Karl Marx’s most important work: Capital (Das Kapital is
enormous, its three volumes, containing over 2000 pages. In it Marx attempts to
figure out and explain how CAPITALISM ‘works’.
For each person that works, the produce of their work that
goes to maintaining themselves, Marx calls Necessary Labour, and the produce of
their work that they do not consume themselves, Marx calls Surplus Labour. So,
Marx asks: how does any given society decide 1) who will work, how will they
work, and how much of what they produce will go to them… 2) who will not work,
but live off of the surplus labour of those who do work, and how much will they
get?
Marx
says that how a society decides to deal with this issue shapes the society in
various ways: culturally, politically, economically, etc… and if we don’t
recognise how this shapes society, we are missing a very important part of
understanding how and why our society is the way it is. Again: who works, who
doesn’t, how much of the produce does each group get, and how is that decided. Marx
breaks the history of humans down into 5 types of arrangements based on how the
surplus is distributed to those who do not produce it.
SURPRISINGLY,while
Marx is commonly known for being THE “FATHER OF COMMUNISM” THE REALITY IS THAT
HIS MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT IS HIS EXAMINATION OF CAPITALISM. in fact, this may
surprise you, MARX NEVER WROTE ABOUT HOW COMMUNISM ‘WORKS,’ which is kind of
strange for someone that is considered the father of it.
Throughout all of human history there is something that
happens, no matter what kind of society, no matter when in human history, that
we as humans fail to appreciate, consider and integrate into how we understand
the world we live in: some people use their brains and their body to transform
nature in a useful way, i.e. they do work, and some people do not. The easiest
and most simple example is babies. They are not doing work. Often elderly
people do not work. Very sick people do not work. Sometimes people who can
work, i.e. they are mentally and physically capable of doing work, also do not
work.
This
raises a question: how is it possible for people who do not work to survive?
In order for it to be possible for some people to not work
and also survive, be it a baby, an old age pensioner, someone that is seriously
capped, or a capable adult, it must be true that those who do work, produce
more stuff than they themselves consume. Otherwise, the people who do not work
would die.
For each person that works, the produce of their work that
goes to maintaining themselves, Marx calls Necessary Labour, and the produce of
their work that they do not consume themselves, Marx calls Surplus Labour. So,
Marx asks: how does any given society decide 1) who will work, how will they
work, and how much of what they produce will go to them… 2) who will not work,
but live off of the surplus labour of those who do work, and how much will they
get?
Marx says that how a society decides to deal with this issue
shapes the society in various ways: culturally, politically, economically, etc…
and if we don’t recognise how this shapes society, we are missing a very
important part of understanding how and why our society is the way it is. Again:
who works, who doesn’t, how much of the produce does each group get, and how is
that decided. Marx breaks the history of humans down into 5 types of
arrangements based on how the Surplus is distributed to those who do not
produce it.
1)) Communism/Socialism
– a community or a group of people
work together, and they produce a surplus, maintain it, and themselves
distribute it to those that do not work. For example, if a group of us grow
some food, and we have more than we are going to consume, we decide how to
distribute the extra.
2)) Ancient-Out Moulded
and Impractical – the work is not done not by a group of people, but by
individuals alone. This would be someone that is self-employed, and produces
stuff on his or her own. For example, if I grow some food, and I have more
than I am going to consume, I decide how to distribute the extra. At this point, Marx makes a distinction.
The following three types of arrangement have something in common that is
different than the first two, and it is this: the people who do the work that produces the surplus are not in control
of the surplus that they produce, and therefore are not in control of
distributing it. Marx calls these systems exploitative. The producers of the surplus are exploited,
and all this means is that the producers of the surplus do not maintain and
distribute the extra.
3)) Slave – if the
work is done by a person; or a group of people; but none of what that person or
the group produces belongs to them. What
they produce is maintained and distributed by the slave owner. For example,
if a slave produces some food, the slave owner decides how much the slave gets,
how much the slave owner gets, and how to distribute the extra.
4)) Feudalism (Share Cropping)–
the work is done by a serfs, and some of the time is spent producing what is
for them, and some other amount of time is spent producing what then belongs to
the feudal lord. In return for an
OFFER OF PROTECTION; the lord maintains and distributes the surplus. For
example, if a serf produces some food, some of the food belongs to the serf,
and the rest belongs to the feudal lord, and the feudal lord decides how
to maintain and distribute the extra.
5)) Capitalist – the
work is done by wage or salary earners, and they do not control, maintain, or
distribute the surplus that they produce. They receive a wage or salary, and ALL
of what they produce belongs to the capitalist/owner.
For
example, if some workers grow some food, they are paid a wage or
salary equivalent to some of that food, BUT,
IMPORTANTLY not all of it, and the
capitalist maintains power and control of and distributes the
surplus/extra.
Marx
claims, I think correctly, there is only one reason why a
capitalist/owner/employer would pay a worker a wage or salary, and that is if
he or she is going to get more out of the worker than the value of what worker
contributes during his or her working hours
What’s
interesting is this relationship, between the capitalist/employer and the
worker/employee, is that it is closest to the slave/slave owner relationship.
Hence, why, sometimes CAPITALISM IS REFERRED TO AS WAGE-SLAVERY. They are
certainly not the same, but strangely they are more similar to each other than
the capitalist and the ancient is. (again, ANCIENT REFERS TO SELF-EMPLOYED)
Here’s
an irony: in our modern day capitalist world—and especially in the United
States-of North Central North America, the “American” Dream for a lot of people
is to be self-employed. According to Marx, self-employment is NOT capitalism.
It is the “ancient” form of production.
CAPITALISM, on the other hand, is a relationship where
someone (a capitalist), pays someone else (a worker), to do work for them, and
in this relationship the worker contributes MORE than they receive in the form
of a wage or salary.
IT IS
PRECISELY IN PAYING WORKERS LESS THAN THEY CONTRIBUTE THAT THE CAPITALIST/OWNER
IS ABLE TO MAKE A PROFIT.
The
common objection to this Marxist perspective is: “But the capitalist/owner is
risking his or her own money in the business, so they have to receive a profit,
or why else would they invest their money in starting a business.”
Indeed, EXCEPT THAT
CAPITALISTS; DIFFERENT FROM ENTREPRENEURS NEVER INVEST/ RISK THEIR OWN MONEY;
I don’t think Marx would disagree. THAT
IS HOW CAPITALISM 'WORKS' AFTER ALL.
This is
Marx's FUNDAMENTAL insight of capitalism: the profits of capitalists/owners
come from the exploitation of workers, i.e. paying them less than the value
they contribute to the business. This raises an interesting question: is what’s
best for our ‘Job-Creators’ in America (capitalists/owners)... also what’s best
for the majority of Americans who live on wages and salaries? Is it any wonder
that Marxism is a taboo subject in America? What if Marxism becomes common
knowledge, and WORKERS START THINKING TO THEMSELVES: do we really need the
capitalists/owners?
COULD
WE, COLLECTIVELY, RUN BUSINESSES AND MAKE DECISIONS AS GROUPS, I.E. COMMUNALLY
(COMMUNIST);AND. IF SO, WOULDN'T
WE THEN GET THE FULL VALUE OF WHAT WE CONTRIBUTE IN OUR WORKING HOURS?
No comments:
Post a Comment