Duhring's argument is that the starting point is simply the division of society into the weak and the strong, and the ability of the strong to subjugate the weak, by the use if force. This, of course, from Duhring, who, in relation to Darwin's theory, was appalled by his mischaracterisation of it as a theory of “the brutes”.
“Crusoe enslaved Friday only in order that Friday should work for Crusoe's benefit. And how can he derive any benefit for himself from Friday's labour? Only through Friday's producing by his labour more of the necessaries of life than Crusoe has to give him to keep him fit to work. Therefore, in violation of Herr Dühring's express orders, Crusoe, “takes the political grouping” arising out of Friday’s enslavement “not, as the starting-point for its own sake but exclusively as a means of getting grub”; and now let him see to it that he gets along with his lord and master, Dühring.” (p 203)
Consequently, even using Duhring's example, it fails at the first hurdle, and proves the opposite of what he asserted. But, it fails further. Not only does the example require that productivity has risen to a level whereby Friday can produce enough for two, but it begs the question of, then, how Robinson can subjugate him, and extract and appropriate this surplus product. What if Friday simply reduces his output, or just runs away?
“Subjugation has always been—to use Herr Dühring's elegant expression—a “means of getting grub” (taking getting grub in its widest sense), but never and nowhere a political grouping established “for its own sake”. It takes a Herr Dühring to be able to imagine that state taxes are only “second order effects”, or that the present-day political grouping of the dominant bourgeoisie and the dominated proletariat has come into existence “for its own sake”, and not as a “means of getting grub” for the dominant capitalists, that is to say, for the sake of making profits and accumulating capital.” (p 204)
If we take capitalist society, its true that force plays a significant role in keeping the ruling class in place, via its state. But, a far more important role is played by the fact that the relations of production, and the social relations created by them, appear natural. Even in relation to the state, on a day to day basis, the most significant role is played by its ideological arms – religion, education, the media – than its bodies of armed men. On a day to day basis, the latter appear to be merely neutral, custodians of law and order, acting to protect all of “society”, as guardians of “the people”, much as did the Hobbesian Leviathan. It is only when those bodies of armed men are openly mobilised against “the people”, as for example Trump has done in California, that their true nature is exposed. Usually, the ruling class, only resorts to such methods, in extreme cases of threat to its rule, which is why the ruling class can be far from happy about such use by Trump, in current conditions.
The bourgeoisie did not subjugate workers by force, but via simple economic processes, the failure of the least efficient, independent commodity producers, and their transformation into proletarians. And, in fact, returning to Crusoe and Friday, to enslave the latter, Crusoe requires ownership of means of production and subsistence. They do not appear from nowhere, and so assumes a degree not only of previous production, but, also, the development of a significant degree of inequality in distribution, allowing Crusoe to have already appropriated this accumulation of wealth.
“In the ancient primitive communities with common ownership of the land, slavery either does not exist at all or plays only a very subordinate role. It was the same in the originally peasant city of Rome; but when Rome became a “world city” and Italic landownership increasingly fell into the hands of a numerically small class of enormously rich proprietors, the peasant population was squeezed out by a population of slaves. If the number of slaves in Corinth rose to 460,000 and in Aegina to 470,000 at the time of the Persian wars and there were ten slaves to every freeman, something else besides “force” was required, namely, a highly developed arts and handicraft industry and an extensive commerce. Slavery in the United States of America was based far less on force than on the English cotton industry; in those areas where no cotton was grown or which, unlike the border states, did not breed slaves for the cotton-growing states, it died out of itself without any force being used, simply because it did not pay.” (p 204-5)
No comments:
Post a Comment