HOW CAPITALISM WORKS

Two friends have got together for a few sessions to discuss some of the basic principles of Marxist political economy and how they apply to capitalism today. Q is a worker who, by his experiences, is being drawn from reformism towards socialist ideas, but as yet he has done little study of Marxism and is still imbued with ideas which are current among Labour Party ‘new thinkers’ and ‘responsible’ trade union officials. A is an economist trying to explain things as fully as that can be done in a conversational way and without the use of too many technical terms or tedious details.

Q. I am glad of this opportunity for a good discussion. Since I have become active in politics I have done so much running about that I never seem to get time to read a book. Anyway, much as I want to understand economic questions they always seem so difficult that I am discouraged.

A. I want to try to help you and not display knowledge. Marxist economics is not an abstract set of theories but is closely bound up with the development of the political struggle. It is this down-to-earth quality which distinguishes Marxism -from other theories and leads us to call it ‘political economy’ and not just ‘economics’. However, I am afraid that economics is a complicated matter and does require some effort. We have brought out a short syllabus which gives a fuller outline of some technical points than we need to go into in our discussion, and some hints for reading.

Q. What about those technical terms?

A. Well, every science has its special vocabulary, which makes for precision of thought. In technical language terms may have a different meaning from that which they have in everyday life, and the terms of the Marxists technical vocabulary do not always fit in with those of other economists.

Q. The word capitalism, for instance. Isn’t it rather a term of abuse? I’ve heard lots of people use it who don’t seem to be clear about its meaning, and at Labour Party meetings I have heard speakers say that it no longer exists, or has changed fundamentally since Marx wrote about it.

A. To the first part of your question, the answer is No. For us, capitalism is a very precise term. Marx, incidentally, usually spoke about the ‘capitalist mode of production’, but since his time words ending in ‘ism’ have become rather popular and we shall stick to ‘capitalism’, remembering that it is a particular ‘mode of production’. As for what you say about capitalism having disappeared or changed into something else, most of our discussion in the future will revolve around the question of what has been happening to capitalism in recent decades.

Q. Good! That is just what I want. But I suppose that first we ought to decide what we mean by capitalism.

A. Of course. Some people have seen some of the old features of capitalism alter and have assumed that this means that it has changed its nature or disappeared. So it is important to be clear about the definition.

We can put it this way. All societies above the most primitive level are divided into classes, so that some people do the work and others take over part of the fruits of their labour. As a matter of fact, there can be no social progress until there is a surplus of this kind. If everybody had to grow their own food and make their own clothes there would be little time left for other activities, so from the social surplus a section of the community has to be supported to engage in government, warfare, culture, religion and so on. The surplus goes first to the ruling class, and these activities are closely bound up with the ruling class.

In earlier societies the surplus was produced by producers who were not free men. They were slaves or bond-men. They could not work for whom they liked and quite an element of force entered into the relations with their master. The worker in capitalism is not forced to work in quite this way. He is free, but since he owns no land or machines, no means of production, he has to find employment under the spur of economic necessity, that is, hunger.

He enters into a contract with a boss to supply his output This is the first conversation.

of muscular and nervous energy for a given period, on tasks determined by the boss. He cannot choose what work he does, or entirely the way or the pace at which he does it.

Q. He certainly can’t. I know its sometimes laid down in the most minute detail.

A. Yes. It depends, of course, but the principle is the same. Let us say that the worker sells his labour-power because he has nothing else to sell. In the time during which he is working, however, he produces more value than he receives in wages. We call this surplus value. Surplus value is appropriated by the capitalists because they own the means of production. But it is not enough to produce goods. These goods have to be sold on the market (we call them ‘commodities’ for that reason). Only when the commodity is sold can the capitalist realize in money the surplus value which is, as it were, contained within it. I want to stress here that, although commodities for sale have been produced in other kinds of society before capitalism developed, it is only in capitalism that labour-power itself becomes a commodity, to be bought and sold.

Q. So when I work for the boss, I am really selling my labour-power, as you put it, and the boss is getting something for nothing at my expense.

A. That is the long and the short of it. There are a few complications which we needn’t bother with at the moment. For example, some workers are helping to realize surplus value, by transporting or selling things, and others are maintained out of surplus value, for instance policemen and soldiers. They do not produce surplus value.

Q. Isee. So what we are talking about is workers producing commodities.

A. Essentially, yes. Note that the workers are exploited— they get out of the process of production less than they put in. Of course they could not get back in wages all that they put in, under any system. Under socialism, for example, there would still have to be public services of the kind that exist at present; indeed, they would be greatly expanded.

Q. But you say workers are exploited under capitalism. Don’t we find workers owning their own houses, good furniture perhaps, and even things like motor-cars?

A. Yes, but this does not mean that they are not exploited. Of course, some people consider it very crude and wicked to say that workers are exploited, and, as you know, the boss is always telling you what a fine chap he is to provide you with a job, and that in doing so he is serving the public interest.

In fact, capitalism is the most highly refined system of exploitation that has ever existed—so refined that workers hardly realize that they are exploited.

Q. Well, there’s certainly a rush for the door when the hooter goes. And the workers resist being exploited, I think. For example, when they establish a regular speed of work which is bearable but is less than they could do if they flogged themselves. However, it is very difficult all the same to get them to see the position as you have described it and to take part in politics.

A. There’s really nothing to be surprised at about in that. You might say ‘that lately you have been on a quiet sector of the class front with full employment lulling working people into a false sense of security. But the battle has been going on all right. After all, it’s there, at the point of production, even under the most favourable conditions, that the worker loses

his individuality and becomes a tool whereby another person achieves his purposes. It is at the point of production that the relations betwen worker and capitalist are seen in their essence —as a buying and selling of human nerves, energies and flesh and blood. You might say that this relation mnakes up capitalism, that the machines lord it over the workers as an impersonal power in society. It does not really matter that the Newsletter Correspondent Students from the University of London (the largest contingent came from the Marxist Society) picketed South Africa House early Monday evening, when the High Commisioner was holding a reception for all white South African students studying in England.

A soon as the pickets walked around the entrance with banners saying: ‘Trade Union rights for non-Europeans,’ “Abolish the pass laws” and “Boycott South Africa House,” they were confronted by police who arrogantly ordered them to disperse. When asked by the students under what regulation they were forbidden to hold a poster parade, the police told the pickets not to ask questions. One policeman turned on a Pakistani student saying: ‘It’s you people who come here and make trouble in this country.”” Two African students were also amongst the pickets.

It is interesting to note the attitude of the police towards students, particularly those from the colonies, who voice class issues. old-style individual employer has been replaced by an elaborate organization like a limited company or even a nationalized board. These changes have not changed the fundamental relations in society. They make no difference to the workers being exploited in the process of labour-power being bought and sold.

(To be continued)

“trates, no Cameroonian District Commissioner and there is only one Cameroonian lawyer.’

A record achievement by any standards! The author unhappily spoils his pamphlet by putting his reliance on the . U.N.O.—the thieves’ kitchen of imperialism.

This seems to me to express his own lack of confidence in the African peoples, in their unity and determination to rid Africa of imperialist oppression.

The Cameroons’ people have lit a fire in the backyard of French imperialism. If European and African labour fan the flames sufficiently then the tottering edifice of the Fifth French Republic will collapse with a resounding crash.

by Betty Healy