In similar vein, in The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx sets out this crucial function of competition, in relation to the development of capital and capitalism, and for the accumulation, concentration and centralisation of capital.
“Socialists know well enough that present-day society is founded on competition...
In actual fact, society, association are denominations which can be given to every society, to feudal society as well as to bourgeois society which is association founded on competition. How then can there be Socialists, who, by the single word association, think they can refute competition??..
It must be carefully noted that competition always becomes the more destructive for bourgeois relations in proportion as it urges on a feverish creation of new productive forces, that is, of the material conditions of a new society...
M. Proudhon talks of nothing but modern monopoly engendered by competition. But we all know that competition was engendered by feudal monopoly. Thus competition was originally the opposite of monopoly and not monopoly the opposite of competition. So that modern monopoly is not a simple antithesis, it is on the contrary the true synthesis...
In practical life we find not only competition, monopoly and the antagonism between them, but also the synthesis of the two, which is not a formula, but a movement. Monopoly produces competition, competition produces monopoly. Monopolists are made from competition; competitors become monopolists. If the monopolists restrict their mutual competition by means of partial associations, competition increases among the workers; and the more the mass of the proletarians grows as against the monopolists of one nation, the more desperate competition becomes between the monopolists of different nations. The synthesis is of such a character that monopoly can only maintain itself by continually entering into the struggle of competition.”
It is competition which destroys feudal monopolies and necessitates the accumulation of capital. It is competition which necessitates production on an ever larger scale, and, thereby, concentration and centralisation. And, when this competition, via this process, results in monopoly, it is now monopoly on a higher level, which, in turn, leads to monopolistic competition.
“An exactly similar process is now taking place in the bulk of our so-called “handicraft” industries; and the Narodniks in just the same way shun an investigation of realities as they develop, in just the same way replace a discussion of the origin of existing relations and their evolution by a discussion of what might be (if what is were not), in just the same way-console themselves with the thought that so far these are “merely” buyers-up, and in just the same way idealise and paint in rosy colours the worst forms of capitalism—worst in technical backwardness, economic imperfection, and the social and cultural conditions of the working masses.” (p 425)
Lenin, turning to the data in the handicraft census, and to compensate for its deficiencies, previously mentioned, he also draws on “Handicraft Industries in Perm Gubernia”, also previously referred to. He picks out those industries which account for the bulk of handicraft producers employed by buyers-up. To do so, he refers to his own summary of the data.
The data shows that 90% of handicraftsmen working for buyers-up were employed in these seven industries. Lenin begins with bootmaking, which was concentrated in Kungur Uyezd, which was also the centre of the leather industry in the Perm Gubernia. A large proportion worked for leather manufacturers. Lenin notes that The Sketch refers to 8 buyers-up, having 445 establishments.
“These include two buyers-up (Ponomaryov and Fominsky) who have 217 establishments working for them. Altogether, there are 470 bootmaking establishments working for buyers-up in Kungur Uyezd.” (Note *, p 426)
This itself indicates the degree of concentration already achieved with these two capitals dominating half of the bootmakers employed by buyers-up. It also illustrates Engels' point, in his Supplement to Capital III. The basis of the genesis of capitalist production is that when markets for industrial products, in the towns, reach a sufficient size, the suppliers of materials – be it a merchant, or, here, a leather producer – is able to utilise the failure of some independent handicraft producers, or their inability to buy materials, to provide the materials free to the producer, in return for buying their labour-power for a wage. It is then no longer a question of the supplier obtaining a commercial profit, from unequal exchange, but that capitalist production itself is undertaken, and the formerly independent producer, in reality, becomes a wage worker, producing surplus value, all of which is now appropriated by the employing capital, without any need for unequal exchange.
“The leather goods manufacturers cut out the leather and in this form distribute it to the “handicraftsmen” to be sewn. The lasting is done separately, by several families, who work to the order of the manufacturers. Generally speaking, a whole number of “handicraft” industries are connected with the leather goods factories, that is, a whole series of operations are done in the home. These include 1) dressing of hides and skins; 2) sewing of uppers; 3) gluing of leather clippings into boards for stiffeners; 4) making of screws for boots; 5) making of brads for boots; 6) last making; 7) preparation of ash for the tanneries; 8) making of “tan” (from willow bark). The scrap and waste of the leather industry are used by the felt and glue-making industries (Handicraft Industries, III, pp. 3-4, et al.). In addition to detailed division of labour (i.e., division of the production of an article into several operations performed by different persons), a commodity division of labour has arisen in this industry: each family (sometimes even each street in a handicraft village) produces one kind of footwear.” (p 426)
No comments:
Post a Comment