Anti-Duhring, Part III – Socialism, I – Historical - Part 17

“To the working-class, therefore, the fruits belonged too. To Owen the newly created gigantic productive forces, which had hitherto served only to enrich individuals and to enslave the masses, offered the foundations for a reconstruction of society and were destined, as the common property of all, solely to work for the common good of all.” (p 338)

Although, today, social-democrats and reformists (Menshevists) emphasise Owen's role as the creator of the cooperative movement, Marx and Engels had no hesitation in calling him what he was – a communist.

“Owenite communism arose in this purely business way, as the outcome, so to speak, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this practical character. Thus, in 1823, Owen proposed the relief of the distress in Ireland by communist colonies, and drew up complete estimates of initial costs, yearly expenditure, and probable revenue. Similarly, in his definitive plan for the future, the technical working out of details is managed with such practical knowledge [plan, elevation and bird's-eye view all included -] that once the Owenite method of social reform is accepted, there is little to be said against the actual arrangement of details even from specialist's point of view.” (p 338)

Today's social-democratic and reformist co-operators are a million miles from the likes of Owen, and are horrified at the idea of any connection between cooperation and communism. Yet, for Marx and Engels, their vision of communism is inseparable from the idea of cooperation and cooperatives. They frequently describe communist society as being “The Cooperative Commonwealth”.

It is, of course, also, not what the statists desire to hear, as their view of socialism/communism is not one of a bottom-up, self-emancipation of the working-class, asserting its rightful, democratic control over its collective property, but is of the state exercising that control from above, which, also, involves, here and now, denying the reality that this socialised capital is, already, the collective property of the associated producers, and, instead, clinging to the idea that we are still in the conditions of the early 19th century, of the monopoly of private industrial capital that must be expropriated from the capitalist owners.

The position of the statists is the same as that of the Lassalleans attacked by Marx in The Critique of The Gotha Programme.

Lenin, in State and Revolution, noted that Marx's position, in relation to the state, was far closer to that of Bakunin than that of Kautsky. It emphasised that, prior to the revolution, the working-class could place no faith, have no reliance on the state, because that state is a class state, the state of the bourgeoisie, and, as such, represents the concentrated power of the ruling-class, mobilised against them. It is their greatest enemy, not their saviour. As Marx sets out in The Eighteenth Brumaire, The Civil War in France, and elsewhere, the workers seek not to appeal to that state, not to engage in a Quixotic endeavour to capture it, by means of bourgeois-democratic assemblies, but to smash it. In order to smash it, they must build their own, alternative, organs of democracy and state power, themselves corresponding to the new, socialised cooperative forms of property that capitalism itself has created as transitional forms of property, be they the cooperatives themselves, or the joint-stock companies (corporations).

The social revolution, the transformation of the old bourgeois forms of property, based on the monopoly of private capital, and free market competition, is now, in the rear view mirror.  It is the political revolution that the working-class must now accomplish, just as did the bourgeoisie, in the past.  The bourgeoisie, over a long period, did that by concentrating their political offensive where they dominated, in the urban boroughs, until such time that they could confront the political power of the landed aristocracy. The workers have to do the same, to build organs of direct democracy in their strongholds, in the workplaces, and workers communities.

Those organs cannot simply be talking shops, continually being overridden by the bourgeois state, but must be both legislative and executive in nature. In short, the form that arose, in embryo, with the Paris Commune, in 1871, and took shape with the soviets/workers' councils, of 1905, and matured in the soviets of 1917.

Back To Part 16

Anti-Duhring, Part III – Socialism, I – Historical - Part 16

Owen recognised that welfarism, the improvement of the condition of his workers was not enough.

““The people were slaves at my mercy.” The relatively favourable conditions in which he had placed them were still far from allowing an all-round rational development of the character and of the intellect, much less the free exercise of all their faculties.” (p 337)

Owen's insight contrasts well with those, today, who proclaim that, because workers live a few years longer, beyond their retirement, it is necessary to extend the retirement age, so as to protect pensions, i.e. to ensure workers never get the pension they have paid for! That, despite the fact that the rise in the productivity of labour, since the retirement age was set at 65, is, proportionally, far greater than the rise in life expectancy, and so what workers produce, during their lifetime, to cover what they consume in retirement, has increased massively. To quote Owen, therefore, we might ask where that difference in additional output has gone?

“And yet, the working part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing as much real wealth for society, as, less than half a century before, it would have required the working part of a population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself what became of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?” (p 337)

In the case of New Lanark, it had gone to pay the proprietors “5% interest on their invested capital and in addition a profit of over £300,000.” (p 337) The increase in productivity, in Britain, has been even greater, more than enough to cover not just the requirements of pensioners living a few more years, but to enable them to retire earlier not later, and that applies across the globe. The difference has gone to fund increasing amounts of interest/dividends to the ruling-class, as its share of profits has gone from 10% in the 1970's to over 70% by the early 2000's. It has used those increasing amounts of interest/dividends not to invest productively, so as to increase output, but to finance its own conspicuous consumption, and its gambling addiction, as it ploughs money back into the purchase of existing speculative assets, i.e. existing financial assets and property, on the expectation of speculative capital gains.

Owen noted, in his day.

“If this new wealth had not been created by machinery … the wars ... in opposition to Napoleon and to support the aristocratic principles of society, could not have been maintained. And yet this new power was the creation of the working class.” (p 337)

And, the same is true, today. It is not workers living longer that causes the capitalist state to demand they work longer before retiring, but the fact that, although workers have increased production, massively, to cover their needs in retirement, that additional production has been squandered, by the ruling-class, and its state. It has asset stripped companies, to pay dividends; failed to invest profits in capital accumulation; given increasing amounts in interest/dividends and rent, which is used unproductively; bailed out financial gamblers when their actions caused financial bubbles to burst, and spent billions on wars and weapons, draining the potential for economic growth.

Workers themselves are slowly recognising this truth that has been hidden from them by social-democracy, and by the distractions of the likes of Trump, Farage etc., who would have them believe the problem lies with other workers.

Back To Part 15

Forward To Part 17

SNNS 55

 

Anti-Duhring, Part III – Socialism, I – Historical - Part 15

Owen, of course, was not the only industrial capitalist to identify that, increasingly, the labourer was the most important element of production, and that ensuring the welfare of their workers represented enlightened self-interest. Some of that enlightenment stemmed from religious beliefs, such as with the Quakers. Families such as the Frys, Cadburys, Rowntrees, Levers, and so on, saw that providing their workers with decent houses, schools, and so on raised the productivity of those workers, and so, also, raised their profits. Firms in the US, also, engaged in similar acts of company welfarism, adopted, also, by Ford.

As Lenin noted, in his polemics against the Narodniks, even in Russia, this same paternalism and philanthropy was to be found. It did not change the fundamental class relations. In Prussia, it was the state that undertook this role, even in the early 19th century, and, as Chancellor, Bismark introduced the same ideas of welfarism and National Insurance.

Owen was the precursor of the later functioning capitalists. He was a professional manager, and, in that role, applied his theories, much as happened, in the early 20th century, with the Taylorists.

“He had already tried it with success in Manchester, as the manager of a factory with 500 workers. From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton-mill of New Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success that won him a European reputation. He transformed a population, which originally consisted of the most diverse and, for the most part, very demoralised elements, and which gradually grew to 2,500, into a model colony, in which drunkenness, police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor law relief, and any need for charity were unknown. All this simply by placing the people in conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by having the rising generation carefully brought up. He was the inventor of infant schools, and first introduced them at New Lanark. From the age of two the children came to school, where they enjoyed themselves so much that they could scarcely be got home again. Whilst his competitors worked their people thirteen to fourteen hours a day, in New Lanark the working-day was only ten and a half hours. When a crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his unemployed workers received their full wages all the time. Yet the business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded large profits to its proprietors.” (p 336-7)

The point, here, was that these factories were still the property of private capitalists, and the measures introduced to improve the lot of the workers, which raised their productivity, were still for the benefit of those owners. It illustrates the material basis of social-democracy and welfarism. When these same welfarist measures are undertaken by the capitalist state, the purpose remains the same, i.e. to raise productivity and efficiency, to regulate the supply of labour-power, and, thereby, to boost profits and the accumulation of capital.

By the mid 19th century, a number of factories had failed and been taken over by their workers, who ran them as cooperatives. The former private owners were often employed by the workers as managers on salaries a fraction of what they previously paid themselves. Yet, as Marx describes in Capital, these cooperatives were, generally, more efficient and profitable than equivalent privately owned firms. As a preview of what was to come, however, these cooperatives were charged higher rates of interest by banks, when they borrowed. Increasingly, as the private capitalists retreated from their functional role in production, and became merely money-lending capitalists, the more this became the means of the ruling class obtaining its revenues. It relied no longer on industrial profit, but on interest.

The significance of that change cannot be overstated, given the antagonistic and contradictory interests of industrial capital as against that of interest-bearing capital (fictitious-capital).

Back To Part 14

Forward To Part 16

Northern Soul Classics - A Lot Of Love - Homer Banks

 

The Hypocrisy of NATO's Illegal War On Iran - Part 24

Trump offered Saudi Arabia its own nuclear deal, itself exposing his hypocrisy in relation to Iran's nuclear programme. But, immediately, the Zionist state baulked, and Trump folded like a cheap suit. He quickly farted on his Trump Social platform that, of course, his “deal” with Saudi was conditional on Saudi signing the Abraham Accords, and recognising Israel. Saudi, for the reasons set out earlier, can do no such thing, without the Zionist state stopping its genocide, and committing to real measures for the creation of a viable Palestinian state, which, in turn, it cannot do.

The Zionist state, in Israel, has done exactly what I predicted. It has flattened Gaza, and it has stepped up the pace of its annexation of the West Bank; it has annexed a large part of Southern Lebanon, as well as extending its annexation of the Golan Heights in Syria. This is the solution that is being promoted by US imperialism, and its subordinates within the NATO imperialist alliance. It is the basis of the illegal war being conducted by NATO imperialism against Iran. NATO proclaims, of course, that it is not involved in that illegal war being conducted by US imperialism and its Zionist ally. But, claiming that, for example, Britain is only allowing US planes to fly out of UK bases for defensive missions is truly ridiculous.

Two years ago, I thought that US imperialism and the Zionist state would not need to engage in an all out war for regime change in Iran, so long as Iran was cowed enough to enable NATO and the Zionist state to get on with the job of creating the Greater Israel, required as the hub of the projected new MENA politico-economic bloc, as basically set out in The Abraham Accords. I still think that is the case, despite the current illegal war against Iran. What that war has done is to distract attention from the continuing genocide against Palestinians, and annexation of territory as described above, in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria.

The day to day phenomenal forms of this underlying process are simply a reflection of the political dynamics. In particular, Trump and his political regime are led to adopt the same ultimate path as US imperialism, just as was Biden's regime, but Trump does so, in a typically more crude and vulgar manner, a consequence of the reactionary, petty-bourgeois, MAGA constituency he still relies on, but which is, itself, disintegrating under the strain of contradictions. Some of the elements of that regime reflecting, also, the fact that it relies on the support of Christian Zionists, who have made clear, not only that they want to turn the US into a white supremacist, Christian nationalist state, but, also, that they want the US to facilitate the creation of a Zionist state in more or less the whole of the Middle East.

NATO imperialism can probably accept some kind of agreement between Iran and Oman over the charging of tolls/fees for use of the Straits of Hormuz, at least for now, so long as Iran is sufficiently cowed and quiescent, as the Zionist state, continues its final solution against the Palestinians, so that having exterminated them, it is free to proceed with the Abraham Accords. But, again, the moral socialists are wrong in assuming that US imperialism has lost the war with Iran, or is out of options.

The path is clear that, at some point, the US can undertake military intervention in the Straits, and, when it does, it will only need to clear a section of the Iranian coast. Much as with Russia's annexation of Eastern Ukraine, there is no requirement to occupy the whole country, and, indeed, doing so is not possible, as I pointed out in relation to Ukraine. If the US staged a massive military operation in the Gulf, its inconceivable that it would not do so having long prepared the basis of it, including the propaganda work of lining up the basis of involvement of its NATO allies.

Back To Part 23

Anti-Duhring, Part III – Socialism, I – Historical - Part 14

The consequence of these labour-saving technologies is to raise productivity. It is this rise in productivity which means that for any given amount of labour, more materials are processed, that results in the rise of c relative to v + s. This rise in productivity results in lower unit values of all commodities, including those that comprise the constant capital and labour-power. It produces a new qualitative rise in social wealth, including for workers, as Marx describes in The Grundrisse, as being The Civilising Mission of Capital. So, it is, also, this which results in Marx's concept of the long-term tendency for the rate of profit to fall, not as a cause of crises, but as a consequence of the means by which they are resolved. In a similar vein, Marx notes that, in longer established capitalist economies, where he pool of savings is larger, and particularly where former industrial capitalists retire from production, and live off such savings, the rate of interest also tends to fall.

There is nothing in any of this that leads to some continually intensifying crisis leading to collapse. Each crisis only leads to resolution by these means, and a new period of expansion, as Trotsky, also, described in The Curve of Capitalist Development, and in Flood Tide. The expansion itself requires ever larger single markets, which, itself, creates the dynamic of multinational states and a world economy, which is, also, a precondition for Socialism. The poverty of the working-class is not to be understood in terms of its standard of living, which rises in an upward curve, but in terms of its inability to, individually, own the means of production, which assume an ever more gargantuan scale, even out of the reach of private capitalists.

Private ownership of industrial capital is superseded by socialised capital, the collective property of the associated producers. Indeed, Marx's position should not be seen as a critique of capitalism – as against his critique of political economy – but, as simply a scientific analysis of its inevitable dynamic and metamorphosis into Socialism. “Inevitable”, of course, only on the condition that the working-class understands the nature of the already transpired transformation of productive and property relations, and asserts its legal rights, as resulting from them. Its failure, so far, to do that is a failure of its political leadership.

The reality is that, by the end of the 19th century, that process had removed the role of the private capitalist from production. That functional role was undertaken by a growing middle-class army of professional managers, drawn from a publicly educated working-class. It was, from that time on, only a matter of revealing this reality to workers. There was/is no real difference between these corporations and the worker cooperatives, other than the very significant difference that, in the former, control over the capital was/is exercised by shareholders, who are not the owners of that capital, but merely creditors. In no other sphere does the law enable creditors to exercise such control over property they do not own. The task of Marxists was to bring this property question to the fore, and to engage in a political struggle for industrial democracy, as the rational extension of the previous struggle for political democracy.

“At this juncture a 29 years old manufacturer came forward as a reformer — a man of almost sublime, child-like simplicity of character, and at the same time a born leader of men such as is rarely seen. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of the materialist philosophers of the Enlightenment: that man's character is the product, of his inherited constitution on the one hand, and of his environment during his lifetime, especially during his period of growth on the other. In the Industrial Revolution most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and the opportunity of fishing in troubled waters and getting rich quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of putting his favourite theory into practice, and so of bringing order out of chaos.” (p 336)

Back To Part 13

Forward To Part 15