Where Rodbertus differed from Gray, Proudhon, and other petty-bourgeois socialists, was that they all saw these labour tokens as being a means of ending the exploitation of labour, by handing to the worker “the full fruits of their labour”. For Rodbertus, not a bit of it, as wage-labour, and its exploitation was to remain. In The Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx sets out, in Part I, why the Lassalleans talk of the worker receiving he full fruits of their labour was impossible. As put forward, under capitalism, for example, in the old Clause IV, Section 4 of the Labour Party Constitution, it is absurd, because it means profit disappears, meaning capitalism disappears. But, even in a transitional economy, its impossible, because society has to provide for workers whose labour is necessary, but not value creating.
All sorts of administrative functions are necessary for society, but create no new value. So, those that do create value have to receive less than the value they create, so as to support these other necessary workers. Some people cannot work, because they are too young, too old, or too sick. They too need to be supported. Every society also suffers disasters such as floods, storms, earthquakes, fires and so on, all of which requires some form of insurance fund, so that the damage can be repaired. Similarly, even when profit disappears, as a category, in order to produce more, to improve productivity, and so on, society must have a fund from which such accumulation is derived.
Engels sets out these various reasons, but also says, in respect of the unnecessary functions,
“In a society in which general productive labour is obligatory, which is also “conceivable” after all, this falls to the ground.” ( p 22)
However, this is wrong. It doesn't matter whether I work 10 hours of necessary, value creating labour, and only get the product of 8, so that some other workers, who specialise in necessary, but non-value creating labour spend all their time in that activity, or whether I spend 8 hours in value-creating labour, and work 2 hours in necessary, but non-value creating labour myself. The result is the same of working 10 hours, but obtaining the product of only 8. Indeed, as with all division of labour, as, for example, the non-value creating labour of commercial workers, in terms of maximising society's surplus product, a continuation of specialisation may be advantageous.
Other Utopians also recognised the need for a social fund to cover unproductive functions, and proposed that the workers would tax themselves, to provide for it, which itself is an unproductive use of resources, requiring further bureaucracy to run tax and benefit regimes.
“while Rodbertus, whose whole social reform of 1842 is geared to the Prussian state of that time, refers the whole matter to the decision of the bureaucracy, which determines from above the share of the worker in his own product and graciously permits him to have it.” (p 22)
Rodbertus also accepted the notion that the landlords and industrial capitalists themselves performed some social function, whose remuneration came in the form of rent and profits. As Marx points out, the social function of landlords ended when the capitalist farmer appeared, and, although the private industrial capitalists did, originally, perform a labour of superintendence over production, not only did they obtain remuneration for it way in excess of what was required, but, by the second half of the 19th century, that role had been taken over by salaried professional workers, i.e. functioning capitalists.
“but Rodbertus has need, at least for the next five hundred years, of a privileged class, and so the present rate of surplus value, to express myself correctly, is to remain in existence but is not to be allowed to be increased. This present rate of surplus value Rodbertus takes to be 200 per cent, that is to say, for twelve hours of labour daily the worker is to receive a certificate not for twelve hours but only for four, and the value produced in the remaining eight hours is to be divided between landowner and capitalist.” (p 22-3)
As Engels points out, if workers were paid in such labour notes, whereby they received a note entitling them to take 4 hours of value in products from the store, having worked 12, the whole system would quickly collapse in rebellion. Its not that this is not the underlying reality of capitalism, but the payment of wages, in money, disguises the fact that, in reality, the annual rate of surplus value runs not only into hundreds, but thousands of percent.
“Insofar, therefore, as there is anything novel in the labour money exchange utopia of Rodbertus, this novelty is simply childish and far below the achievements of his numerous comrades both before and after him.” (p 23)
Rodbertus' work, at the time it was produced, and for Germany, was important.
“it stands on a par with the achievements of the better ones among his English predecessors. But it was only a beginning, from which a real gain for theory could be achieved only by further thorough and critical work. But he cut himself off from further development by also tackling the development of Ricardo’s theory from the very beginning in the second direction, in the direction of utopia. Thereby he surrendered the first condition of all criticism – freedom from bias.” (p 23-4)
Rodbertus failed to advance, going around in circles.
No comments:
Post a Comment