The reformist ideas about workers receiving the full fruits of their labour leads to merely bourgeois, trades union consciousness, of bargaining within the system, for workers' fair share, as Marx also sets out in Value, Price and Profit. It is based on a false theoretical analysis that confuses labour with labour-power. Upon it develops the bourgeois ideological movements of reformism, social-democracy and syndicalism.
The Sismondist, anti-capitalist ideas are simply a reflection, in the labour movement, of the morals and interests of the petty-bourgeoisie, which daily sees its descent into the ranks of the proletariat. It is a thoroughly reactionary ideology, and trend within the labour movement. As Lenin sets out in his polemics against the Narodniks, who represented such a trend in Russia, it is reactionary, even compared to the liberal bourgeoisie that seeks the most free and rapid development of capitalist production, and the destruction of all the old parochial, regional and national boundaries that restrict such development. In the age of imperialism, that is even more the case.
The alternative to these two trends was that developed by the likes of Saint Simon, Fourier and Owen. Rather than the reactionary and utopian anti-capitalism of Sismondi, it welcomed the advance of that capitalist production. Rather than wanting to go back to some supposed golden age of small scale, independent production, it wanted large-scale cooperative production, and the increased planning of that production that goes with it. As Marx notes, Owen's New Lanark Mills, with the productivity benefits of their large-scale production, utilising high levels of fixed capital, were able to provide higher wages and better conditions for its workers. Indeed, as he sets out in Capital I, Britain's large scale capitalist production, in general, was able to outcompete its European rivals, even though European wages were 50% lower.
Lenin makes a similar point against the Narodniks, in his The Development of Capitalism In Russia. The worst conditions were for those small-scale, independent commodity producers, followed by the labourers in the handicraft workshops, and small manufactories. The best conditions were for the workers in the large-scale, highly capitalised, often foreign owned, plants.
But, contrary to the views presented by Carey, for example, wages do not rise in line with this increased productivity. The large rises in productivity follow on from crises of overproduction of capital, as labour shortages push up relative wages, and squeeze profits. That provokes capital to undertake a new technological revolution to replace labour. The consequence is not only a clearing out of labour, creating a relative surplus population, and immediate fall in wages, but is also to bring about a fall in relative wages, even as nominal wages and real wages once more rise! The interest of capital, in raising productivity is not to raise wages, but to raise profits, and so long as capitalism continues, that applies not only to private capitals but also to socialised capitals, including cooperatives.
The underlying driver of that is competition, which must occur so long as production is based on the production of commodities. In other words, so long as production takes place speculatively, in advance of demand, for the purpose of selling those commodities for money, every producer of those commodities will seek to ensure they can sell all of their production, by competing to undercut their rivals. In fact, one way of doing that is to produce on the largest scale their capital allows, so as to obtain economies of scale, and reduce unit costs. Production, thereby, gallops ahead much faster than the market, leading to gluts and crises in which prices fall catastrophically, production stops until the glut is cleared, workers are thrown on to the streets, and, with no wages, demand for commodities falls even further.
No comments:
Post a Comment