Greg, of course, as with the conservative, social democratic romanticists, in relation to Brexit, wanted to present things as beneficial to all. Marx illustrated that, in terms of economic gain, this was not the case for workers. He argued that the fall in food prices would simply enable employers to reduce wages, and so boost profits. In fact, as Marx says, this is not entirely true, because wages are sticky downwards, and so the fall in food prices, does not result in a corresponding fall in wages. Living standards for workers rise, because they do not fall by the full amount. In the 20th century, capital responds to this condition, under Fordism, by utilising central banks to print excess money tokens, to create inflation, so that money wages always appear to rise.
The argument of the liberal free trader was that, yes, competition between workers would reduce wages to the level of the reduced wage goods, but those lower prices would stimulate additional consumption, and this increased consumption, and the increased demand would call forth additional production, requiring more labour, which would result in higher wages. Lenin quotes Marx's comment, which also reflects what he says in Wage Labour and Capital,
“The whole line of argument amounts to this: Free Trade increases productive forces. If industry keeps growing, if wealth, if the productive power, if, in a word, productive capital increases the demand for labour, the price of labour, and consequently the rate of wages, rise also. The most favourable condition for the worker is the growth of capital. This must be admitted. If capital remains stationary, industry will not merely remain stationary but will decline and in this case the worker will be the first victim. He goes to the wall before the capitalist. And in the case where capital keeps growing, in the circumstances which we have said are the best for the worker, what will be his lot? He will go to the wall just the same. . . .” (p 263)
This latter conclusion is also the same as arrived at in Value, Price and Profit, where Marx says that, for this reason, the workers should not devote themselves to trying to defend their wages, but should take advantage of the development of the productive forces that capitalism brings, as well as the economic forms it creates, in the shape of socialised capital, so as to transform society itself.
“Thus, the speaker was able to find a criterion for the solution of the problem which at first sight seemed to lead to the hopeless dilemma that brought Sismondi to a halt: both Free Trade and its restraint equally lead to the ruin of the workers. The criterion is the development of the productive forces. It was immediately evident that the problem was treated from the historical angle: instead of comparing capitalism with some abstract society as it should be (i.e., fundamentally with a utopia), the author compared it with the preceding stages of social economy, compared the different stages of capitalism as they successively replaced one another, and established the fact that the productive forces of society develop thanks to the development of capitalism. By applying scientific criticism to the arguments of the Free Traders he was able to avoid the mistake usually made by the romanticists who, denying that the arguments have any importance, “throw out the baby with the bath water”; he was able to pick out their sound kernel, i.e., the undoubted fact of enormous technical progress.” (p 263-4)
And, the same with the EU and the Brexit debate. When Marxists argue against Brexit, and in favour of Remain, it is not as some would present it, the Marxists siding with the interests of big capital, but of siding with the reality of the progressive nature of the development of the productive forces, i.e. they side with history. The reality is that the EU, for all its limitations, represents the greatest achievement in human history, of peacefully and voluntarily uniting 500 million people in the largest economic and political union, and single market on the planet. It is not necessary to be satisfied with that as against an, as yet, non-existent socialism, or some other “abstract society as it should be”, to recognise its progressive nature, not only in regards the nation state, but also as part of the fundamental material conditions for creating socialism on an international scale.
Yet, the Lexiters and their fellow travellers do present things in this way, condemning the Marxists for supporting Remain as being the equivalent of being the lackeys of big capital and ideologists of neo-liberalism, and imperialism. It is the same position as that of the Sismondists and of the Narodniks, who assailed the Russian Marxists in exactly the same terms.
“Our Narodniks, with their characteristic wit, would, of course, have concluded that this author, who had so openly taken the side of big capital against the small producer, was an “apologist of money power,” the more so that he was addressing continental Europe and applying the conclusions he drew from English life to his own country, where at that time large scale machine industry was only taking its first timid steps. And yet, precisely this example (like a host of similar examples from West-European history) could help them study the thing they are not at all able to understand (perhaps they do not wish to do so?), namely, that to admit that big capital is progressive as compared with small production, is very, very far from being “apologetics.”” (p 264)
Unlike the romanticists, Marx outlined, scientifically, the contradictions that arise from capitalism, and the more acute those contradictions become, the more developed it becomes.
“But he never descended to uttering a single sentimental phrase bewailing this development. He never uttered a word anywhere about a possibility of “diversion from the path.”” (p 264)
The position is made clear, by Marx, in his speech, in setting out why he came down on the side of free trade. It was because it more effectively broke up the old feudal society, and its remnants. The same applies today in relation to the progressive nature of large-scale, multinational, socialised capital, as against the remnants of small scale, private capital, and the multinational states and political forms arising from the former as against the attempts to constrain society within the fetters of the nation state, which is the programme of the latter.
As Lenin says, Engels had made clear this progressive role, even before the repeal of the Corn Laws, and the effect it would have on workers' consciousness. Lenin concludes with Marx's closing words from the speech on free trade, where this progressive nature of breaking up the old forms, and facilitating the development of capitalism is summed up.
“It is in this sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of Free Trade.” (p 265)
No comments:
Post a Comment