[6. Cherbuliez Eclectically Combines Mutually Exclusive Propositions of Ricardo and Sismondi]
Ricardo is characterised by his scientific approach, and his progressive outlook that seeks to clear away impediments to the growth of capital, as the means to increase production for the sake of production, to raise the level of society's productive power, as the means to raise human development to new heights. Sismondi, although he has useful insights into the negative consequences of such development, is ultimately overwhelmed by his moralistic aversion to these negative consequences. He shares with Malthus the same kind of reactionary assumptions and outlook that seeks to hold back that development. Lenin pointed out the same phenomena in relation to the “Economic Romanticism” of the Russian Narodniks, and we see the same thing coming from today's Economic Romanticists, who pursue the same ideology under the banner of “anti-imperialism”, and “anti-capitalism”.
As Marx pointed out, earlier, however, where for Sismondi that desire to hold back the development of capital is driven by this moralistic concern for the plight of the labourers, Malthus had no such concern for the labourers, and only sought to hold back the development of capital in order to further the interests of the landed aristocracy whose paid apologist he was. Cherbuliez combines the contradictory positions of Ricardo and Sismondi. For example, he writes, setting out the way the development of capital leads to a greater demand for labour, and, by cheapening wage goods, acts to raise workers' living standards, but he then says,
“... however impermanent, however partial the temporary diminution of the means of subsistence which constitute the price of labour may be, it produces harmful effects nevertheless… Second, the factors tending to promote the economic advance of society are for the most part accidental, independent of the will of the producing capitalist. The effects of these causes are therefore not permanent…” etc. (p. 66). “Third, it is not so much the absolute as the relative amount consumed by the worker which makes his lot happy or unhappy. What does it matter to the worker if he is able to obtain a few more products which formerly were inaccessible to him if the number of products inaccessible to him has grown in even greater proportion, if the distance which separates him from the capitalist has only increased, if his social position has deteriorated and become more disadvantageous? Apart from the consumption strictly necessary for the maintenance of our strength, the value of our enjoyments is essentially relative” (loc. cit., p. 67).” (p 397)
But, of course, it makes a great deal of difference to the workers, individually, and as a class, if their living standard rises absolutely. It matters to them not just immediately, in terms of their enjoyment of life, but also in terms of their life expectancy. Moreover, it matters to them in terms of their ability to organise collectively, to develop intellectually and culturally, and thereby to begin to transform themselves into a ruling class in waiting. Completely missing in his view here is any concept of process in the way that capitalist development, for all its iniquities, not only creates the productive forces, required for the future society, but also creates the conditions for the workers to transform themselves. He continues,
““Whatever advantages a rapid growth in social wealth may bring to the wage-workers, it does not cure the causes of their poverty… They continue to be deprived of all rights to capital and are consequently obliged to sell their labour and to renounce all claims to the products of their labour” (loc. cit., p. 68). “This is the principal error of the law of appropriation… The evil lies in this absolute lack of any bond between the wage-worker and the capital which is set in motion by his industry” (p. 69).” (p 397)
Marx notes,
“This last phrase about “bond” is written in the typical Sismondian manner and is quite silly to boot.” (p 397)
No comments:
Post a Comment