One of the strangest sights that could be brought within the range of human experience is the living existence of that which previous experience had definitely calculated as dead.
But our John O' London's scribe may have the honour of adorning himself with the "Pope's mantle " for having seen that which is “dead" yet it "still liveth." Rising to giddy heights of contradictory ability in his article "Marxism is dead," he "unblushingly" informs his readers that it is still alive.
He says that "the essential truth of the doctrine of surplus value is now almost universally admitted by economists of all schools." What a Journalistic Daniel come to judgment. Now either these economists must be treading the earth uncomfortably burdened with a ghost, or their knowledge of the body's vitality is such as to prove it to be very much alive. We leave Mr. Clifford Sharp, the author of the article in question, to make his choice free of charge. He attempts to 'outline the meaning of surplus value, but his opening statement proves him to be utterly unacquainted with Marx's writings, unless, of course, he merely desires to misrepresent them. He commences with wages. “The price of labour," he says, is normally determined by the “bare cost of subsistence." We will undertake to supply him with a small pamphlet in which it is written that such terms as value or price of labour are senseless terms within the meaning of economic science. The booklet we refer to is "Value, Price and Profit"; the author is Karl Marx. Therein Marx explains that when using the phrases "value or price of labour " he does so only in the popular slang sense of the term. Therefore the statement is not Marxian. Rather is it representative of the classical school of political economy in Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Even the newest student of Marx knows how he criticised these economists on that very point of their theories.
When the capitalist pays wages to the workers he but hands to them the price of their labour-power, and not the price of labour, which is totally different. The distinction is important. "When we speak of capacity for labour," says Marx, "we do not speak of labour, any more than when we speak of capacity for digestion, we speak of digestion, The latter process requires something more than a good stomach. " ("Capital," Vol. 1, page 152.)
If our critic fails to see the difference in question, and thinks it purely theoretical, then many a capitalist will reveal to him the distinction in practice. When the capitalist has his goods or commodities placed on the market for sale, he is in fact offering to prospective buyers things which have labour embodied in them, they are but products of social labour, and have cost him so much money for wages plus other expenses for raw material, etc.
Obviously if the wages paid were the price of the labour contained in these commodities there could not arise any profit to the capitalist.
But the world of capital “do move.” Broadly speaking, wages cover the cost of the things required by the workers to enable them to maintain their energy as producers of wealth. In buying that energy the capitalist buys a commodity much in the same manner as he buys any other as far as its value or price goes. But of all the commodities, the energy of the workers, their labour-power, has the great merit to the capitalist that it produces a greater value than it itself possesses. Labour-power when in useful motion results in products which have labour stored within them. Not the labour of this or that individual, but the labour socially necessary, gives these products their value and finally their price. Between the cost of that labour-power and what the capitalist ultimately realises from the use of labour-power in the form of saleable commodities, arises what is known as Surplus Value.
Our critic thinks the doctrine of surplus value somewhat “crude," in that it ignores the “benefits of cheap luxuries" which arise from the process by which surplus value is gained from the ever-increasing efficiency of production. Ye gods! How the millions of unemployed workers must be revelling in the benefits of “cheap luxuries." We often wondered why they rushed to the labour exchanges on pay-day; now we know. Who knows what capitalism may yet have in store for us? We may yet be able to take the favourite trip down the Mediterranean and generally travel the world for months on end out of even the smallest wage. But we confess to our being quite pessimistic as to the prospects, no matter how cheaply “luxuries" may be produced in the future.
But his handling of Marx's view of the means by which wages are determined provides a precious pearl of political economy. He alleges that according to Marx wages are determined by the “bare cost of subsistence," i.e., the minimum wage or salary which the average worker will accept as an alternative to destitution or the dole. What nonsense, to be sure! Where, may we ask, is to be found in Marx’s writings such a grotesque caricature of economic realities? How much more will the workers want in wages than what amounts to destitution or the dole? A shilling a week, two shillings, or half-a-crown ? The position needs merely stating in this form for its absurdity to become obvious to even the average journalist. The ”bare subsistence” theory of wages is not Marxian at all. Marx’s theory of wages can only be understood when its historical and social factors are fully comprehended. When Marx analysed the economic workings of capitalist society and formulated his findings thereon, he had seen clearly enough the historical background of that society. In point of fact his conception of the evolutionary process in human, society is complementary to his economic theories. Hence with wages alone their historical and social make-up is amply allowed for in Marx’s system. Perhaps the following reference may give an idea of the truth of this statement.
“His natural wants, such as food, clothing, fuel and housing, vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of his country. On the other hand, the number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them, are themselves the product of historical development, and depend therefore to a great extent on the degree of civilisation of a country, more particularly on the conditions under which, and consequently on the habits and degree of comfort in which, the class of free labourers has been formed.” (“Capital,” Vol. 1, page 150.)
Perhaps this may be sufficient to convey to our critic how enormously wide of the mark he is when aiming his shot at the Marxian ”Law” of wages.
We assure him that with space, time and inclination we could make this position on wages much more illuminating, not only to his own type of Marx-critic, but likewise to many who pay mere “homage” to Marx’s work. The theories of Marx are not to be dismissed by a mere article in a half-baked serio-pseudo-scientific journal. If only the tiniest fraction of the time Marx spent in formulating his theories were spent by those who criticise them in an effort to understand them, much that is said against Marxism might never see the light of day.
However, before concluding, there are one or two further points made by our opponent to be touched upon. He says Marx failed to see or foresee ”three very important factors in the development of capitalism.” There are (1) the invention of the Joint Stock Company, by which the ownership of capital was widely distributed amongst all but the very poorest classes, (2) the political power of organised labour, which has led. especially in England, to the steadily increasing comfort and security instead of the increasing misery of the wage-earning class, (3) the development, especially in America, of a very large measure of equal economic opportunity for all classes.
Surely John O' London's Weekly is large enough to contain “facts and figures” to help sustain these unsupported assertions. Why were these not given? We suggest that Mr. Clifford Sharp, even if he had the desire to prove his case, found himself utterly unable to do so. A series of mere assertions hardly merits a detailed reply; they merely call for an explanation of their validity. For our part we summarily dismiss the three statements above as being contrary to the facts. Perhaps Mr. Sharp will oblige with the information to prove how capital is so widely distributed to permit any appreciable number of the workers to be “interested” in Joint Stock Companies. To prove the steadily increasing comfort of the workers when compared with the increasing wealth of the capitalist class, not merely in this country and America, but throughout the world. That reference to the ”political power of organised labour” really wants some beating, for as workers ourselves we haven’t the faintest notion that organised labour has gained such power. However, any criticism of Marxism, to be complete, must take in the “class war” theory. Mr. Sharp does this, but with an equally faulty method of attack. Marx postulated the theory of class struggles, but largely because he saw the class struggle in modern society in operation. That struggle is no more the invention of Marx than the earth’s motion around the sun is the invention of Copernicus. The struggle is patent to all who want to see it. Maybe the working class as a whole do not realise it in theory, but they are made to feel its effects in practice. The essential feature of the struggle is economic, the conflict which inevitably arises through the ownership of the means of life being the property of a class, with its consequent exploitation of those who, without such ownership, are compelled to toil for others in order to live. In its final analysis the struggle resolves itself into a class war in that each class consciously fights to retain or gain mastery of the means of life through political forces. The foregoing has been a factor of historical development throughout historic times, as may be gathered from a study of past history from the time of tribal communism. Here Marx was on ”safe ground,” for his theory of “social revolution.”
But our critic falsifies this position in every way. He says that Marx “did not ask the workers to understand his economic doctrines, he did not even invite them very urgently to arise and throw off their economic bonds.” Marvellous! For we have powerful recollections of Marx writing the slogan, “Workers of the world, unite,” and likewise have noted the extreme care taken by Marx to make his theories rightly understood by the workers. But our opponent merely makes these points as a means of leading up to a further falsification of Marxism. The revolution is alleged to be meant by Marx as a ”catastrophic event ”— ”as something which, when the time was ripe, would happen, as it were, in a single night.” Why the night time should be chosen is not stated, but we presume that, like the celebrated ”bogey man,” ” he likes the dark whose deeds are evil.” We are told that Marx wanted the working class to ”organise itself not in order to seize power by political methods, but in order to be able through its leaders to exercise power when power fell, miraculously, as it were, yet of historic necessity,
into its hands.” Our immediate comment here is that Mr. Sharp must himself be suffering from an acute attack of “ Russianitis.” The Bolshevik bogey of revolution from nowhere must have appeared in his dreams and he has mistaken it for Marx’s idea of social revolution. Thus does he say that, “a Marxian political party has always been something of a contradiction in terms.” But we reply to the contrary. The organisation of the working class for the control of the political machinery is of the very essence of Marxism. Who was it who said that the working class must first of all acquire political supremacy? Marx. Who actually participated in the demand for the extension of the franchise where such had not yet been gained by the workers ? Marx.
"The irony of history,” says Engels, Marx’s great co-worker, ” turns everything upside down. We, the 'revolutionists,' the ‘upsetters,’ we thrive much better with legal than with illegal means in forcing an overthrow. The parties of order, as they call themselves, perish because of the legal conditions set up by themselves.” This certainly sounds like Marxism insisting upon the political organisation of the working class. But to a Marx critic it may mean anything different from what it does actually mean.
It is significant that every attack upon the teachings of Marx should be based upon a fabrication of his writings. But the intellectual bankruptcy of the ruling class becomes more pronounced as time proceeds. They with their hirelings are driven from pillar to post to find a rational defence for their system. But the vital truths of Marxism are as a bulwark against the ablest of capital’s apologists. Their periodic and spasmodic displays of ”learning” in Marx criticism merely leave Marxians to humorously feel like repeating the Biblical incantation of old, "If these be your gods O Israel.”
Robertus.
Concluded.
'Robertus' was the pen name for Robert Reynolds.
ReplyDelete