This argument, put forward by Engels, is not liked by moral socialists, because, of course, it has similarities to that put by liberals, set out above. But, it is entirely consistent with the materialist method of Marx and Engels. It recognises, as Marx also does in The Critique of The Gotha Programme, that individuals are not all equal. As Marx says, the fact that they are not equal/the same, is what makes them individuals. Some are strong, some are weak, some are clever, others not, some have children, some do not. This question of being equal/the same is not the same as the concept of whether they have equal rights and obligations.
Moreover, as Marx sets out in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 9, and repeated by Lenin, in his critique of the moral socialism of Sismondi, it is precisely these inequalities, these material differences that, in every stage of human social development, means that there are some individuals best adapted to the material conditions, who, thereby, prosper, and, in doing so, drive human social development forward.
“... although at first the development of the capacities of the human species takes place at the cost of the majority of human individuals and even classes, in the end it breaks through this contradiction and coincides with the development of the individual; the higher development of individuality is thus only achieved by a historical process during which individuals are sacrificed for the interests of the species in the human kingdom, as in the animal and plant kingdoms, always assert themselves at the cost of the interests of individuals, because these interests of the species coincide only with the interests of certain individuals, and it is this coincidence which constitutes the strength of these privileged individuals.”
(Marx – Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 9)
If we consider the dissolution of the primitive commune, and development of class society, it is not force that brings it about, but guile. As Marx set out in Capital, all surplus value is, ultimately, relative surplus value, because, unless productivity is sufficient to reduce necessary labour-time to less than the physical working-day, no individual can produce more than required for their own reproduction. Under these conditions, not even slavery is possible, no matter how much force is applied.
However, as soon as social productivity rises to a level where a social surplus is produced, it does not take long before some individuals see the opportunity to consume without engaging in production. They establish themselves as shaman, with an open line to the gods, required for the protection of the tribe, or a good harvest, and so on. Freed from production, they develop their own intellectual skills and knowledge, which further entrenches their position. Others have prowess in battle, and become military leaders of the tribe.
Over time, these functions and positions become entrenched, not by force, but by voluntary agreement.
“Servitude remains servitude, whether the voluntary form is retained or is trampled underfoot. Voluntary entry into servitude was known throughout the Middle Ages, and in Germany until after the Thirty Years' War. When serfdom was abolished in Prussia after the defeats of 1806 and 1807, and with it the obligation of the liege lords to provide for their subjects in need, illness and old age, the peasants petitioned the king asking to be left in servitude — for otherwise who would look after them when in distress? The scheme of two-men is therefore just as “appropriate” to inequality and servitude as to equality and mutual help; and since we are forced, on pain of extinction, to assume that they are heads of families, hereditary servitude is also foreseen from the start.” (p 124-5)
A similar thing is seen with welfarism. Under capitalism, a large section of the population always exists as a stagnant reserve of labour. It fluctuates in absolute size, dependent on the economic cycle, but declines in size relative to the population, as population grows. It becomes entirely dependent on the capitalist state, and is reduced, by this dependency, to a condition of semi-serfdom, its rights and freedom of movement heavily constrained.
No comments:
Post a Comment