Today, we hear bourgeois apologists make the ridiculous argument, “If there were no capitalists, where would capital come from?”. This assumes that capital is somehow continually being produced, as if by magic, by these capitalists, like pulling rabbits out of a hat. The reality is, of course, that this additional capital is being continually produced by workers, in the form of a surplus product, over and above what is required to replace the consumed means of production, on a like for like basis, and what is required to replace the workers' own means of subsistence. The reality is that, long before the existence of capitalism, capitalists, capital or profits, the labourers produced such a surplus product, so that it could be set aside and accumulated, so as to enhance society's productive capacity.
“Jones thus answers those asses who imagine that no accumulation can take place without the profit yielded by capital or who justify profit by saying that the capitalist makes a sacrifice in order to save from his revenue for productive purposes, by pointing out that in this particular (capitalist) mode of production the function “of accumulating” devolves principally on the capitalist whereas, in previous modes of production, it was the labourer himself and, in part, the landlord who played the chief roles in this process and profit played hardly any part in it.” (p 421)
In any mode of production, the task of accumulation necessarily rests upon those who appropriate the surplus value, but practically, also, on those who appropriate the surplus value and also act as an agent of the productive process. The slave owner appropriates the surplus product of the slave, and is able to utilise it for accumulation of additional means of production and slaves. The usurer appropriates a part of the surplus product, because interest is always only possible as a deduction from it. The usurer does not themselves undertake the task of accumulation, out of this interest, but, by lending to others, they facilitate such accumulation, even though, in reality, they are only handing back to those other appropriators of surplus labour a portion of it that they have taken from them in interest.
The peasant producer appropriates a portion of their own surplus labour, so as to accumulate it as additional means of production. In a communist society, workers will also appropriate their own collective surplus labour, and use a portion of it to accumulate additional means of production.
“By saying, therefore, that profit is justified by the fact that the capitalist “saves” his capital out of profit and that he fulfils the function of accumulating, one merely says that the capitalist mode of production is justified because it exists—this, however, applies equally to the modes of production which preceded it and those which will succeed it. If one says that otherwise accumulation would be impossible, then one forgets that this particular method of accumulation through the agency of the capitalist has come into existence at a certain historical stage and is moving towards the historical date when it will cease to exist.” (p 421)
The individual direct producer uses a part of their surplus labour/product to accumulate as additional means of production. Marx points out that Jones “implies tacitly” but does not “sufficiently emphasise” that this is only possible where the labourer does own their own means of production. It does not apply to the slave, or the wage-slave, whose entire product is immediately appropriated by the slave owner or capitalist. In the case of the peasant farmer or artisan, it is only the surplus labour/product, and usually only a part of it, that is appropriated by the landlord in rent, the usurer in interest, or the state in taxes.
“In order that his wages and consequently the labour fund can confront him as alien capital, these conditions of production must have been lost to him and have assumed the shape of alien property. Only after his conditions of production together with his labour fund have been wrested from him and when, as capital, they are rendered independent in relation to him, does the further process begin, which is not concerned with the mere reproduction of these original conditions of production, but with their further development so that both the conditions of production and the labour fund confront the labourer as something “saved” from other people’s revenue in order to be converted into capital. By losing possession of his conditions of production, and hence, of his labour fund, the labourer also loses the function of accumulating, and every addition he makes to wealth appears in the shape of other people’s revenue which must first be “saved” by these people, that is to say, it must not be spent as revenue, if it is to perform the functions of capital and labour fund for the labourer.” (p 422)
No comments:
Post a Comment