Marx summarises the evolution of capitalism out of feudalism. It begins with a proletariat inherited from feudalism, but the nascent bourgeoisie of small, independent commodity producers creates a new proletariat of its own, as competition amongst them leads to a section of them being destroyed and turned into wage-workers, with their means of production taken over by their successful competitors, and turned into capital that now employs and exploits them.
“As the bourgeoisie develops, there develops in its bosom a new proletariat, a modern proletariat; there develops a struggle between the proletarian class and the bourgeoisie class, a struggle which, before being felt, perceived, appreciated, understood, avowed, and proclaimed aloud by both sides, expresses itself, to start with, merely in partial and momentary conflicts, in subversive acts.” (p 114)
But, of course, its not simply a question of workers confronting capitalists, let alone the intermediary classes of the petty-bourgeoisie and middle class, or residual classes such as the landed aristocracy and peasants. The landed aristocracy has antagonistic interests, as it derives rent as deduction from profit, as indeed does money-lending capital, in the form of interest (including dividends), commercial capital, in the form of commercial profit, and so on.
The petty-bourgeois have antagonistic interests to the bourgeoisie, because large-scale capital drains surplus value from it, as monopoly profits, and because it subordinates it to it as sub-contractors, and so on. The middle class is antagonistic to it, because, as professional managers (functioning capitalists) of socialised capital, they are its personification, and, yet, as the bourgeoisie becomes a class of money-lenders (share and bond holders, i.e. owners of fictitious capital) and coupon clippers, they retain control over that socialised capital, and appoint Directors to exercise it over the heads of the middle class functioning capitalists.
But, in addition to all these antagonisms, the workers compete against each other for jobs, the different capitals compete against each other for market share, the money lenders compete for borrowers and so on.
“This opposition of interests results from the economic conditions of their bourgeois life. From day to day it thus becomes clearer that the production relations in which the bourgeoisie moves have not a simple, uniform character, but a dual character; that in the selfsame relations in which wealth is produced, poverty is also produced; that in the selfsame relations in which there is a development of the productive forces, there is also a force producing repression; that these relations produce bourgeois wealth – i.e., the wealth of the bourgeois class – only by continually annihilating the wealth of the individual members of this class and by producing an ever-growing proletariat.” (p 115)
The more these antagonisms develop, the more they become apparent, and so the reality comes into contradiction with the theory, and view of bourgeois relations as natural and eternal. Some explanation of why this supposed natural balance is disturbed is required. So, different schools of bourgeois economists arise, and these reflect the different interests of different sections of the bourgeoisie.
The first to arise, Marx says are the fatalists, who divide into the Classical and Romantic. These comprise those like Smith and Ricardo on the one hand, and Sismondi on the other. The fatalists see the development of capitalism and poverty of the workers as merely temporary birth pangs.
“The Classics, like Adam Smith and Ricardo, represent a bourgeoisie which, while still struggling with the relics of feudal society, works only to purge economic relations of feudal taints, to increase the productive forces and to give a new upsurge to industry and commerce. The proletariat that takes part in this struggle and is absorbed in this feverish labour experiences only passing, accidental sufferings, and itself regards them as such.” (p 115)
No comments:
Post a Comment