Comrades, friends, fellow workers etc. etc., what follows here are some of my observations on Jeff Stein's article which appeared in LLR this summer (Spunk718.txt). Yours for the end of pre-history, Mike Ballard miballar@leland.stanford.edu Marxism: The Negation of Communism by Jeff Stein Introduction: Anarchist vs. Marxist Economics The main points of disagreement between anarchist and marxist economics are over the issues of self-management and the free exchange of products (either goods or services). For anarchists, the single most important requirement of an economic revolution is workers' self- management, that workers have direct control over their own production and distribution of goods and services. These kinds of separations should be sufficient indication of where Mike Ballard is making an observation. If not, I'll try to remember to place MB whenever I feel the need to intervene in the text. MB I've never come upon the phrase, "self-management" in Karl Marx's works. I have seen it used among people who now or in the past have labeled themselves, "marxist" and I don't think, for example, the older Gyoergy Lukacs or Gajo Petrovic would have had any qualms identifying socialism with the concepts of "workers' self-management" or that workers should have direct control over their own production and distribution of goods and services. As anyone who is familiar with Marx knows, the man just did not write much describing what he thought a communist society might look like. He left that up to the workers of the future to design. But in places here and there, you'll find hints at what he wanted, usually in terms of describing a contrast within pages of critique of the wage system. Just as an example, in Volume 2 of CAPITAL amidst a chapter on the "Turnover of Variable Capital" he states, "If we conceive society as being not capitalistic but communistic, there will be no money-capital at all in the first place, nor the disguises cloaking the transactions arising on account of it. The question then comes down to the need of society to calculate beforehand how much labour, means of production, and means of subsistence it can invest, without detriment, in such lines of business as for instance the building of railways, which do not furnish any means of production or subsistence, do not produce any useful effect for a long time,a year or more, while they extract labour, means of production and means of subsistence from the total annual production." p.315 To my way of thinking this statement and other public statements of Karl Marx indicate that he would not oppose "self-management" nor direct control of the product of labor by the workers themselves. One cannot say the same thing about most of the well known figures of world history who have called themselves "marxist"; but this is not Karl's problem, it's theirs and their followers. For instance when Marx wrote the "Addenda" to the "Theories of Surplus Value" part 3 page 490, he interrupted his essay on, Revenue and Its Sources, Vulgar Political Economy, to state that the labor process, "only becomes a capitalist process and money is converted into capital only: 1)if 'commodity production', i.e., the production of products in the form of commodities, becomes the general mode of production; 2) if the commodity (money) is exchanged against labour-power (that is, actually against labour) as a commodity, and consequently if labour is wage-labour; 3) this is the case however only when the objective conditions, that is (considering the production process as a whole), the products, confront labour as independent forces, not as the property of labour but as the property of someone else, and thus in the form of 'capital'." If this does not imply direct control over the product, then it could be the case that I don't understand what direct control actually means. I endorse both FW Stein's concept of self-management with direct control of the product of labor by the producers and Marx's conceptions of how a communistic society might operate as quoted above. I certainly don't think that the lenninst and/or social democratic models have anything to do with socialism for they all involve the continuation of wage-labor and the alienation of the product from the producer. FW Stein continues: With the exception of the pro- capitalist, phoney "libertarians" for whom "the market" is synonymous with human freedom, anarchists see the exchange of products between workplace associations as a sometimes necessary evil to keep the economy going until the problem of scarcity has been overcome or sufficient trust has developed among the workers to freely produce directly for social needs. MB To my mind, what FW Stein has written is not that much different from Marx, again in Volume 2 of CAPITAL, where he describes a possible socialist scenario as follows: "In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of the consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate." p.358 FW Stein continues: For Marx and his followers, however, production for exchange (ie.commodities) is the central feature of the capitalist system. Production for exchange, instead of for local use, is what distinguishes capitalism from earlier forms of economics, and is the source of the division of labor, and the alienation and misery of the workers. Communism, therefore, was defined by Marx largely in terms of doing away with commodity exchange, and the only way to assure this would be done was to assert state control over the economy and plan the economy centrally. MB: This is not really a proper characterization of Karl Marx's position on communism. Marx thought that a socialist society would be classless and therefore, the State would no longer exist. For Marx a class based society always governs itself with a State, indeed the State was thought by him to be the political engine whereby one class ruled another or others. That was its raison d'etre as far as he was concerned. This would also be true of a State where workers were the dominanting class over the bourgeois and landlords. As long as the State would exist, socialism would not exist, according to the way Marx saw it. To give you a glimpse of what Karl Marx actually did envision as a communist form of society, let me tear a page out of what is known as the "Grundrisse" (Foundations) in Notebook I page 171-172: "The labour of the individual looked at in the act of production itself, is the money with which he directly buys the product, the object of his particular activity; but it is a 'particular' money, which buys precisely only this 'specific' product. In order to be 'general money' directly, it would have to be not a 'particular', but 'general' labour from the outset; i.e. it would have to be 'posited' from the outset as a link in 'general production'. But on this presuppostion it would not be exchange which gave labour its general character; but rather its presupposed communal character would determine the distribution of products. The communal character of production would make the product into a communal, general product from the outset. The exchange which originally takes palce in production--which would not be an exchange of exchange values but of activities, determined by communal needs and communal purposes--would from the outset include the participation of the individual in the communal world of products. On the basis of exchange values, labour is 'posited' as general only through 'exchange'. But on the foundation it would be 'posited' as such before exchange; i.e. the exchange of products would in no way be the 'medium by which the participation of the individual in general production is mediated. Mediation must, of course, take palce. In the first case, which proceeds from the independent production of individuals--no matter how much these independent productions determine and modify each other 'post festum' through their interrelations--mediation takes place through the exchange of commodities, through exchange value and through money; all these are expressions of one and the same relation. In the second case, the 'presuppostion is itself mediated'; i.e. a communal production, communality, is presupposed as the basis of production. The labour of the individual is posited from the outset as social labour. Thus,whatever the particular material from of the product he creates or helps to create, what he has bought with the labour is not a specific and particular product, but rather a specific share of the communal production. He therefore has no particular product to exhcange. His product is 'not an exchange value'. The product does not first have to be tranposed into a particular form in order to attain a general gharacter for the individual. Instead of a division of labour, such as is necessarily created with the exchange of exhcnage values, there would take palce an organization of labour whose consequence would be the participation of the individual in communal consumption." And further down in this rather meaty; but important paragraph Marx wrote, "Labour on the basis of exchange values presupposes, precisely, that neither the labour of the indivdual nor his product are 'directly' general; that the product attains this form only by passing through an 'objective mediation', by means of a form of 'money' distinct from itself." In other words, you can't have socialism without abolishing the wage system, in Marx's view. FW Stein continues: This statism of Marx's economics shows up clearly in The Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels. ...in the most advanced countries, the following [measures] will be pretty generally applicable... Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly... Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state... Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state... Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (p.30) MB As I read Marx, the State has historically represented the government of a ruling class over the ruled classes--a dictatorship whether its ideological guise is wrapped in Athenian democracy, slaves excluded; Egyptian divine right, non-gods to the rear of the pyramid; bourgeois democracy, rich and poor equal under the law; or even a potential democratic proletarian State, sorry about that but capitalists,bureaucrats and landlords are becoming useless-- apeared and evolved out of the wreckage of classless tribal/familial societies. As the wealth of the producers in these societies began to exceed their subsisitence needs the outlines of commodity production and exchange began their dawn. This period coincided with the development of agricultural skills and the consequent lessening of the dependence for human societies on merely hunting, gathering and finding the natural wealth in/of the Earth for survival. Along with the surplus though, came the beginnings of the class relationships based on the division between the producers and those who appropriated and controlled the rules by which that which was produced was distributed. Their control became enforced by governing bodies which evolved as the State apparatus. By 1847, classes and the State had reached a point in Europe where Marx, Engels and many others saw another of the periodic revolts of the ruled classes against the ruling classes on the horizon. It was in this context that members of the Communist League asked M&E to pen the Manifesto of the Communist Party(CM). It was written between December 1847 and January 1848, about 145 years ago. Indeed, insurrections did break out in 1848. Great battles between the producing classes of workers and peasants and the appropriating classes of landlords and aristocrats. Unfortunately, the working class did not win "prolitical supremacy" in any of these battles and the program of the CM was shelved in the various libraries of the world. It seems to me to be a misreading of Marx (KM) to imply that his position reflected in the CM's program, part of which have been reprinted by FW Stein in his article, was his final word on the State or its relationships to economics. Indeed, appropo of this article,it should be pointed out that one cannot find a call for an aboliton of commodity production in the CM, which was, according to FW Stein, KM's defining factor of capitalism. What one can find is a prescription for what M&E thought workers, who has won political supremacy and therefore control of the governing structiure of society which still included other classes--the State--might do once they had become the ruling class. KM wrote in the CM, just above the parts which FW Stein quoted, "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible." and then to end the CM on the next page describing a potential scenario for the extinction of classes and the State, KM continued, "When in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Of course, the idea that the State could or should exist after the workers had won the battle with the oppressing classes was and is one of the main issues dividing socialists; but no socialist worth his or her salt would say that "State socialism" could exist. FW Stein continues: Central economic planning, however, precludes worker self- management and direct control of workers over economic decision-making. Self-management introduces an unpredictable, random factor into the economy, which makes central planning difficult, if not impossible. Even worse, it always presents the danger of reverting to an exchange economy, if the central plan collapses. That Marx was hostile to anarchist notions of self-management is clear in his criticisms of Bakunin: Under collective [state-owned] property the so-called popular will disappears to be replaced by the genuine will of the co- operative...If Mr. Bakunin understood at least the position of a manager in a co-operative factory, all his illusions about domination would go to the devil. He ought to have asked himself what form the functions of management could assume in such a workers' state, if he chooses to call it thus. ("Conspectus of Bakunin's Book State and Anarchy", in Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp.150-151) MB How this description squares with FW Stein's notion that Marx was hostile to self-management is beyond me. I can see that KM was less than generous with Bakunin's ideas on the State and the quote which FW Stein uses from KM clearly demonstrates this. But how this quote relates to KM's alleged inability to conceive of that the workers could self-manage industry is, in my opinion, not made. Is it any more inconceivable that part of the necessary labor in an automobile plant would be the job of coordinating the receipt of doors with the assembly of bodies and engines? Could a position like this be delegated by say a vote of the associated producers concerned? Sure it would be a powerful position; but control of who filled the position would rest with the producers themselves in a society built on the principle of self-management. The notion that authroity can be delegated; but always rest with the rank and file is something I believe, Bakunin was particularly keen on converying to the workers' movement and rightfully so. Anthropological studies done since Marx's death have shown that even classless tribal societies are often plagued by those who would turn positions based on freely given respect into thrones of power over other tribal members. The methods for dealing with these authoritarian behaviors usually manifest themselves in anti-authroitarian acts, ranging from shunning to outright assassination. KM's understanding of Bakunin's point was poor, clouded by his rage, in my opinion, at Bakunin's characterization of his(KM's) conception of the State and its relation to authority. FW Stein continues: Friedrich Engels, Marx's closest political associate, made this even clearer: ...if [the anarchists] had but given a little study to economic questions and conditions in modern industry, they would know that no joint action of any sort is possible without imposing on some an extraneous will, ie. an authority. Whether it be the will of a majority of voters, of a leading committee, or of one man, it is still a will imposed on the dissentients; but without that single and directing will, no co-operation is possible. Go and run one of the big Barcelona factories without direction, that is, without authority! ("Engels to P. Lafargue in Madrid", in Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 58) MB I'm not sure what the point of bringing in Engels' letter to Lafargue was. If FW Stein can present an argument which would throw more light on the question of how direction and authority relate to each other in a classless environment of self-management, I, for one, would be grateful. But drawing the conclusion which follows: FW Stein continues: The goal of marxist economics is to build one giant, world-wide, all embracing, harmonious co-operative under central direction. As Marx described it: ...all labors, in which many individuals co-operate, necessarily require for the connection and unity of the process one commanding will, and this performs a function, which does not refer to fragmentary operations, but to the combined labor of a workshop, in the same way as does that of a director of an orchestra. (Capital, Volume III, p.451) MB: and then polishing off this assertion with a quote about how coordination works within a divison of labor, does not prove to me that KM was opposed to "self-management" or the "free exchange of products." FW Stein continues: The Dialectical Approach to Communism To understand marxist economics, it is necessary to understand its roots in Hegelian philosophy. Marx and Engels began as followers of the German philosopher, Hegel. For Hegel and Marx, the only truly scientific approach to understanding anything, whether it is religion, nature, politics, or economics is through dialectical reasoning. Dialectics begins with a logical assumption or observation, such as A = A, this is called "unity". This, however, tells us very little about what A is, so we must contrast it to something else, such as A is not B, which is called "opposition". Then assuming we have chosen A and B correctly based upon an definite relationship between A and B, we can put them together as a set or "category", a "unity of opposites". Out of this "unity of opposites" comes motion and change, the opposition is resolved into a new "unity", starting the whole reasoning process all over again. Eventually by moving from one category to the next, a system of categories is developed which is able to account for all the facts, in other words, a scientific model. Hegel and his successors, however, claimed that dialectics was not simply a method of reasoning, but also manifests itself in nature. All motion and change is a result of opposition to the current reality. As the philosopher Richard Norman puts it, With this notion of "development through conflict" we move to a different concept of contradiction...it introduces a distinctly new emphasis. What is now asserted is that there are contradictions in reality in so far as there are conflicts between antagonistic forces, and that these are the source of all developments, as evidenced by Newtonian mechanics, the Darwinian theory of evolution, and the Marxist theory of class struggle. (Hegel, Marx, and Dialectic, p.56) From Hegel, Marx took the idea that history evolves according to a dialectic, in which societies rise and fall because of their internal "contradictions" or conflicts, and applied it to the task of creating communism. Marx criticized earlier socialist theorists, Fourier, Saint Simon, etc. as having a utopian approach towards socialism. Since socialism does not exist, one cannot describe a workable socialist system in the form of an exact blueprint. The closest one can come to describing socialism or communism is as a "negation" or the opposite of capitalism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and hence is the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and recovery. (Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, p.114) MB: As for the above section on the "Dialectical approach to Communism", I realize that one cannot be as thorough as one might wish within the limited space of an article to describe KM's use of the dialectical method. I would urge readers who are interested in a more extensive explication to read KM's Introduction to the Second Edition of Capital, Volume I, writeen in 1873, where on the last two pages of my copy pp. 27-28 Dietz Verlag Berlin, 1988, he holds forth on the question of dialectical methodology, with specific reference to how he differs from Hegel in its application.After reading this alone, it will become apparent that, "Marx (never MB) took the idea that history evolves according to a dialectic..." but rather that by using the dialectical method, he, KM, was able to analyse human creative actions and thought through time, with the result that he was able to complete works like Capital. It is unfortunate that so much of FW Stein's article is based on what I consider to be a misunderstanding of Marx's use of dialectical methodology. As I have shown in previous quotes, KM has more to wrte about communism than what he wrote in 1844. As for the specifics of the rather mystical sounding formulation, "negation of the negation", it must be remembered that KM was addressing this passage to intellectuals who fancied themselves "left-Hegalians". This milleau was very familiar with the process of sublation (aufhebung) a movement which both preserves and destroys. It results from the tension between dialectically connected opposites. Perhaps, if KM has known how often these Manuscripts would be used in the future, he would have used less specifically Hegelian terms. Perhaps not though, as he did use this formulation in other, later more public works. FW Stein continues: A "scientific" approach is to study the history of economic systems and the factors that cause them to change. For Marx, the most important factor in bringing about historical change is the steadily increasing means of production. Social systems rise and fall because of their ability or inability to materially improve the lives of their populations. Each new social system develops because it can do a better job of improving productivity than the old system. At the same time, however, the new social system itself is plagued by limitations, or "contradictions", which can only be resolved by the next historical stage. Communism, which Marx assumed would be the next historical stage after capitalism, therefore is to be discovered by studying the contradictions of capitalism.1 MB: One could read this paragraph and conclude that KM was a mere "economic determinist". In my opinion, this was not the case. In 1890, Engels wrote a letter to J. Bloch defending KM from this very charge: "The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure--political forms of the class struggle and its consequences, constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc. forms of law--and then even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the combattants: political, legal, philosophical theories, religious ideas and their further development into systems of dogma--also excercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determing their 'form'." The letter is much longer than this brief quote; but I would urge anyone interested in the question of KM and economic determinism to read at least this piece in order to gain an understanding of where KM and Engels thought they stood on the issue. FW Stein continues: Dialectical Contradictions of Capitalism Capitalism is a system of production for exchange instead of direct use, a commodity economy. All commodities have both a use value and an exchange value. The exchange value of a commodity is determined by the average amount of social labor time required to produce that type of commodity. The value of a commodity, however, can only be realized by the act of exchange. Thus where there is no exchange, there has been no value produced, no matter how much labor time has been spent or how much use might exist for the product. This is capitalism's first contradiction. MB: FW Stein brings out a good point in his this paragraph, namely that a commodity must be traded--sold in societies which have advanced passed the barter stage--in order for it to realize its value. Primary consideration here is the fact that the commodity must have a perceived use-value by those with money enough to buy it. From the commodity seller's point of view, this translates into the old aphorism, "Find a need and fill it." (And BTW, try to get the highest price you can.) But is it in itself a contradiction that the exchange-value embodied in a commodity must be sold to be realized? Perhaps. If FW Stein is implying that some commodities may not be sold under capitalism even though they fill a need because the buyers don't have enough cash to purchase them, then yes, this is indeed a contradiction. If he means that use-value and exchange-value form a "unity of opposites" to use a dialectical concept, then yes again, this could be "capitalism's first contradiction", according to KM. FW Stein continues: Furthermore, exchange creates another contradiction for capitalism, the division of labor. Without the division of labor into different industries producing different commodities, there would be no reason for exchange. But for different types of labor to be easily exchanged for each other (in their form as commodities), they must be reduced to a common, abstract form. Commodities, first of all, enter into the process of exchange just as they are. The process then differentiates them into commodities and money, and thus produces an external opposition inherent in them, as being at once use-values and values. Commodities as use-values now stand opposed to money as exchange value. On the other hand, both opposing sides are commodities, unities of use-value and value. But this unity of differences manifests itself at two opposite poles in an opposite way. (Capital, Vol. I, p.117) Money, which is both the measure of value and the universal commodity (in effect becoming labor value in the abstract), helps to resolve these contradictions by facilitating exchange. Money, however, creates a new contradiction. Since money now mediates exchange, it separates the exchange of commodities into two different transactions, sale and purchase. In order to buy the commodities of others, it is necessary to sell one's own commodities to obtain money. And vice versa, in order to sell, it is necessary to buy and thus, keep money in circulation. When for some reason beyond the individual capitalist's control, circulation slows down or stops (usually because capitalists have collectively created an oversupply of goods which they are unable to sell at a profit), the system is thrown into crisis. We see then, commodities are in love with money, but "the course of true love never did run smooth". The quantitative division of labor is brought about in exactly the same spontaneous and accidental manner as its qualitative division. The owners of commodities therefore find out that the same division of labour that turns them into independent private producers, also frees the social process of production and the relations of the individual producers to each other within that process, from all dependence on the will of the producers, and that seeming mutual independence of the individuals is supplemented by a system of general and mutual dependence through or by the means of production. (Capital, Vol. I, p.121) In a crisis, the antithesis between commodities and their value- form, money, becomes heightened into an absolute contradiction. (Capital, Vol. I, p. 151) The only way for the capitalist to survive a crisis is to have sufficient money on hand to wait it out. This is what drives the capitalist to accumulate money and continually reinvest it as capital to make more money. It is not simply a matter of greed, but survival. However, in order to accumulate, it is necessary to create a surplus. This drive for "surplus- value" is a source of new contradictions for capitalism. Since commodities must be exchanged for other commodities of equal value, the only place where a surplus can be achieved is in the production process. Labor must be made to produce more value in commodities than it is paid in wages. Equality in exchange thus leads to exploitation and inequality of social classes. The labor theory of value has as its dialectical corollary, the commodity theory of labor power. The price of labor power is not the value created by that labor power, since then there would be no surplus, but the value of commodities needed to barely sustain the workers and their families. The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for production, and consequently also reproduction, of this special article...in other words, the value of labour-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the labourer...(Capital, Vol. I, p. 189) MB: As for FW Stein's account of Marx's views of money and value, they are, I think, fair, until he gets to the point below, where he says: The capitalist has a number of ways for forcing workers to produce a surplus. The most important of these is the division of labor. The production process is divided and sub-divided into MB: I should think KM would be more inclined to underline the key to surplus-value as intimated by FW Stein above, is wage-labor. On the other hand the question of how KM saw the class struggle is quite accurate below, in my opinion: specialized tasks, thus forcing workers to become more efficient, regardless of the increase in stress and brain-numbing monotony caused. The contradiction resulting from the division of labor is that it does away with the old, individually isolated labor of handicrafts and replaces it with a higher form of "co- operative" social production. The factory creates the social basis for labor organization, the collective resistance of the working class to their exploitation. A struggle develops between workers and employers over wages and the length of the working day. The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser [of labor power] when he tries to make the working day as long as possible...the labourer maintains his right as a seller when he wishes to reduce the working day to one of definite normal duration...Hence it is that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, ie.,the class of capitalists, and collective labor, ie., the working class. (Capital, Vol I, p.259) MB: However the paragraph below is, I think, not an accurate portrayal of KM's views on automation: FW Stein continues" The capitalist seeks to resolve this conflict by minimizing the need for labor through the introduction of machinery. Machinery allows labor to become even more simplified, turning skilled laborers into mere machine tenders. Since machine tending requires little strength or education, male workers can be replaced with women and children, thereby undermining labor unions. At the same time, the unemployment caused by replacing human labor with machines, creates an "industrial reserve army". The unemployed, desperate for work at any wage level, help to keep wage rates down at subsistence level. They also form a labor reserve which can be moved from industry to industry as they are needed. The laboring population therefore produces, along with the accumulation of capital produced by it, the means by which itself is made relatively superfluous, is turned into a relative surplus population; and it does this to an always increasing extent....But if a surplus labouring population is a necessary product of accumulation or of development of wealth on a capitalist basis, this surplus population becomes, conversely, the lever of capitalist accumulation, nay, a condition of existence of the capitalist mode of production. It forms a disposable industrial reserve army, that belongs to capital quite as absolutely as if the latter had bred it at its own cost. (Capital, Vol I, pp. 692-693) MB: The capitalist, accroding to my reading of Marx, doesn't automate primarily in order to defeat his/her class antagonists, the workers; but rather in order to win markets from her/his fellow capitalists in their mutual struggle for commodity buyers i.e. us and others. Efficient capitalist oriented automation has one purpose--to help the employed produce cheaper--read less labor intensive--commodities and thereby drive the capitalist who employs more labor instensive operations--out of business, thus capturing greater market share. I shall delete for brevity's sake the paragraphs below this one which FW Stein wrote on the "reserve army of labor" and the possiblities for revolution inherent in the system of wage-labor, which are treated as tenets of orthodoxy. FW Stein continues: The Problems with Marxist Economics Marxist economics were not necessarily the major advance in socialist economics that some people think. Marx was not the first to use the labor theory of value, itself a development of bourgeois economics, as an indictment against the capitalist system. Neither was he the first to use dialectics to critique the capitalist system. Marx's claim to originality lies in the blending of the labor theory of value into his theory of dialectical materialism. Where earlier socialist economists criticized capitalism because it did not obey its own law of value, Marx argued, on the contrary, that it did, and that ultimately this would lead to its own destruction. What other labor value theorists ignored, Marx claimed, was that the exchange of goods at their labor value went hand in hand with the sale of labor power at its commodity equivalent. Thus any attempt to use the labor theory of value to create a more just society based on the free exchange of goods, was utopian at best, if not totally reactionary. MB: It is true that KM studied the labor theory of value from the works of the likes of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, among others and never himself laid claim to its authorship. It is also generally true that KM thought commodities, including labor skills, sold for prices/wages which, on the average over time, reflected their exchange value. It must be remembered that price, as distinct from exchange value, fluctuates with supply and demand, even though it is anchored, based on exchange value. On can find a fairly accessible discourse on these differences in the speech by KM, now titled Value Price and Profit. (Hopefully, I will have deposited this work in the Marx/Engels archive--gopher csf.colorado.edu--before too much more time passes). But I really don't understand FW Stein's comment above, "Thus any attempt..." in light of previous quotes I have used from KM's work, see further above. I would appreciate seeing what this conclusion is based on. It could be a critique of certain groups in the 19th Century who tried to create socalist communities within the prevailing capitalist system, as a method of advancing towards a free, classless scoiety. In my opinion, KM did think that these attempts would all fail and not only divert the working class from effective organizing but also breed pessimism and in that sense, they would be reactionary efforts. But if FW Stein is speaking of KM's views on a post capitalist organization of production/consumption, I think there is a misunderstanding. Even a late work like the Critique of the Gotha Program contains ample indication that KM found the labor theory of value useful as a potential method for calculating quantitative measures of vlaue during an intitial stage of communism. FW Stein continues: Marx's economic theory rests on a few central ideas, the labor theory of value, the commodity theory of labor power, and dialectical materialism. If these ideas can be disproved, the marxist theoretical edifice collapses. To begin, let's look at the labor theory of value. Marx's main argument for the labor theory of value is that labor is the thing which all commodities have in common, and that therefore thIs has greater value than do commodities made with raw materials of greater availability. Marx unintentionally admitted as much in his theory of land rent. MB: In the original document, FW Stein begins his critique of the labor theory of value with what I think is obscured in my online version. Essentially, he says that some commodities have more than labor in common, they have "scarce natural resources and energy" too. The implication is that KM did not take this into account. I will refrain from extensive quotes here and instead refer the reader to the scathing critique KM made of the German Social Democrats and their Gotha Program. Look for the part of their Program stating that labor creates all wealth. Here, and of course in many many other places in his work Km makes the distinction between natural wealth and socially created wealth. FW Stein also confuses KM's concept of exchange-value with price in the paragraph. VPP is great as a guide to understanding how KM thought supply (scarcity) might work on the price of something and how in turn that price would relate to exchange-value. But the matter is further complicated below when FW Stein gets into the question of rent. FW Stein continues: admitted as much in his theory of land rent. Marx criticized Ricardo's theory of rent because Ricardo pointed out that land rents at different rates based on fertility, without accounting for "absolute rent", the minimum rental rate based upon the least fertile land. The source of absolute rent, Marx argued, is the monopoly of landowners on all fertile land, which prevents capitalist farmers from producing agricultural goods without paying the landlord a fee for using the land. Rent, therefore, is a surplus value extracted from agriculture beyond the surplus value obtained in the production of agricultural commodities. What did not occur to Marx is that since land is not itself a manufactured good and thus has no labor value, the paying of a "surplus value" to the landlord is qualitatively different than the extraction of a surplus through the manufacturing of commodities. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that scarce raw materials, such as arable land, do have exchangeable value, regardless of whether the landlord is entitled to receive that value or not.2 MB: As Jeff points out, Marx criticized Ricardo's theory of rent. In fact a very large portion of Part II of the Theories of Surplus Value is devoted to Ricardo's theory of rent. Needless to say, KM's critique cannot be summarized in a couple of sentences and where FW Stein says that ,"Rent, therefore, is a surplus value obtained in the production of agricultural commodites", he is partially right but is not taking into account e.g. rent for land used to tear coal out of the Earth or rent of land on which housing is built etc. As for the assertion that it "did not occur to Marx" etc. this, in my opinion is refuted by literally thousands of words written in just the Theories of Surplus Value. That is, it actually did occur to KM that land was not a manufactured good and thus has no exchange-value. It can have a perceive use-value though. And some may be willing to part with their money to obtain it. Land is owned and therefore can be sold, only because of juridical power, not because it contains socially necessary labor time. What did occur to KM was that rent is paid to landlords from either the wages of the workers or the profits of the capitalist--wealth which is created by the sale of commodities made by wage-slaves. FW Stein continues: Energy, like scarce raw materials, also contributes to the value of commodities. As production becomes more mechanized, the amount of human labor required to produce a commodity decreases. However, the non-human energy required to produce the commodity goes up. Energy, since it comes from the consumption of scarce fuels, has value. Unlike other scarce materials, however, energy can not be recycled. Unlike machinery, or "constant capital" it does not accumulate nor depreciate. As production becomes more mechanized, the labor value of the commodity goes down, while its energy value rises, and partially offsets the labor saving involved. The rising cost of energy due to both an increased demand and diminishing supply, will act to prevent the value of commodities from falling close to zero, as predicted by Marx's labor value theory. This trade off between energy and labor, probably explains the rise of the modern "post-industrial" service economy, in which manufactured goods of low labor value but high energy value, are exchanged for labor- intensive services. MB: Energy to Marx, like other natural resources--timber for building, metal for machinery--has no "inherent" exchange-value. According to my reading of KM, capitalists find natural resources useful and buy them from their owners when they can be extracted and/or formed into saleable commodities by wage-laborers. Once again, FW Stein applies a misunderstanding of price to the question of the exchange value of energy. Diminishing supplies of energy when met by increasing demand will drive their prices up over their exchange values most times. It is also the case that diminishing supply may involve the application of increasing amounts of socially necessary labor time, so that the exchange value and consequently usually, the price, goes up. Of course, other variables are possible too. FW Stein continues: There are, of course, other factors besides scarcity, labor, and energy, which affect the value of goods and services. The costs of maintaining the physical and social infrastructure, come into play, as well as aesthetics, culture, and perhaps many other influences. The point is that labor power alone, does not determine exchange value in capitalist society, nor will it in any future society. Without the labor theory of value, however, the main driving force in Marx's theory is lost. Capitalism will not collapse because of its inability to extract a surplus from a diminishing labor force. MB: While FW Stein has every right to disagree with KM over the question of whether "labor power" alone does not determie echange value in capitalist society, this article demonstrates, I believe, either a misunderstanding of KM's critique of political economy or a need for a more thorough reading from primary sources. FW Stein continues: On the other hand, Marx did not solely base his prediction that capitalism would collapse on the "falling rate of profit", but also on the increased class conflict due the commodity theory of labor power. According to this theory, under capitalism labor power is exchanged just like any other commodity. Its value is not the whole of the product which it produces, but only that portion necessary to keep the worker alive and to feed his/her children, the next generation of workers. Marx, to distinguish his theory from the so-called "iron law of wages", qualified this theory by saying that the level of necessary wages was "culturally determined". Thus the wage levels of workers must include more than just the bare minimum to stay alive, but also must include the costs of education, and be able to sustain the workers and their families at a standard considered appropriate for that country. Marx acknowledged that the trade unions played a necessary role in keeping up this standard of living. However, the increasing mechanization of industry, would undermine the efforts of the unions by pitting them against a growing reserve army of the unemployed, driving wage levels ever lower, until the desperate workers would overthrow capitalism. Unfortunately, the commodity theory of labor power has even less to back it up than the labor theory of value. The weak spot in Marx's argument is his admission that subsistence wages are "culturally determined" and influenced by union efforts. No longer are we dealing with economic laws, but with a host of other variables like the level of union organization, working class rebelliousness, and cultural expectations about what is an acceptable standard of living. All these exceptions to the rule that wage rates are tied to some minimum, invalidate the rule itself. The history of the past century, the victories won by the union movement and the rise of the capitalist welfare state, demonstrate the fallacy of Marx's argument. MB: For example, the paragraphs here dealing with the "commodity theory of labor power" which according to FW Stein "has even less to back it up than the labor theory of value." According to my understanding of KM's observations on wage labor, he would not place the labor theory of value and the so called "commodity theory of labor power" in separate catagories. As far as I can tell, KM thought that the skills of workers were sold on the market like other commodities and like other commodities labor power was, barring monoploies or other aberrations of supply and demand, sold at a price which on average coincided with its exchange value. Two big differences had to be noted though when dealing with prices/wages of skills: one was that unlike other commodities, labor power was used to expand the exchange value of the capitalist buyer and therefore, was seen by the employer as variable capital i.e. capital which varied or expanded capital when put to use as opoosed to coantant capital, either fixed like machinery or circulating, like raw materials, which wen in to the production process. The second factor which differentiates labor from other commodities like pork, beans, Coke and steel is that workers have an intellect and therefore are not mere objects (although they are many time treated as such by those with power; part of the process I call commodification of human relations) but subjects, who can directly influence the conditions of their existence through among other things, class conscious organization. Humans make their own history; they are not just victims of circumstance. This last difference is crucial for understanding KM's contribution to the critique of political economy, in my opinion, for without it one can reduce KM's position to one of an economic determinist. Thus, the notion that KM's critque of wage labor was flawed because the wage-slaves have had the sense to stand up for their class interests in struggle with capitalists, landlords and State bureaucrats reveals a need for more in depth reading of KM's work--perhaps The Civil War in France. KM was not a dogmatist who pronounced a series of irrevocable dictums. Indeed, he identified himself as a socialst/communist, one who urged workers not to cowardly give way in their struggle with capital and even to go futher by resolving to abolish the wage system, to change the world. In this light, it seems absurd to me, that someone as well read as FW Stein could write: "The history of the past century, the victories won by the union movement and the rise of the capitalsit welfare states, demonstrate the fallacy of Marx's argument". (Of the commodity status of labor power).MB--Ok, victories, welfare state and so on. I think KM would have agreed, we proles haven' allowed ourselves to be ground down to mere subsistence. In the face of the ever increasing GDP pie; a product of our labor, we have demanded and recieved a few morsals now and then over and above mere subsistance, usually funneled in some way shape or form through the State apparatus via the action of cautious liberals. And the bourgeoisie, ever conscious of their class interests, have from time to time (now is one of those times) snatched some of those pieces back, using the vanguard of their hacks in the State apparatus to launch trial balloons and pass legislation. Last time I checked though, I still had to sell my labor time to make a living 'cause if I don't, I'll find myself sleeping in the doorways of this bloody welfare state and to me, at least, this sale indicates that my skills are a commodity. FW Stein continues: What is more, the labor theory of value and the commodity theory of labor power contradict each other. According to Marx, the labor theory of value must result in a falling rate of profit. Marx tried to prove this mathematically with his equation for profit rate, p.r.=s/(c+v), where s is surplus value, c is the amount of constant capital invested in machinery, and v the variable capital paid out in wages. If the amount of constant capital, c, rises while the other two variables remain constant (ie. a constant rate of exploitation of labor, s/v), the overall rate of profit must fall. However, this ignores the fact that as commodities become cheaper due to improved production methods, workers can purchase more goods with less wages. For there to be a falling rate of profit, workers real wages (purchasing power) have to rise above subsistence level. On the other hand, this would mean that the commodity theory of labor power was invalid.3 MB: FW Stein above here implies that KM ignored the "fact that as commodities become ceaper due to improved production methods, workers can purchase more goods with less wages." Compare this to what KM wrote on the second page of his chapter on the "Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall" in Vol III of Capital, "To this growing quantity of value of the constant capital--although indicating the growth of the real mass of use-values of which constant capital materially consists only approximately--corresponds a prograssive cheapening of products." The second assertion in the paragraph claims, "For there to be a falling rate of profit, workers real wages (purchasing power) have to rise above subsistence level." Apart from the fact that this "subsistence level" argument i.e. Marx was an economic determinist has been effectively demolished, at least to my satisfaction, the statement does not reflect how KM actually posited his theory of the rate of profit. On the first page of the chapter on the tendency, Capital Vol III, KM uses the follwoing hypothectical examples: C=constant capital V=variable capital P'=rate of profit If C=50 and v=100 then p'=100/150=66 2/3% C=100 v=100 then p'=100/200=50% C=200 v=100 then p'=100/300=33 1/3% C=300 v=100 then p'=100/400=25% C=400 v=100 then p'=100/500=20% Here, as we can see v or approximate wages remains at 100 whereas C goes up and then the rate of profit drops. How this relates to FW Stein's argument that a fall in the rate of profit DEPENDS on a rise in wages, I don't know. It is true that rising wages would lead to a fall in the rate of profit; but that's not the main thrust of Marx's theory on the tendency, where it is C, not v. It should be noted; however that in today's climate of layoffs, firings and restructurings, lowering of v in the equation may be part of a capitalist response to the problem of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. But this is another kettle of fish. FW Stein continues: Marx insisted that both theories were true, regardless of the contradictions, because they were necessary to his theory of dialectical materialism. According to Marx, capitalism must develop the means of production to the point where the private ownership of the means of production is no longer historically necessary. This is an article of faith, however, since there is no reason to conclude that communism must necessarily follow capitalism. Dialectical materialism reduces history to a single cause, the quest for greater economic productivity. Supposedly history can be fitted into so many categories based upon a civilization's increasingly powerful "mode of production", eg. asiatic, feudal, capitalist and, by extension, socialist. This model of historical change leaves out many historical variables, like the role of political institutions, ideology, culture, etc., or treats them as secondary effects or "superstructure". Many historical events have no economic explanation at all, for instance, the conquest of the Roman empire by relatively economically backward invaders. MB: The above paragraph is totally impregnated with notions attributed to Marx which I have shown to be highly questionable: 1. that "dialectical materialism" was some sort of ideological map which KM dogmatically imposed on reality. BTW, this notion may be true of 99% of the ideologists who label themselves marxist, but my reading of KM's works points in the direction of a man with a Ph.D. in philosophy who employed dialectical methodology as a was of logically sorting out phenomena emanating from reality. 2. that KM was an economic determinist. Far from being a producer of articles of faith or of fixed ideas, KM was a relentless critic of all reified approaches to knowledge. A basic book on this topic is Engels' work, Ludwig Feurbach and the end of Classical German Philosophy. The long and the short of it here is that KM throughout his 40 odd years of communist activity held to the priciple that the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class themselves i.e. not a reformist/revolutionary party. BTW, this is in stark contrast to the praxis of most self-described marxists. Lastly, a word about commodity production and communism. I think, KM understood commodity production and exchange to be part and parcel of the processf which genereated the various systems of class domination maintained by the State. His conclusion, I belive was that neither wage labor--the foundation of advanced commodity production and exchange--nor classes, nor the State were compatible with a socialist society. In fact, I believe, he would argue that any self-described socialist society retaining these traits would never be able to free itself from the reproduction of oppressive human relationships, including dictatorship and slavery. On that note, I end my commentary on Marxism: The Negation of Communism. The concluding paragraphs of Jeff Stein's article only reiterate notions about KM which I have already addressed. For brevity's sake, I have deleted them from the rest of this text. Please refer to the original for his conclusion. While it is true, in my opinion, that most of what passes for "marxism" is and has been a negation of communism, my own reading of KM shows him to have been one of the most erudite socialists to have come along. I would urge my FW's to take what they find useful from KM's work in the struggle for our common emancipation. His writing has sure helped me out a lot towards understanding how to find out what the score is. My sense of the workers who contribute articles to LLR is that they are making sincere efforts to develop working class awareness and consciousness. I offer my commentary in the same spirit, not as a pointless excercise in factional one upsmanship; but as a contribution towards the development of a demcratic, libertarian class wide union of our brothers and sisters. I thank Jeff Stein for writing his thought provoking article and Jon Bekken for getting it online. For education, organization and emancipation, Mike Ballard