The first ideologists from the working-class, inevitably, used these bourgeois theories, and turned them against the employers. Hence the development of Ricardian Socialism. But, in doing so, they were also limited by those theories. Smith and Ricardo failed to distinguish between labour (the essence and measure of value) and labour-power (a use-value, and, under capitalism a commodity). As a result, a contradiction existed in their theory that meant that they were unable to explain the existence of surplus value/profits. That deficiency was carried over into the theories put forward by the first proletarian ideologists. Nevertheless, it provided a powerful argument for labour against capital.
If value was determined by the amount of labour, they argued, then why are workers wages not equal to this amount of labour they provide? Its easy to see why later bourgeois ideologists, whilst paying homage to Smith and Ricardo, were, actually, eager to ditch their economic analysis and theory.
“The proletarians took the bourgeoisie at its word: equality must not be merely apparent, must not apply merely to the sphere of the state, but must also be real, must also be extended to the social, economic sphere. In particular, ever since the French bourgeoisie, from the Great Revolution on, brought civil equality to the forefront, the French proletariat has answered blow for blow with the demand for social and economic equality, and equality has become the battle-cry especially of the French proletariat.” (p 134-5)
In the 20th and 21st centuries, however, this demand has disappeared, or been bowdlerised by social-democracy, as it took the form of limited trades union struggle for higher wages, and improved conditions. That was, perhaps, inevitable, given the rapid development of trades unions, and of social-democratic parties. As Marx set out, in Value, Price and Profit, it is symbolised in demands for “A Fair Day's Wage For a Fair Day's Work”, or for workers to be paid “The Full Fruits of Their Labour”.
As Marx set out in that pamphlet, capitalism provides the means, in the development of large scale, socialised capital, for workers to resolve these problems, not via higher wages, but abolition of the wages system. As he set out in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, it is by that means, by exercising control over that socialised capital (which is objectively their collective property) that the solution to their problems resides, because, without such ownership and control, the same problems of distribution will persist, however much they seek to raise wages, or taxes to increase welfare benefits etc. (social wage). Yet, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century, even those that proclaimed themselves to be Marxists occupied themselves with trying to build their small organisations, by immersing themselves into these purely trades union struggles, and the machinations of social-democratic parties.
Indeed, the ideas set down by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, in relation to this “property question”, and the need to develop cooperative production, have been attacked by these “Marxists”, who claim to follow in their tradition. They have wrongly associated the ideas set out by Marx et al, with the ideas of the utopian socialists, whilst themselves endlessly running around the hamster wheel, getting nowhere, whilst positing as its ultimate goal, a sudden enlightenment of the proletariat, and some revolutionary outburst resulting from it.
“... the real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity.” (p 135)
The idea of equality is, therefore, anything but an eternal truth. In terms of equality of being, it is manifestly not true, other than in the trivial sense of all being equally “human”. In terms of equality of rights that is a modern concept that could only arise after a long period of historical development, leading to the existence of the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Even here, this “equality” is neither a truth, nor eternal.
“If today it is taken for granted by the general public — in one sense or another — if, as Marx says, it “already possesses the fixity of a popular prejudice”, this is not the result of its axiomatic truth, but of the general diffusion and the persistent up-to-dateness of the ideas of the eighteenth century. If therefore Herr Dühring is able to let his famous twosome function economically on the basis of equality without more ado, this is so because it seems quite natural to popular prejudice. In fact Herr Dühring calls his philosophy natural because it is derived solely from things which seem quite natural to him. But why they seem natural to him is a question which of course he does not ask.” (p 135-6)
No comments:
Post a Comment