Kursk, Donbass, Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine - Part 4 of 7

Marxists can oppose a war, or intervention by their own government and state, without, thereby, taking the position of “my enemy's enemy is my friend”. When US imperialism invaded Vietnam, Marxists opposed such intervention, but that implied no requirement to support the nationalists of the Viet Cong, who had, also, slaughtered thousands of Vietnamese communists. As Trotsky wrote in relation to the Chinese Revolution, fighting against the colonial occupation of China, did not, at all mean supporting the main “anti-imperialist”, nationalist forces of the Kuomintang, as the Stalinists demanded, especially as that same KMT nationalist government, as representative of the Chinese bourgeoisie, was itself inextricably tied to imperialism, and, as in Vietnam, slaughtered tens of thousands of communists!

So, although Trotsky, on the one hand, explained why Sudeten Germans, oppressed by a supposedly “democratic” regime in Czechoslovakia, looked to Nazi Germany, he neither supported their conclusions in doing so, nor supported Nazi Germany in “liberating” them from that oppression. Nor was the fact that Germany was a “fascist” imperialist state, of relevance to Trotsky in reaching that conclusion. And, whilst he did not support that invasion by Nazi Germany, he also argued, clearly, against Marxists, in Czechoslovakia or elsewhere, supporting a war of “national independence” to oppose it.

He wrote,

“It is impermissible to consider a war between Czechoslovakia and Germany, even if other imperialist states were not immediately involved, outside of that entanglement of European and world imperialist relations from which the war might have broken out as an episode. A month or two later the Czech-German war – if the Czech bourgeoisie could fight and wanted to fight – would almost inevitably have involved other states. It would therefore be the greatest mistake for a Marxist to define his position on the basis of temporary conjunctural diplomatic and military groupings, rather than on the basis of the general character of the social forces standing behind the war.”

(Social-Patriotic Sophistry, subtitled The Question of the Defense of Czechoslovakia’s “National Independence”)

In fact, war did not break out over Czechoslovakia, but did, shortly after, over the invasion of Poland. Similarly, it was clear nearly two decades ago, at the time of Russia's invasion of Georgia that any similar further expansion, by NATO, specifically into Ukraine, would be opposed, and would lead to war. So, when NATO pressed ahead in supporting the Maidan coup, in 2014, against the democratically elected, pro-Russian government, of Yanukovytch, it knew exactly what it was doing, and what the response would be. Again, that does not mean that Marxists support that response, but we understand, given our understanding of the laws of motion of imperialism, why that response was inevitable. Similarly, that inevitable response having occurred, then, as with Trotsky's position in relation to the Sudetenland, there is also no reason to support the war undertaken by the imperialist Ukrainian state, backed by NATO imperialism.

“DURING THE CRITICAL WEEK in September, we have been told, voices were heard even at the left flank of socialism maintaining that in case of “single combat” between Czechoslovakia and Germany, the proletariat should help Czechoslovakia and save its “national independence” even in alliance with Benes. This hypothetical case did not occur – the heroes of Czechoslovakian independence, as was to be expected, capitulated without a struggle. However, in the interests of the future we must here point out the grave and most dangerous mistake of these untimely theoreticians of “national independence.”

Even irrespective of its international ties Czechoslovakia constitutes a thoroughly imperialist state. Economically, monopoly capitalism reigns there. Politically, the Czech bourgeoisie dominates (perhaps soon we will have to say, dominated!) several oppressed nationalities. Such a war, even on the part of isolated Czechoslovakia would thus have been carried on not for national independence but for the maintenance and if possible the extension of the borders of imperialist exploitation.”

(ibid)

Back To Part 3

Forward To Part 5

Northern Soul Classics - Timmie Williams - Competition

 

Friday Night Disco - The Cobras - Shake-Up

 

Value, Price and Profit, XI – The Different Parts Into Which Surplus Value is Decomposed - Part 1 of 4

XI – The Different Parts Into Which Surplus Value is Decomposed

The point of the Labour Theory of Value, as against the cost of production theory of value that Smith fell in to, and which is also the basis of marginalist theories, is that the value of a commodity is determined by the total labour-time required for its reproduction. This value, then, resolves into the funds required to ensure that reproduction. In this section, Marx deals with the way a part of this value, constituting the surplus value, is resolved into rent, interest, taxes and profit of enterprise.

However, as Marx sets out, in Capital III, Chapter 6 et al, and in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 22, another consequence of the Labour Theory of Value, as against the cost of production theory of value, is that changes in value of constant and variable capital, after the commodity has been sold, but prior to its components having been replaced, also impacts the way the surplus value resolves into these different funds. It leads to either a tie-up or a release of capital. For example, if a metre of linen has a value of 15 hours labour, comprising 5 hours for constant capital (materials, wear and tear of fixed capital), and 10 hours of new labour, which resolves into 5 hours for wages, and 5 hours surplus value, this 15 hours labour might have a monetary equivalent of £15. As Marx sets out in the chapters mentioned above, and in Capital III, Chapter 47, assuming no change in productivity, this £15 of value resolves again into £5 constant capital, £5 wages, leaving £5 of profit.

If, however, the prices of the components of constant capital rise to £8, the firm must still replace the consumed physical quantity of materials etc., if it is to continue production on the same scale. As Marx describes, capitals are forced to do so, at least, because it is this scale of production that brings them economies of scale, and market share. Moreover, they have large amounts of fixed capital, which must be used to its full capacity. The money the firm has from sale of the linen is £15, but, now, £8 goes to constant capital. It must employ the same amount of labour-power, meaning £5 for wages, which, now, means that it only has £2 left as profit, even though the amount of produced surplus value was £5.

If the value of constant capital fell to £3, the opposite would be true. The £15 of value would, now, resolve into £3 c, £5 for wages, leaving £7 as profit, even though only the same £5 of surplus value is produced. The former represents a tie-up of capital, and the latter a release of capital. The same is true with variable-capital. If the value of constant capital stays the same, but the value of labour-power rises from £5 to £7, although £5 of surplus value was produced, and contained in the £15 value of the linen, to reproduce this quantity of labour-power, again required to maintain the scale of production, the firm must, now, resolve £7, not £5 into wages. So, although £5 of surplus value was produced, only £3 can, now, be resolved into profit, because £2 of it, is now required to reproduce the consumed labour-power.

This tie-up and release of capital, the production of capital losses and gains that give the illusion of changes in profit, is what confused Ramsay, and continues to confuse those that basically operate a cost of production theory of value, as the basis of the use of historical pricing. The situation is, of course, different, where the value of the commodities comprising the productive-capital (c + v), changes before the end product is sold. In that case, this changed value impacts the value of the end product itself. A rise in the price of c, to £7 would raise the value of a metre of linen to £17. This would not change the amount of surplus value, or profit, which remains £5, but means that the rate of profit falls from 50% to 41.7%.

If the value of labour-power rises to £7, this does not change the value of the commodity, which remains £15. But, now, £5 goes to replace c, £7 to replace v, leaving only £3 as surplus-value/profit. In the former case, the rate and mass of surplus value did not change, but the rate of profit did. In this latter case, the rate of surplus value, and mass of surplus value falls, because the value of labour-power rises.

Back To X - Profit Is Made From Selling A Commodity At Its Value 

Forward To Part 2

Stalin and The Chinese Revolution, 16. The Soviets and The Class Character of The Revolution - Part 6 of 7

Even after the slaughter of the Chinese communists, by the KMT, and despite, now, a period of counter-revolution, Stalin proposed that, in preparation for the proletarian revolution, the CP should still see in the KMT (the party of the Chinese national bourgeoisie) an ally, but, now, one to which they related as an external party.

“In order to carry out the socialist revolution, the Communists were only permitted to get out of the ranks of the Guomindang, but by no means to break the bloc with it. As is known, the alliance with the bourgeoisie was the best condition for the preparation of the “Chinese October”. And all this was called Leninism.” (p 293)

In similar terms, the USC and its affiliates defend their alliance with the corrupt, capitalist regime of Zelensky and NATO, whilst their mirror image defends their alliance with Putin and Xi. In both cases, they ally with vile bourgeois regimes against the working-class and international socialism, just as, in the past, alliances with the Viet Cong, Algerian NLF, Khomeni, Sadrists, Gaddafi, the Libyan jihadists, Hamas, Hezbollah, Galtieri and so on was justified. “Idiot ant-imperialism” is too kind a name for it.

The revolutionary content of the demand for soviets is recognition of a developing revolutionary situation, in which the question of workers' power and expropriation of the bourgeoisie is on the agenda. That was the situation, in China, between 1925-7. Yet, during that period, Stalin used that reality, not to argue the necessity of soviets, but to argue the necessity of opposing their creation. If anyone asks what Lenin was thinking, in 1917, in demanding “All Power To The Soviets”, and the carrying through of the proletarian revolution, point them to the experience of China, in 1925-7, where that was not done, or similarly Chile in 1973.

The failure to create soviets, arm the communist workers and poor peasants, and push forward to the proletarian revolution led to the coups of the KMT and Left KMT, murder of thousands of communist workers, and introduction of the Bonapartist military regime of Chiang Kai Shek, much as had happened in Europe in 1848. But, it also facilitated the continued neocolonial dismemberment of China, and created the conditions for the Second Sino-Japanese War, much as the demobilising of the rising wave of the French workers, by the Popular Front, created the conditions for the invasion of France in 1940, by Nazi Germany.

But, Stalin turned the argument on its head.

“... in 1925-27 Stalin posed the question of soviets very categorically, connecting the formation of soviets with the immediate socialist expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It is true he needed this “radicalism” at that time not in defence of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie but on the contrary in defence of the bourgeoisie from expropriation. But the principled posing of the question was at any rate clear: the soviets can be only and exclusively organs of the socialist revolution. Such was the position of the Political Bureau of the CPSU, such was the position of the ECCI.” (p 294)

Back To Part 5

Forward To Part 7

Kursk, Donbass, Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine - Part 3 of 7

The liberals think that the lure of “democracy” as against Russian authoritarianism will override such concerns. It won't.

As Trotsky put it, explaining why the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, chose Nazi rule, in Germany, over “democratic” rule in Czechoslovakia,

“Intolerable social and political conditions must exist for citizens of a "democratic" country to be seized by a desire for fascist power. The Germans of the Saar in France, the Austrian Germans in the Europe of Versailles, the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia felt themselves citizens of third rank. "It will not be worse," they said to themselves. In Germany, at least, they will be oppressed on the same basis as the rest of the population. The masses prefer under these conditions equality in serfdom to humiliation in inequality. The temporary strength of Hitler lay in the bankruptcy of imperialist democracy.”

(New War Flows from Versailles Banditry)

Trotsky did not argue, from such a basis, that Marxists should support Nazi Germany in seizing the Sudetenland, or other such majority ethnic German regions, elsewhere in Europe. Of course, not. Trotsky saw the solution, necessarily, coming from the actions of workers, themselves, uniting across national borders against the real enemy, the main enemy at home, the ruling capitalist class, not from the intervention of some other capitalist state, to which the workers would, then, subordinate themselves. As he wrote, citing Lenin from WWI,

“Imperialism camouflages its own peculiar aims – seizure of colonies, markets, sources of raw material, spheres of influence – with such ideas as “safeguarding peace against the aggressors,” “defence of the fatherland,” “defence of democracy,” etc. These ideas are false through and through. It is the duty of every socialist not to support them but, on the contrary, to unmask them before the people. “The question of which group delivered the first military blow or first declare war,” wrote Lenin in March 1915, “has no importance whatever in determining the tactics of socialists. Phrases about the defence of the fatherland, repelling invasion by the enemy, conducting a defensive war, etc., are on both sides a complete deception of the people.” “For decades,” explained Lenin, “three bandits (the bourgeoisie and governments of England, Russia, and France) armed themselves to despoil Germany. Is it surprising that the two bandits (Germany and Austria-Hungary) launched an attack before the three bandits succeeded in obtaining the new knives they had ordered?””

(Trotsky – Lenin On Imperialism)

Similarly, as the world's largest, most heavily armed, and successful bandit – US imperialism/NATO – has continually gone back on its word, given to Gorbachev, at the time of his agreement to the reunification of Germany, by expanding its remit ever closer to Moscow, and has, during that time, continued to develop its weapons, is it any wonder that the other bandit, Russian imperialism, and its ally Chinese imperialism, has decided to launch an attack first?! That does not mean that Marxists support Russia's invasion of Eastern Ukraine, any more than Trotsky supported Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia, or Marx and Engels supported France invading Germany. Recognising the laws of motion of imperialism, and its consequences and setting them out, in opposition to bourgeois liberal humbug, is not at all the same as supporting, what, in the given conditions, are inevitable actions by the contending forces.

Back To Part 2

Forward To Part 4

The Brexit Nightmare (9)

The Brexit nightmare continues, with anyone who thought that Blue Labour were only joking in their adherence to it, to get elected, only to pull out some secret plan, now being sorely disappointed, just as with Blue Labour's adoption of the Tory policies of austerity, and the mantra of Thatcher - TINA.

As a toddler, I learned basic working-class politics sitting on my dad's knee, when he got home at night from work, a repeated phrase of which he used to describe what first the Tories in the 1950's, and then Labour in the 1960's, offered, being "The promise of jam tomorrow."  Of course, the jam never arrives, whilst the bitter taste of what went before stays in the mouth.

Labour bemoan the condition the Tories have left the economy in, but much of that mess arises from polices that Blue Labour also supported, as the Tories pushed them through parliament.  Labour only objected to the Tories lockdown of the economy on the basis that they wanted it to have been introduced sooner and more extensively, a policy that shrank GDP by around 30%, even worse than the consequences of Truss's mini-budget.  Blue Labour also applauded the massive inflationary injection of liquidity to finance the furlough scheme and other income replacement measures that caused the cost of living to soar, once lockdowns were ended.  And, worst of all, Blue Labour not only backed Brexit, but has committed to continuing it, causing huge damage to the economy, and causing even more disruption and price rises, with worse to come.

Even worse, Blue Labour has committed to the idiotic CPTPP.  So, if you want easy access to the EU, just 25 miles away, no can do, but if you want access to some Asian countries thousands of miles away that might be easier.  Okay if you are rich, and can have the use of the private jet of a rich donor to take your holidays on the other side of the world, but not so good for the average worker.  And, the impact on businesses is even more obvious, given that the EU is Britain's closest and biggest trading partner.  And, joining CPTPP means it becomes more or less impossible even to achieve Blue Labour's stated policy of a closer relation with the EU.

And, the effects are already being seen by holidaymakers travelling to EU countries, as they face lengthening queues.  But, the worst of that is yet to come, as its only in November that the new Entry-Exit system is to be introduced.

Value, Price and Profit, X – Profit Is Made By Selling a Commodity At Its Value

X – Profit Is Made By Selling a Commodity At Its Value

The idea is still put forward, by some, that profit arises by selling commodities above their value. But, as described earlier, that is impossible, because, if all commodities were sold above their values, so that sellers systematically cheat buyers, then, what every one gains as a seller they equally lose as a buyer. Its possible that, considered individually, some may be more effective cheaters than others, so that they make a profit, but, equally, others then must make a loss so that, in aggregate, profit would be impossible. The real basis of profit, the creation of surplus-value, in production, by the worker, has been described.

That does not mean that, in the same way an individual cheater might make profits by selling above value, or buying below value, a monopolist may not, also, be able to do so, for example. Marx describes that in Capital III, in relation to the division of total surplus value, and the formation of an average annual rate of profit. But, that simply means that less surplus value is available for all other capitals to divide amongst themselves. Nor does it mean, as Marx describes in Capital III, in relation to commercial profit, that, for example, merchant capital may not buy from productive-capital, commodities below their value, and, then sell them at their value, as the means by which they make their commercial profit. But, here, the commercial capitalist simply takes on the function that industrial capital must perform, in order to realise the produced surplus value as profit. By specialising in that function, the reduce the cost of realising profit, and, thereby, raise the amount and rate of realised profit itself. They form an essential part of the circuit of industrial capital, and so take part in the formation of, and obtain a share of the average, annual industrial rate of profit.

Colonialism was based on the antediluvian forms of capital, and their symbiotic relation to the existing ruling class, the landed aristocracy. The latter obtained additional lands, and so, rents. Merchant capital made commercial profits from unequal exchange, whilst money-lending capital derived interest from the loans made to finance the trade. But, as soon as industrial capital became dominant, in the second half of the 19th century, the days of colonialism, based upon these economic relations were also numbered. Industrial capital sought to extend its scope, and production of surplus value, which requires the industrialisation and expansion of the working-class across the globe. That is why the mercantilist ideas of the Stalinists and Third Worldists, as explanations of imperialism, based upon the concepts of “underdevelopment” and “super-exploitation”, and unequal exchange, are false.

Do monopolies derive monopoly profits, undoubtedly. Do merchants derive their profits from unequal exchange, of course. But, the basis of profit in the global economy is surplus value, created in production, which first assumes the form of industrial profit. The consequence of that is, then, not “underdevelopment” of pre-industrial economies, but their capitalist development, the production of surplus value, and its accumulation as industrial capital, via the process of combined and uneven development. Indeed, the dominance of industrial capital, and its manifestation, now, not as colonialism, but as imperialism, speeds up this process of equalisation. As Trotsky put it,

“Capitalism finds various sections of mankind at different stages of development, each with its profound internal contradictions. The extreme diversity in the levels attained, and the extraordinary unevenness in the rate of development of the different sections of mankind during the various epochs, serve as the starting point of capitalism. Capitalism gains mastery only gradually over the inherited unevenness, breaking and altering it, employing therein its own means and methods. In contrast to the economic systems which preceded it, capitalism inherently and constantly aims at economic expansion, at the penetration of new territories, the surmounting of economic differences, the conversion of self-sufficient provincial and national economies into a system of financial interrelationships. Thereby it brings about their rapprochement and equalizes the economic and cultural levels of the most progressive and the most backward countries. Without this main process, it would be impossible to conceive of the relative levelling out, first, of Europe with Great Britain, and then, of America with Europe; the industrialization of the colonies, the diminishing gap between India and Great Britain, and all the consequences arising from the enumerated processes upon which is based not only the program of the Communist International but also its very existence.”

(The Third International After Lenin)

Indeed, contrary to the claims of “underdevelopment”, many of those former colonies have now not only caught up, but have surpassed their former colonial masters.

Previously, I noted that the worker produces everything, but gets back only part of what they produced. This does not mean that the whole of the rest of what they produced is surplus product/value. A part of what they produced is the replacement of the constant capital (materials and wear and tear of fixed capital) consumed in that same production. Marx explains this in Capital III, and Theories of Surplus Value.

Suppose that, in a year, 1,000 tonnes of materials are consumed in production. The workers must reproduce this 1,000 tonnes, in their production, for the year, so that production can continue the next year. If we take the 1,000 tonnes consumed, it has a value of 1,000 hours of labour. Some of this material is used to produce consumption goods, let us say, 200 tonnes. Equally, 800 tonnes are used to produce the materials that replace it. For example, the seed used by a farmer, not only produces wheat that is consumed, but also produces seed to be planted for next year's crop. Coal is used to produce coal as well as steel, and so on. Steel is used to produce coal and steel, as well as machines and buildings. Machines and buildings are used to produce coal, steel, and machines, and other buildings.

So, all of the these things, buildings, machines, materials and so on, produced in the year, are the physical product of the labour used, during the year to produce them, but the greatest part of their value, is not attributable to that labour, but to the value of the previously produced machines, buildings, materials and so on, used in that production, a value that is simply preserved and transferred to current output. So, in the value of the 1,000 tonnes of material produced, by workers, in the current year, required to replace the 1,000 tonnes of material consumed this year, 800 hours of its value comes from the value of the 800 tonnes of material consumed in its production, value that was produced in the previous year, or year's before that, and only 200 hours of its value is new value added by labour, in current production.

In other words, although workers physically produce the whole 1,000 tonnes of material by their current labour, only 20% of its value is attributable to their current labour. The other 800 hours of its value is simply transferred to it from the value of the 800 tonnes of material used in its own production.

So, this 800 hours of value, now contained in the 1,000 tonnes of material, does not constitute a surplus value/product, but constitutes only a replacement of the value transferred to current production from the consumed constant capital, a value produced not this year, but in previous year's. If we take national output as a whole, it, similarly, comprises a value of constant capital consumed, a value created in past years, plus the new value created by labour in the current year. The new value divides into wages and profit, a necessary product and surplus product. It is only the surplus value that is available to capitalists to buy commodities for their personal consumption, and to accumulate as additional capital. It is the monetary equivalent of the surplus product.

The same applies to the individual commodity. Its value comprises the value of the constant capital consumed in its production plus the new value created by labour in processing the materials into the end product. Marx says, assume that the value created by an hour's labour is sixpence (£0.025). If the value of labour-power is six hour's labour, or 3 shillings (£0.15), but workers work for 12 hours, creating £0.30 of new value, they also create £0.15 of surplus value/profit. If the consumed materials have a value of 24 hours labour (£0.60), the value of the end product is 36 hours labour, (£0.90).

Assuming no change in the value of constant capital, or labour-power, resulting in a tie-up or release of capital, this value of £0.90 resolves, again, into £0.60 to replace the consumed constant capital, £0.15 to buy labour-power, leaving £0.15 as profit. The commodity is, then, sold, at its value, whilst producing this £0.15 of profit.

“He sells not only what has cost him an equivalent, but he sells also what has cost him nothing, although it has cost his workman labour. The cost of the commodity to the capitalist and its real cost are different things.

I repeat, therefore, that normal and average profits are made by selling commodities not above, but at their real values.” (p 65-6)

In fact, as Marx sets out in Capital III, in explaining the transformation of exchange-values into prices of production, this is not true for the individual capitalists. It is, however true for capital as a whole.

Back To IX - Value of Labour

Forward To XI - The Different Parts Into Which Surplus Value Is Decomposed

Stalin and The Chinese Revolution, 16. The Soviets and The Class Character of The Revolution - Part 5 of 7

As 1905 and 1917, in Russia, showed, the soviet was the means by which the proletariat, supported by the peasantry, carried through the tasks of the bourgeois-revolution, up to and including, the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. Here, even more, the transitional nature of the soviet is manifest. It is the revolutionary means by which the proletariat, first, brings about the bourgeois-revolution, and, then, via permanent revolution, proceeds to the tasks of the proletarian revolution.

For the Stalinists, this was anathema.

“Precisely because of this the Political Bureau, following right behind Stalin, stubbornly rejected the slogan of soviets advanced by the Opposition:

“The slogan of soviets means nothing but an immediate skipping over the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the organization of the power of the proletariat.” [From the written Reply of the Political Bureau to the Opposition theses, April 1927.]” (p 292)

The argument for permanent revolution, and the revolutionary transitional nature of soviets had been established, by Trotsky, in 1905, and adopted, by Lenin, in 1917, as deriving from the fact that the workers, having been forced to take the leading role in bourgeois revolutions, would not stop at that stage, and would press on towards the proletarian revolution, or, at least, the pursuit of their own class interests. Lenin and Trotsky saw this as inevitable, and that the Marxists, if they were not to disgrace themselves, lose the support of the workers and see even the bourgeois revolution rolled back by reaction, as happened in 1848, would have to respond to it, breaking the imperialist chain at the weakest link.

Stalin took this same logic, but turned it upside down, to argue against the creation of soviets and permanent revolution.

“On May 24, after the Shanghai coup d’état and during the Wuhan coup, Stalin proved the incompatibility of soviets with bourgeois-democratic revolution in this manner:

“But the workers will not stop at this if they have soviets of workers’ deputies. They will say to the Communists – and they will be right: If we are the soviets, and the soviets are the organs of power, then can we not squeeze the bourgeoisie a little, and expropriate ‘a little’? The Communists will be empty windbags if they do not take the road of expropriation of the bourgeoisie with the existence of soviets of workers’ and peasants’ deputies. Is it possible to and should we take this road at present, at the present phase of the revolution? No, we should not.” (p 293)

In other words, even after the conclusions of permanent revolution had again been proven, by the coup of the KMT and Left KMT, bringing about the period of counter-revolution, Stalin refused to acknowledge it, and, indeed, still, even, clung to the idea of his alliance with the bourgeoisie and KMT, just as, today, the social-imperialists cling to their alliance with the corrupt, right-wing government of Zelensky, and its NATO backers.

“In his discourse to the students on May 13, 1927 which we already quoted, Stalin replied:

“I think that in the period of the creation of soviets of workers’ and peasants’ deputies and the preparation for the Chinese October, the Chinese Communist Party will have to substitute for the present bloc inside the Guomindang the bloc outside the Guomindang.”” (p 293)

In other words, in the period of the bourgeois national revolution, when the Chinese CP should have insisted on its political and organisational independence from the KMT, and when the Comintern/USSR should have been putting its resources into arming the Chinese communists, ready to fight the KMT, instead, Stalin insisted that the CP subordinated itself, inside the KMT, and armed that same KMT, whilst opposing the arming of the workers and poor peasants! The same strategy is applied by the USC, today, in its alliance with Zelensky, and demands for it to be armed to the teeth.

Back To Part 4

Forward To Part 6

Kursk, Donbass, Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine - Part 2 of 7

In the early 20th century, Trotsky wrote about precisely that kind of situation in relation to the Balkan Wars, where Slavic populations looked to Tsarist Russia, as they engaged in struggle against the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, the Palestinians have repeatedly looked to other, usually reactionary, bourgeois states for their salvation, just as Irish nationalism, repeatedly looked to other bourgeois states, from France, to Nazi Germany, to the United States, and the USSR and Gaddafi's Libya, for support against British colonialism. Trotsky wrote opposing such an alliance with Russia, and opposed the Russian intervention, in the Balkans, itself. But, in the last few decades, the anti-Russian xenophobia, particularly in the Baltic states, has been, itself, quite apparent, as with the genocidal attacks on majority Russian populations in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, by the Georgian government of Mikhail Saakashvilli, who was seeking membership of the EU and NATO, and no doubt saw the stoking of such conflict with Russia, as a fast track to such entry. Saakashvilli has more recently been involved, in a similar manner in Ukraine.

Bismark believed that the threat of war and invasion by France, would prompt the remaining German states to join the confederation, and bring about the creation of a unified German nation state. So, Bismark goaded France into such action. Threat of Russian invasion, provoked by NATO, acts in a similar way to encourage more European states to join NATO, and at the same time, those same states feel encouraged to provoke war with Russia, by attacking their own ethnic Russian populations, in the belief that, just as NATO engaged in war in Serbia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and so on, so too it would be forced to engage militarily in those states such as Georgia and Ukraine, hastening NATO membership – and for these, more or less bankrupt, and corrupt European economies, even more importantly, into the EU, and access to its funds, markets and so on. The delusional Saakashvilli, as he embarked on such a course, was always to be seen festooned with the EU flag, even though Georgia was not a member and had little chance of becoming one!

And Marx and Engels set out, of course, why Russia might, also, see the advance of NATO up to its borders, in Ukraine, as a threat, and so be even more inclined to provide a buffer, by utilising the pretext of the interests of ethnic Russians, in Eastern Ukraine, as the basis for doing so.

“The knaves and the fools who discovered these guarantees of eternal peace ought to know from Prussian history, and from the drastic treatment laid down by Napoleon in the Peace Treaties of Tilsit that such violent measures of pacifying a viable people produce an effect exactly opposite to that intended. Compare France, even after the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, with Prussia after the Tilsit Peace!

If, as long as the old political conditions obtained, French chauvinism had a certain material justification in the fact that since 1815 a few lost battles meant that the capital, Paris, and with it France, were at the mercy of the invader, what new nourishment will chauvinism not imbibe when the boundary line will run along the Vosges in the East and at Metz in the North?

(ibid)

You don't have to accept the naïve, liberal narrative that, in this case, France, or, today, Russia, is acting altruistically to defend the rights of its kin, in the oppressed regions – Alsace-Lorraine and, today, Eastern Ukraine – to see that such states will utilise those conditions to morally justify their military actions in seizing them.

“That the Lorrainers and Alsatians desire the blessings of German government even the... Teuton does not dare to maintain. It is the principle of Pan-Germanism and of ‘secure’ frontiers that is being proclaimed, which, if it were practised by the Eastern side, would lead to fine results for Germany and Europe.

Anyone who has not been entirely overawed by the din and noise of the moment and has no interest in overawing the German people must realise that the War of 1870 will necessarily lead to a war between Germany and Russia just as the War of 1866 led to the War of 1870”.

(ibid)

In fact, the historic alliance between France and Russia did not immediately lead to such a war, because Russia had been defeated in The Crimean War, by the alliance of Britain, France, Turkey and Sardinia. Russia required the lifting of its limitations on Black Sea naval construction, imposed in the Treaty of Paris, which Napoleon III was not prepared to do.

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 3

Value, Price and Profit, IX – Value of Labour

IX – Value of Labour

There is no such thing, therefore, as “the price (or value) of labour”, despite that phrase being commonly used to describe wages. It is a bourgeois deception, upon which the exploitation of labour is based. It implies that workers are paid for all the labour they supply, as against the fact that they must supply a quantity of unpaid labour, before the capitalist will employ them. There is no such thing as the value of labour, because labour is a process – the value creating process – not a thing. Labour is value, value is labour, and so to ask what is the value of labour is as meaningless as to ask what is the value of value?

As set out earlier, what is actually meant by the value of labour is, rather, the value of labour-power, and it is this which is the determinant of wages. It is always less than the new value the worker creates, meaning the worker always hands to the capitalist a quantity of unpaid labour, which is the basis of their exploitation, and of surplus-value.

But, workers always get their wages after they have performed a quantity of labour for the capitalist, and this gives the illusion that what they have been paid for is this quantity of labour. In fact, if we took the working-class as a whole, and the capitalist class as a whole, what we would see is that the workers produce everything that society consumes, both productively and personally. They produce the machines, buildings and materials that replace those consumed in production, as well as all those accumulated as additional capital, and they produce all of the commodities (wage goods) required to reproduce their own labour-power, as well as those goods (including luxury goods) consumed by capitalists. So, having produced all of this vast quantity of goods, what would then be seen is that their wages amount only to the capitalists handing back to them a small proportion of what they had produced.

In reality, this is no different to the position of the slave who produces for the slave-owner, who hands back to them a small portion of what they produced, in order that they may live to produce another day. It is no different to the serf who must work for half the week on the landlord's fields, or the peasant who must hand over, as tribute (feudal rent) half of their output, or its monetary equivalent. As Taleb put it,

“Karl Marx, a visionary, figured out that you can control a slave much better by convincing him he is an employee.”

(Nicholas Nasim Taleb – The Bed of Procrustes)

“A double consequence flows from this.

Firstly. The value or price of the labouring power takes the semblance of the price or value of labour itself, although, strictly speaking, value and price of labour are senseless terms.

Secondly. Although one part only of the workman's daily labour is paid, while the other part is unpaid, and while that unpaid or surplus labour constitutes exactly the fund out of which surplus value or profit is formed, it seems as if the aggregate labour was paid labour.” (p 62-3)

It is, in fact, this false appearance that distinguishes wage-labour from all other forms of labour, and makes the worker into a wage-slave. The slave has no doubt that they are a slave, that they belong, body and soul, to the slave-owner, who exploits their labour. The serf, also, has no doubt that they are the property of their master, and that the three days labour they perform on the master's land is an exploitation of their labour. But, the wage-worker appears to be “free”. Unlike the slave or serf, they are free to sell their labour-power to whichever capitalist will pay the highest wages. They appear to be paid these wages for the labour they have provided, and hence the price of their labour.

But, of course, taken as a whole, none of their potential employers will employ them, unless they provide a quantity of unpaid labour. The amount of surplus labour that the slave owner can extract from the slave, or the master from the serf, depends upon not only how much labour they can perform, in say a week, but also on how much of that labour is required to ensure the reproduction of the slave or serf.

The same is true for the wage-worker, but, appears in a different form, determined by the laws previously set out. The individual capitalist does not “own” the worker, and does not directly provide them with their means of subsistence, as with the slave. The worker is responsible for their own subsistence, which they must buy themselves, with their wages. Its this distinction, a Marx describes in The Grundrisse, which distinguishes free labour (whether of the independent labourer, or wage-worker) from slave labour, and means that the former produces new value (and so, also surplus value) whereas the latter does not (producing only a surplus product).

“in the relations of slavery and serfdom….The slave stands in no relation whatsoever to the objective conditions of his labour; rather, labour itself, both in the form of the slave and in that of the serf, is classified as an inorganic condition of production along with other natural beings, such as cattle, as an accessory of the earth.”

(Grundrisse, p 489)

The slave-owner considers the slave in the same way they consider their animals or machines, as fixed capital. They must be maintained. But, the capitalist has no such concern for the worker. They buy their labour-power for a day or a week, but, beyond that, they have no responsibility to maintain them. If the worker cannot find work, they cannot get wages, and starve, but that is no concern of the capitalist. It is the worker who enters into the market to buy the commodities required for their own reproduction, whereas, it is the slave-owner that enters the market to buy any commodities required for the reproduction of their slaves. The worker can only buy commodities at their market value, i.e. their social cost of production, whereas the slave owner values commodities according to their private cost of production.

In other words, a kilo of wheat may have a social cost of production of 10 hours labour, including 8 hours of current labour performed by a slave. But, for the slave owner, it is only the 4 hours of labour required to reproduce the labour-power of the slave that exists as a cost of production. In a society where slavery predominates, this determines values. If slave owner A is asked to pay the equivalent of 10 hours labour for a kilo of wheat, by slave owner B, as against the cost of production of only 6 hours, they will reject such an exchange. They could, theoretically, produce a kilo of wheat for themselves, using their own slaves, for only the equivalent of 6 hours labour.

But, that is not the case, for a labourer, who must buy wheat. They must lay out the equivalent of 2 hours labour for seeds and materials, and spend 8 hours of their own labour, producing the wheat. For the labourer – whether they are an independent labourer, or a wage worker – the individual cost of production of a commodity, is the same as its social cost of production. They are unable to obtain any amount of free labour. It is this fact that means that, as the market expands, and free labour becomes dominant, it is this social cost of production that determines the value of commodities, and surplus labour takes the form of surplus value, rather than surplus product.

“Well. First of all the wage worker as distinct from the slave is himself an independent centre of circulation, someone who exchanges, posits exchange value, and maintains exchange value through exchange. Firstly: in the exchange between that part of capital which is specified as wages, and living labour capacity, the exchange value of this part of capital is posited immediately, before capital again emerges from the production process to enter into circulation, or this can be conceived as itself still an act of circulation. Secondly: To each capitalist, the total mass of all workers, with the exception of his own workers, appear not as workers, but as consumers, possessors of exchange values (wages), money, which they exchange for his commodity. They are so many centres of circulation with whom the act of exchange begins and by whom the exchange value of capital is maintained. They form a proportionally very great part -- although not quite so great as is generally imagined, if one focuses on the industrial worker proper -- of all consumers. The greater their number -- the number of the industrial population -- and the mass of money at their disposal, the greater the sphere of exchange for capital. We have seen that it is the tendency of capital to increase the industrial population as much as possible.”

(Grundrisse p 419)

In reality, what is true for the individual worker is not true for the working-class as a whole. In periods of high, excess labour supply, the capitalists take the opportunity to exploit labour cruelly. They extend the length and intensity of the working-day beyond the normal limits, without compensation. The workers burn out, become sick and die, but the capitalist knows another ten are there, ready to replace them. That is what happened in the early 19th century, when average lifespans, for workers, halved, and three generations of workers were used up, in the space of just one. But, as a whole, capital must also maintain labour as a whole, because it is the source of new value, and of surplus value. When that over-exploitation threatened to undermine the supply of labour-power, as the working-class suffered severe physical deterioration, capital, as a whole, via its state, imposed regulation. It brought in the Factory Acts. But, also, capital sought to impose constraints on workers' behaviour.

To try to prevent workers escaping, and so reducing labour-supply, it sought to prevent emigration.  Brexit, and the removal of the right of workers in Britain to free movement has taken workers back 200 years to that condition.

“In former times, capital resorted to legislation, whenever necessary, to enforce its proprietary rights over the free labourer. For instance, down to 1815, the emigration of mechanics employed in machine making was, in England, forbidden, under grievous pains and penalties.”

(Capital, I, p 538)

And, Marx in Capital quotes a letter in the Times of 24th March, 1863, from Edmund Potter, a former president of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, in which he wrote,

“He” (the man out of work) “may be told the supply of cotton-workers is too large ... and ... must ... in fact be reduced by a third, perhaps, and that then there will be a healthy demand for the remaining two-thirds.... Public opinion... urges emigration.... The master cannot willingly see his labour supply being removed; he may think, and perhaps justly, that it is both wrong and unsound.”

There is much more in this vein.

But, it also sought to ensure that the existing labour supply was as useful as possible. It created Temperance Societies to encourage sobriety, and even, in places, prohibited the sale of alcohol. It discouraged workers from activity on their own account, on The Sabbath, so that their vital energies were preserved for the work week.

“On the basis of the wages system even the unpaid labour seems to be paid labour. With the slave, on the contrary, even that part of his labour which is paid appears to be unpaid. Of course, in order to work the slave must live, and one part of his working day goes to replace the value of his own maintenance. But since no bargain is struck between him and his master, and no acts of selling and buying are going on between the two parties, all his labour seems to be given away for nothing.” (p 63)

Serfdom existed in Russia, and most of Eastern Europe, up to 1861, and the serf was much like the slave, in that they were bound to their master, and had to provide three days of labour on their land.

“Here, then, the paid and unpaid parts of labour were sensibly separated, separated in time and space; and our Liberals overflowed with moral indignation at the preposterous notion of making a man work for nothing.” (p 63)

But, the same is true for the wage-worker, and yet, for the Liberals, this represents the epitome of freedom and equality.

“In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other. That makes all the difference.

In using the word “value of labour,” I shall only use it as a popular slang term for “value of labouring power."” (p 63-4)

Back To VIII - Production of Surplus Value

Forward To X - Profit is Made By Selling A Commodity At Its Value

Back To Table of Contents

Northern Soul Classics - Please, Operator - Tony & Tyrone

 

Friday Night Disco - Firefly - Travis Wammack

 The flip side to the Wheel/Torch dance classic - Scratchy.

Travis Wammack is reputed to be the world's fastest guitar player; he was also the youngest member of the Musicians Union, at age 11, and his guitar riffs appear on 65 million records!  He was also responsible for developing a number of music technologies, and played a leading role at Muscle Shoals.  In the 1980's, he backed Little Richard.  All discussed on Rick and Bubba's podcast.

Stalin and The Chinese Revolution, 16. The Soviets and The Class Character of The Revolution - Part 4 of 7

As Trotsky sets out, elsewhere, a workers' state is inconceivable without soviets, because a workers state is a soviet state, with a soviet government, but a workers' revolution, is conceivable without the existence of soviets. It is possible on the basis of factory committees. This debate has been taken up, in a confused manner, by Mike Macnair, in the Weekly Worker, in looking back to the events fifty years ago in Chile. In the process, he confuses the vital difference between the Popular Front, and United Front. He says,

“Trotskyist authors place great emphasis on the fact that UP was (as its name tells us) a popular front. But the question posed is: would a united front government, of the SP and CP alone, have been any better? The answer is quite plainly not. I have quoted above the delusions in the Chilean constitutional order promoted both by Allende and Luis Corvalan.”

But, there is no such thing as a “United Front” government, because the concept of the United Front is precisely as an extra-parliamentary formation, of rank and file workers, formed for the specific purpose of practical action, in which a sizeable revolutionary party seeks to break workers, still clinging to reformism, from their existing party leaders.

Both the factory committees, and the soviets represent the highest form of such a United Front. Trotsky, describes the way, however, when it comes to the revolution, the soviet is the best designed for that function, as against the factory committee. He explains why he had argued for the creation of soviets in Germany, at the point of the initial rise in the revolutionary wave, but against it, later, when the factory committees had already established themselves, and the question of insurrection was on the table. To have raised the question of soviets at that point, was to cause confusion, and inevitable delay, because real soviets, as against the bureaucratic Stalinist constructs, take time to prepare, to educate the workers in their nature, and to organise elections to them. It would be to switch horses midstream. Trotsky continues,

“Under the conditions mentioned above in broad outline, now especially characteristic of Germany, dual power in the country can develop precisely from workers’ control as its main source. One must dwell upon this fact, if only to reject that fetishism of the soviet form which the epigones in the Comintern have put into circulation.”

(Workers Control of Production)

As Marx describes, in his Inaugural Address, the worker cooperatives show, in practice, that the workers do not need the capitalists, nor their appointed Directors, and, thereby, illustrates the basis of workers control, as a revolutionary demand. But, the bourgeoisie will only concede that when forced to do so by the workers themselves, arms in hand. As Trotsky describes, workers may only arrive at this recognition of the need for that workers' control after the experience of long strikes for pay, or to defend jobs etc., as the bourgeoisie responds to them.

That, again, demonstrates the requirement for the soviet, during this period, when the workers are going through this period of prolonged strikes, and the development of their class consciousness. The soviet can only arise out of that process, and feed back into it. They develop the revolutionary consciousness of the workers, enabling increasing degrees of workers' self-government, and workers' power, as a condition of dual power arising in society. They are the means of creating revolutionary workers' defence squads and militia.

Yet, the Stalinists claimed that soviets could only be established after the bourgeois revolution had been completed, and the proletarian revolution was at hand. As the above demonstrates, even where the bourgeois revolution has been accomplished, the Stalinist account is wrong. Soviets can only be developed as revolutionary organs when the class struggle has reached a certain level, i.e. when the revolutionary wave is rising. But, that necessarily means before a period of dual-power exists, let alone the eve of insurrection. In the case of countries still needing to carry through the bourgeois revolution, and where that process, on the basis of permanent revolution, i.e. a leading role played by a revolutionary proletariat and its party, the Stalinists argument is even more wrong.

Back To Part 3

Forward To Part 5

Kursk, Donbass, Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine - Part 1 of 7

Kursk, Donbass, Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine

In July 1870, on the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War, Marx and Engels, having seen the developing formation of a unified German state, resulting from the role of Prussia, argued in favour of a victory for Prussia, against France, because they thought that such a victory would enhance that process, and hasten the proletarian revolution in Germany and France. Marx wrote to Engels,

“If the Prussians win, the centralisation of the state power will be useful for the centralisation of the German working class. German predominance would also transfer the centre of gravity of the workers' movement in Western Europe from France to Germany, and one has only to compare the movement in the two countries from 1866 till now to see that the German working class is superior to the French both theoretically and organisationally. Their predominance over the French on the world stage would also mean the predominance of our theory over Proudhon's, etc.”

(Marx to Engels July 20th 1870)

Prussia's victory in the war did, indeed, hasten the formation of a German state, and the leading role of Germany in Europe, replacing that of France. It ended the days of Imperial France, and spurred the era of the French Republics, as well as prompting the workers of Paris to rise up, and create the short-lived Paris Commune. However, in a mirror image of the argument of those who believe that, if Ukraine were to win back the annexed regions, in Eastern Ukraine, it would mean an end to hostilities, they also concluded that, as majority French regions, in Alsace-Lorraine, the people in those regions, backed by France, would continue to seek to retrieve them. The same has been seen in the Middle East, where the consequence of Zionism, and creation of the Zionist state, by the seizure of Arab lands, has simply led to 80 years of war and conflict.

Marx and Engels wrote to the Brunswick Committee of the German SPD,

“The military camarilla, the professors, burghers and pot-house politicians claim that this is the means whereby Germany can be forever protected against war with France. Just the opposite. It is the best means of turning this war into a European institution. It is indeed the surest way of perpetuating military despotism in the rejuvenated Germany as essential to retaining possession of a western Poland – of Alsace and Lorraine. It is an infallible means of turning the coming peace into a mere armistice until France has recovered sufficiently to demand back her lost territories. It is the most infallible method of ruining both Germany and France by internecine strife.”

(Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to the Brunswick Committee of the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany, approximately 1 September 1870)

In other words, the people in Alsace-Lorraine saw themselves as French not German. As soon as France felt strong enough, it would seek to address that view, and enable them to return to French rule, requiring another war to bring it about – an event that occurred via WWI. The same is true with the majority ethnic Russian areas of Ukraine, and other states neighbouring Russia. Particularly as anti-Russian sentiment is stoked by the US and its NATO allies, and is used by the governments of these neighbouring states, as they seek to solidify their own attachment to, and sense of security from, NATO, ethnic Russians, in these other states, will see themselves the victims of that anti-Russian xenophobia, and will, in turn, seek support from Mother Russia, thereby, dividing the working-class of the area against each other, and preventing their unified struggle against their real enemy, the capitalist ruling class. The same is true of oppressed Palestinians, as it was of Irish Catholics trapped in the North of Ireland.

Forward To Part 2

Value, Price and Profit, VIII – Production of Surplus Value

VIII – Production of Surplus Value

If the commodities required to produce a workers' labour-power for a day, themselves require six hours of labour to produce, then this is the value of a day's labour-power. If gold is the money-commodity, then, if six hours labour produces a quantity of gold called 3 shillings (£0.15) this is the price, the money equivalent of the value of a day's labour-power. If the worker works for 6 hours, they will also have produced £0.15 of new value, embodied in other commodities. When these commodities are sold, their value is enough to purchase the commodities (wage goods) required to reproduce the worker. This is true whether the worker is an independent labourer, or a wage-worker.

But, of course, the worker is not limited to working just this six hours of necessary labour, or producing only the £0.15 of new value. They might work for, say, 12 hours in the day, and so produce £0.30 of new value. In that case, they produce £0.15 of surplus value, over and above what is required to reproduce their labour-power. Again, this is true whether they are an independent labourer or a wage worker. The important distinction, however, is who has ownership of this surplus value.

The independent labourer can choose, whether and how much surplus labour they perform, and owns the resulting surplus value/product themselves. The wage-worker does not. A condition of being allowed to work is that they provide to the capitalist a quantity of such surplus labour, for free. The end product, the commodity in which this surplus value is contained, is, itself, entirely the property of the capitalist. That is the contract they form with the worker. The capitalist provides the means of production, and buys a day's labour-power from the worker, in exchange for wages, and the capitalist owns the end product. The only point of negotiation is, then, over what constitutes a normal working-day, i.e. how much surplus labour the worker will provide.

In terms, purely, of value and setting aside, for now, questions of demand and supply for labour-power, these limits and requirements can be objectively assessed. For example, the value of labour-power has been determined, as for other commodities, as the labour-time required for its production. As Marx has noted, this varies for different types of labour-power, for example, for a brain surgeon rather than a carpenter. But, in addition, as Marx notes, this also changes, over time, because what is required as a minimum, to reproduce a modern worker is different to what was required a century ago. To live and function, in a modern capitalist society, the worker requires a higher level of education, which entails also, a longer active lifespan, and so better health and living conditions. Indeed, as Marx sets out, in The Grundrisse, capitalism itself, also, requires, the workers to form a demand for all these additional goods and services it produces, which constitutes its Civilising Mission.

As productivity rises, capital and revenue is freed from certain spheres of production, and is employed in other, new spheres. So, on the one hand, the value of labour-power rises, because this range of goods and services required for its reproduction, its cultural component, increases, but, at the same time, that rise in productivity reduces the value of all wage goods, and so reduces the value of labour-power, reduces the amount of labour-time required to produce even this larger range and quantity of wage goods.

The important point, as Marx notes in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, in attacking the Lassalleans' Iron Law of Wages, was never that workers living standards had to be kept to an absolute minimum. The rise in social productivity means that real wages/living standards inevitably rise. What is required, however, is that relative wages, the proportion of wages/necessary labour, falls relative to surplus labour/value.

As Marx says, in Theories of Surplus Value, all surplus value is, therefore, ultimately relative surplus value, because the length of working-day is, itself, physically limited. Even if a worker could work for 24 hours a day, they require time to eat and sleep and so on. But, if it takes the whole of this 24 hours to reproduce their labour-power, no surplus value could be produced. Its only when productivity is such that it takes less than 24 hours to reproduce their labour-power that surplus value would be possible. That is why its only at that point that slavery becomes possible.

However, there is a wide range of possible variations between the necessary minimum required to reproduce labour-power, and the theoretical physical maximum working day. At all of these points, surplus value continues to be produced. Negotiation between labour and capital, based on their respective strength, at the given time, determines the length of the actual working-day. But, further factors also influence it. For example, beyond a certain length or intensity of the working-day the worker uses proportionally more labour-power, just as a machine suffers additional wear and tear if is is used for prolonged periods, or at faster speeds. The worker, then, requires higher wages, to compensate. Beyond a certain point, this additional compensation is greater than the new value created (especially as the worker becomes tired, and their performance deteriorates) leading to a reduction, rather than increase in surplus value. These are objective factors that determine the length of the normal working-day.

Having objectively determined the length of the necessary working-day, and of the normal working-day, the difference between the two is, then, the amount of surplus labour/value. It is, then, also, objectively determined, and no longer something arbitrary or unexplained. It still means that there is room for negotiation between capital and labour over the size of this surplus, but that, too, then, becomes a function of the supply of and demand for labour-power, which itself is not arbitrary, but objectively determined. As Marx sets out, in Wage-Labour and Capital, the conditions are best for workers when capital is expanding rapidly, because that brings an increase in the demand for labour, strengthening the social position, and bargaining power of the workers, and vice versa.

When the workers are in a weak position, because the supply of labour-power exceeds the demand, capital is in a position not only to reduce wages, thereby raising relative surplus value, but also to increase the length and/or intensity of the working-day, thereby, increasing absolute surplus value. That, in itself, weakens labour further. If workers work an average 12 hour day rather than 10 hours, 20% fewer workers are required, and so the demand for labour is reduced further. That is why overwork always goes hand in hand with unemployment, and vice versa.

But, once workers are already working the maximum working-day, it cannot be increased further. Absent a significant rise in productivity, to reduce the amount of necessary labour, and so raise relative surplus value, the ability to produce more surplus value begins to hit limits. As Marx says in Capital III, Chapter 15,

“Given the necessary means of production, i.e. , a sufficient accumulation of capital, the creation of surplus-value is only limited by the labouring population if the rate of surplus-value, i.e. , the intensity of exploitation, is given; and no other limit but the intensity of exploitation if the labouring population is given.”

Although technological development takes place constantly, raising productivity, it is only at certain points in the long wave cycle, that big, society-wide, technological revolutions take place – Innovation Cycles – and that is produced, precisely, at points where the demand for labour exceeds the supply, not where supply still exists in excess.

So, absent such a technological revolution, and with the individual working-day already at its maximum, the only way to produce more surplus value is to employ more labour, i.e. to increase the social working-day. At first, that means soaking up some of the existing unemployment, but also means mobilising other reserves – more women workers, children, immigrants, and in places, peasants, independent producers and the petty-bourgeoisie, whose inefficiency and under-employment becomes apparent as economic activity rises.

This means that capital accumulation becomes extensive rather than intensive. As Marx describes, in Theories of Surplus Value, this strengthens the hand of labour. It can start to demand better overtime rates of pay, which, itself also reduces the rate, though not the mass, of surplus value. As the demand for labour rises further, workers can demand higher hourly rates, and competition between firms, also, brings that about. Finally, as real wages rise, workers demand shorter hours, longer holidays, and so on, and this, then, reduces the supply of labour, strengthening workers further.

“By advancing three shillings, the capitalist will, therefore, realize a value of six shillings, because, advancing a value in which six hours of labour are crystallized, he will receive in return a value in which twelve hours of labour are crystallized. By repeating this same process daily, the capitalist will daily advance three shillings and daily pocket six shillings, one half of which will go to pay wages anew, and the other half of which will form surplus value, for which the capitalist pays no equivalent. It is this sort of exchange between capital and labour upon which capitalistic production, or the wages system, is founded, and which must constantly result in reproducing the working man as a working man, and the capitalist as a capitalist.” (p 61)

Back To VII - The Labouring-Power

Forward To IX - Value of Labour

Back To Table of Contents

More Red Faces For Social-Imperialists of The USC

The invasion of Russia by NATO/Ukraine removed one of the last legs from under the arguments of the social-imperialists such as those of the USC, as it destroyed their argument that what was taking place was a war of national liberation by Ukraine – itself both already independent and an imperialist state, tied to NATO! - rather than what it is, an inter-imperialist war between NATO and Russia. But, the social-imperialists have tied themselves in knots at each stage, as they performed logical acrobatics to justify continued support for NATO, as each of its red lines, were crossed, and this one is likely to be no different. But, its no surprise that, at the same time that NATO/Ukrainian imperialism invaded Russia, it also chose that moment to sneak out another source of embarrassment for the social-imperialists of the USC – the issuing of an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian for his part in blowing up the Nordstream pipelines.

For anyone capable of, independent critical thought, the idea that it was Russia that blew up its own gas pipelines to Germany that supplied lots of, relatively cheap gas to Western Europe, and was a source of significant revenues to Russia, was rather absurd. If it wanted to cut off the gas, it could just turn off the taps. Moreover, just as the Zionist state gave lots of warnings that it was going to be carrying out a genocide against Palestinians, after October 7th, and then proceeded to do so, so US imperialism made lots of statements about turning the Nordstream pipelines into a heap of metal at the bottom of the sea, and so was the most obvious culprit, when that happened, especially, as it was quick to proclaim its delight, when that task was accomplished.

So, when distinguished investigative journalist, Seymour Hersch, came out to state what was fairly obvious, not only did the propaganda arms of western imperialism, seek to point the finger at Russia, and to rubbish Hersch's claims, but so did the social-imperialists of the USC, who have fallen over themselves to believe every claim of NATO, and of the corrupt Zelensky regime. They provided, lengthy explanations of why it would be Russia that blew up its own pipeline, and source of revenue, such as that of Simon Pirani, that I took apart, at the time.

Of course, again as is the format with the lies of the Zionists, including those such as the AWL, who also support the USC, as part of their support for NATO imperialism, the first flush of denials and finger-pointing against the other side, is followed by a period of fudging and claims to be undertaking an investigation into what happened, and only when everyone has forgotten the original incident is some whitewashed acceptance of culpability forthcoming. So, it was with the blowing up of Nordstream by NATO.

The writing was on the wall when Sweden and Denmark announced some months ago that they were winding up their own investigations into what had happened. No one had ever really doubted that the pipelines had been blown up rather than suffering some accident, and when they announced that they were ending their investigation, it was obvious that what this really meant was that they could not provide any, even reasonably cooked up, evidence to blame it on Russia, and that the evidence against NATO culpability was going to be damning. In fact, NATO had already begun the process of fudge, diversion and scapegoating, by claiming that its own investigations were pointing to Ukraine being responsible, as though Ukraine would, or could, carry out such an act without NATO approval and assistance!

The position for Germany, is rather different to that of Sweden and Denmark. It's Germany that was a partner with Russia in Nordstream, and where the gas comes into Europe. It is Germany that was most dependent on Russian gas, and it is the German economy, and German households that have been most adversely affected by the huge rise in energy prices following the NATO-inspired, EU boycotts and sanctions against Russian oil and gas. The German government could hardly say it too was going to abandon investigation into such an event, especially as discontent has grown across the EU at the consequences of NATO's war against Russia, and support for the corrupt Zelensky regime, which has cost billions for the EU in military support, let alone the costs from higher energy prices. At one point, gas prices in the EU rose by 1,000%, and its only the fact that Russia has exported oil and gas to China, India, Turkey and elsewhere, which gets processed, and shipped back to the EU by circuitous routes that has not led to those prices remaining much higher.

But, of course, given the continued support for NATO's war, and Zelensky's corrupt, oligarchical regime, by Scholz's increasingly, and understandably unpopular government, it could hardly openly put the blame on the real culprit – NATO. So it too has fudged and put out an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian diver, Volodymyr Z, who just so happens to have fled Poland, where he had been staying, and has gone back across the border to Ukraine. So, of course, given that Ukraine has been given all of this support, and wants to show that its not one of the most corrupt regimes in Europe, that wants to also join the EU, it will do the decent thing, and hand over Volodomyr, won't it? Of course not, or if it does, it will be only after everyone has again forgotten these current stories, and at which point, he might be the fall guy, whilst the real culprits get a pass.

No one seriously believes that Volodymyr Z, at least not this Volodymyr Z, was the real culprit who undertook this off his own bat, and capability, any more than that the car bombings, assassinations and other terrorist acts, undertaken in Russia, by Ukrainians, which were also, initially, denied, were carried out by individuals without state backing. Nor can any sensible person believe that Volodymyr Zelensky and his state would engage in such activity without both prior agreement from NATO, or at least the US, and physical support from it. As with the NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine, and now, in Russia itself, even if Ukrainian divers were involved in planting the explosive, it would have been NATO that provided the technical information, the location of the pipelines, probably the explosive charges and also the means of getting to the site, all of which would have been pretty impossible without it being identified by the NATO countries around it.

Either way, all of those social-imperialists that rushed to point the finger at Russia for blowing up its own pipelines, so as to continue their own support for the imperialist war being undertaken by NATO imperialism have now been exposed once again, and another leg of their argument has been kicked from under them.