fifty years ago would not be for a Midlands car workertoday. Into this
question, unlike the value of
other commodities,there enters a historical and even moral element.
Nevertheless, inany given country, at any particular stage of historical
development,the "standard of living" is known. (Incidentally, it is precisely
thecreation of new needs which is
the spur to all kinds of humanprogress).
Not cheated!
Apart from the daily reproduction of his labour power, and thereproduction of
the species, at a certain stage in the development ofcapitalist technique, a
certain amount has to be provided for theeducation of the workers in order to
fit them for the
conditions ofmodern industry and raise their productivity.
Unlike most commodities, labour power is paid for only after ithas been
consumed. The workers thus philanthropically extend creditto their employers!
(weeks in hand, petty cheating and bankruptcy,leading to loss of wages).
Despite this, the worker has not been cheated. He has arrived atan agreement
of his own free will. As with all other commodities,equivalent values are
exchanged: the worker's commodity, labourpower, is sold to the boss at the
"going rate". Everybody
issatisfied. And if the worker is not, then he is free to leave andfind work
elsewhere é if he cané
The sale of labour power poses a problem. If "nobody is cheated",if the
worker receives the full value of his commodity, where doesexploitation come
from? Where does the capitalist make his profits?The answer is that the
worker sells the capitalist not
his labour(which is realised in the work process), but his labour
power--hisability to work.
Having purchased this as a commodity, the capitalist is free touse it as he
pleases. As Marx explained: "From the instant he stepsinto the work shop, the
use-value of his labour power, and thereforealso its use, which is labour,
belongs to the
capitalist".
Surplus value
We will see from the following example that the capitalistpurchases labour
power because it is the only commodity which canproduce new values above and
beyond its own value.
Let us take a worker who is employed to spin cotton into yarn. Hegets paid ￡
1 per hour and works an 8 hour day.
After 4 hours he had produced 100lbs of yarn at a total vale of￡20. This
value of ￡20 is made up from the following:
Raw materials ￡11 (cotton, spindle, power)
Depreciation ￡1 (wear and tear)
New value ￡8
The new value created is sufficient to pay the workers' wages forthe full 8
hours. At this point the capitalist has covered all hiscosts (including his
total wage bill). But as yet no surplus value(profit) has been produced.
During the next 4 hours another 100lbs of yarn is produced valuedagain at ￡
20. And again ￡8 of new value is created, butthis time the wages have
already been covered. Therefore this newvalue (￡8) is surplus value. From
this comes rent (to
thelandlord), interest (to the moneylender) and profit (to theindustrialist).
Thus surplus value or profit, in the words of Marx,is the unpaid labour of
the working class.
The working day
The secret of the production of surplus value is that the workercontinues to
work longer after he has produced the value necessary toreproduce the value
of his labour power (his wages). "The fact thathalf a day's labour is
necessary to keep the
labourer alive does notin any way prevent him from working a full day."
(Marx).
The worker has sold his commodity and cannot complain about theway he is
used, any more than the tailor can sell a suit and thendemand that his
customer must not wear it as often as he likes. Theworking day is therefore
so organised as to give the
maximum benefitsfrom the labour power he has bought. In this lay the secret
of thetransformation of money into capital.
Constant capital
In production itself, machines and raw materials lose their usevalue, they
In production itself, machines and raw materials lose their usevalue, they
become burnt up and become absorbed into the new product.They transfer their
value into the new commodity.
This is clear in relation to raw materials (wood, metal, dyes,fuel, etc.)
which are wholly consumed in the process of production,only to reappear in
the properties of the article produced.
Machines on the other hand, do not disappear in the same way. Butthey do
deteriorate in the course of production, thus dying aprotracted death. The
exact moment when a machine is finally declaredredundant is no more possible
to fix with exactitude than
the exactmoment of a person's death. But just as the insurance company, on
thebasis of the theory of averages, makes very accurate (and profitable)calcul
ations concerning the life-span of men and women, so thecapitalist know by
experience and
calculation roughly how long amachine will last.
The depreciation of machinery, its daily loss of use value, iscalculated on
this basis and added on to the cost of the articleproduced. Thus, the means
of production add to the commodity theirown value in proportion as the
deterioration of its use
valueunfolds. The means of production, therefore, cannot transfer tothe
commodity more than that value which they themselves lose in theprocess of
production. It is thus called constant capital.
Variable capital
While the means of production add no new value to thecommodities produced,
but only deteriorate, the labour of the workernot only preserves, but adds
new value to his productby merely working. If the process of work were to
stop at that momentwhen the
worker had produced articles to the value of his own labourpower, e.g. in 4
hours (￡8) this is the only bit of new valuecreated.
But the work process does not stop there. This would onlycover the expenses
of the capitalist in hiring the workmen. Thecapitalist does not hire workers
for charity but for profit. Having"freely" entered into a contract with the
capitalist, the worker
mustlabour on, producing extra value and beyond that sum agreed on as hiswage.
The means of production on the one hand, and labour power on theother--the
"factors of production" of bourgeois economics--representthe different forms
assumed by the original capital in the secondphase of the cycle:
MONEY COMMODITY MONEY
(purchase) (production) (sale)
Capitalist economists treat these factors as equal. Marxismdistinguishes
between that part of capital which does not undergo anychange of value in the
process of production (machines, tools, rawmaterials) and that part
represented by labour power which
createsnew value. The first part of capital called constant capital, and
thelatter variable capital. The total value of a commodity is made upfrom
constant capital, variable capital and surplus value, i.e. C + V+ S.
Necessary and surplus labour
The labour performed by the working class can be divided up intotwo parts:
(1) Necessary Labour: This is the part of the labourprocess which is needed
to cover the cost of wages.
(2) Surplus Labour: This is the extra labour performed in additionto labour,
which produces the profits.
To increase his profits, the capitalist is constantly attemptingto reduce his
wages bill. He does this by attempting to (1) lengthenthe working day,
introduce new shift patterns, etc., (2) increaseproductivity to cover wages
more quickly, (3) resist
wage rises orattempt to cut them.
Rate of surplus value
Since the whole purpose of capitalist production is to extractsurplus value
from the labour of the working class, the proportionbetween variable capital
(wages) and the surplus value (profits) isof the greatest importance. One is
expanding or
contracting at theexpense of the other. This struggle over the surplus
constitutes theclass struggle. What concerns the capitalist is not so muchthe
amount of surplus value produced but the rate of surplusvalue. For every
pound he lays out in capital
he expects a bigreturn. The rate of surplus value is the rate of exploitation
oflabour by capital. It may be defined as V/S or necessarylabour/surplus
labour, (it is the same thing expressed in a differentway), where V =
Variable capital, S = Surplus
value. For example in asmall plant, total capital of ￡500 is divided between
Constant(￡410) and Variable (￡90). Through the process ofproduction the
value of the commodities have increased by ￡90surplus: (C+V) + S or (410 + ￡
90) + ￡90 surplus.
The totalnew value is ￡590.
It is the variable capital that is the living labour, i.e.it produces the new
value of surplus value. So the relative increasein the value produced by
variable capital gives us the rate ofsurplus value V/S = ￡90/￡90 =100% rate
of surplusvalue.
The rate of profit
Under the pressure of competition at home and abroad, thecapitalist is
compelled to constantly revolutionise the means ofproduction and to increase
productivity. The need to expand compelshim to spend a larger and larger
proportion of his capital
onmachinery and raw materials and less on labour power, thusdiminishing the
proportion of variable capital to constant capital.Side by side with
automation goes the concentration ofcapital, the liquidation of the smaller
concerns and thedomination of
the economy by giant monopolies. This constitutes achange in the technical
composition of capital.
But since it is the variable capital (labour power) alone which isthe source
of surplus value (profit), the bigger amounts invested inconstant capital
results in the tendency for the rate ofprofit to fall, although with new
investments profits can
increaseenormously they do not rise proportionately to the much
greatercapital outlay.
For example, take a small capitalist with a total capital of￡150 made up of
Constant Capital (￡50) and Variable(￡100). He employs 10 men at ￡10 per
day making tables andchairs. After one day work they produce ￡250 in total
value:
Total Capital : The wages paid = ￡100
The constant capital = ￡50
Surplus value = ￡100
The rate of surplus value can be calculated: V/S=￡100/￡100 = 100%. The rate
of profit is calculated as theratio between total capital and surplus value:
Surplus Value/Totalcapital or ￡100/￡150 = 66.66 % rate of profit. As
theamount of constant
capital is increased, so the rate of profit falls.In the same example given
the same rate of surplus value we increasethe constant capital from ￡50 to ￡
100. The rate of profit =Surplus value/Total capital = ￡100/￡200 = 50%.
Again if weincrease the
constant capital to ￡200, all other things beingequal, Surplus Value/Total
Capital = ￡100/￡300 = 33.33 %rate of profit. And lastly constant capital is
increased to￡300, the rate of profit would be ￡100/￡400 = 25%.
This increase in constant capital expresses in Marxist terms ahigher organic
composition of capital, and is a progressivedevelopment of the productive
forces. The tendency istherefore built into the very nature of the capitalist
mode ofproduction, and
has been one of the major problems facing thecapitalist class in the post-war
period. The mass of surplusvalue increases, but in proportion to the
increased size of constantcapital it results in a falling rate of profit. The
capitalists havecontinually
attempted to overcome this contradiction by the increasedexploitation of the
working class, to increase the mass of surplusvalue and therefore the rate of
profit, by means other thaninvestment. They do this in a number of ways by
raising the
intensityof exploitation, increasing the speed of the machinery and
thelengthening of the working day. Another method to restore the rate
d to restore the rate
ofprofit is to cut the real wages of the workers below their realvalue. The
very laws of capitalism gives rise to
enormouscontradictions. The capitalists' constant striving for profits
givesthe impetus for investment, but new technology forces more workers onthe
scrap heap. Yet paradoxically the only source of profit is fromthe labour of
the working class.
Export of capital
The highest stage of capitalism--imperialism--is marked by theenormous export
of capital. In their search for increased rates ofprofit, the capitalists are
forced to invest huge sums of moneyabroad in countries of low composition of
capital.
Eventually, thewhole world, as Marx and Engels explain in the Communist
Manifestobecomes dominated by the capitalist mode of production.
One of the major contradictions of capitalism is the obviousproblem that the
working class as consumers have to buy back whatthey have produced. But as
they do not receive the full value oftheir labour, they have not the
resources to do this. The
capitalistssolve this contradiction by taking the surplus and reinvesting it
indeveloping the productive further. Also they seek to sell theremaining
ve further. Also they seek to sell theremaining
surplus on the world market in competition with thecapitalists of all the
other different countries.
But there are alsolimits to this as all the capitalists of the world are
playing thesame game. In addition, the capitalists resort to credit, via
thebanking system, to provide the necessary cash for the mass of
thepopulation to buy the goods. But this
also has its limits as thecredit eventually has to be paid back, with
interest.
That explains why periodically, the booms are followed in regularsuccession
by periods of slump. The feverish struggle for markets endup in a crisis of
overproduction for capitalism. The destructivenessof the crisis, which are
met with the wholesale
writing-off ofaccumulated capital, are a sufficient indication of the impasse
ofcapitalist society.
All the factors that led to the world upswing after the war haveprepared the
way for downswing and crisis. The characteristic of thisnew epoch is the
organic crisis that capitalism now faces. Atsome stage the working class will
be faced with a
1929-type slump ifcapitalism is not eradicated. Only by overthrowing the
anarchy ofcapitalist production can humanity prevent the chaos, wastage
event the chaos, wastage
andbarbarism of capitalism. Only by eliminating private property of themeans
of production, can society
escape the laws of motion ofcapitalism and develop and blossom in a planned
and rational way. Themighty forces of production, built by class society, can
abolish onceand for all the criminal scandal of so-called overproduction in
aworld of want and
starvation. Eradicating the contradiction of thedevelopment of the productive
forces and the nation state and privateownership, will provide the basis for
an international plan ofproduction.
Using the powers of science and technology, the whole of theplanet could be
transformed in the space of a decade. The socialisttransformation of society
remains the most urgent and burning taskfacing the world's working class.
Marxism provides the
weapon andunderstanding to weld together this mighty army for the
establishmentof a socialist Britain, a socialist Europe, and the basis for
theWorld Federation of Socialist States.
Rob Sewell and Alan Woods
--
.
Rob Sewell and Alan Woods
--
※ 来源:·哈工大紫丁香 bbs.hit.edu.cn·[FROM: prof2.hit.edu.cn]
Powered by KBS BBS 2.0 (http://dev.kcn.cn)
页面执行时间：1,220.031毫秒