ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marx himself defines what he means by "means of production" in section 1 on "The Labour Process or the Production of Use Values" of Chapter 7 of Capital but he had already used the term in the second paragraph of Capital. Also in the first chapter, there's his well known reference to socialism/communism as "a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common,"Here's the key passage from that section (the whole section is worth reading for its clarity):
Quote:The elementary factors of the labour-process are 1, the personal activity of man, i.e., work itself, 2, the subject of that work, and 3, its instruments.The soil (and this, economically speaking, includes water) in the virgin state in which it supplies man with necessaries or the means of subsistence ready to hand, exists independently of him, and is the universal subject of human labour. All those things which labour merely separates from immediate connexion with their environment, are subjects of labour spontaneously provided by Nature. Such are fish which we catch and take from their element, water, timber which we fell in the virgin forest, and ores which we extract from their veins. If, on the other hand, the subject of labour has, so to say, been filtered through previous labour, we call it raw material; such is ore already extracted and ready for washing. All raw material is the subject of labour, but not every subject of labour is raw material: it can only become so, after it has undergone some alteration by means of labour.An instrument of labour is a thing, or a complex of things, which the labourer interposes between himself and the subject of his labour, and which serves as the conductor of his activity. He makes use of the mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of some substances in order to make other substances subservient to his aims. [2] Leaving out of consideration such ready-made means of subsistence as fruits, in gathering which a man’s own limbs serve as the instruments of his labour, the first thing of which the labourer possesses himself is not the subject of labour but its instrument. Thus Nature becomes one of the organs of his activity, one that he annexes to his own bodily organs, adding stature to himself in spite of the Bible. As the earth is his original larder, so too it is his original tool house. It supplies him, for instance, with stones for throwing, grinding, pressing, cutting, &c. The earth itself is an instrument of labour, but when used as such in agriculture implies a whole series of other instruments and a comparatively high development of labour. No sooner does labour undergo the least development, than it requires specially prepared instruments. Thus in the oldest caves we find stone implements and weapons. In the earliest period of human history domesticated animals, i.e., animals which have been bred for the purpose, and have undergone modifications by means of labour, play the chief part as instruments of labour along with specially prepared stones, wood, bones, and shells. The use and fabrication of instruments of labour, although existing in the germ among certain species of animals, is specifically characteristic of the human labour-process, and Franklin therefore defines man as a tool-making animal. Relics of bygone instruments of labour possess the same importance for the investigation of extinct economic forms of society, as do fossil bones for the determination of extinct species of animals. It is not the articles made, but how they are made, and by what instruments, that enables us to distinguish different economic epochs. Instruments of labour not only supply a standard of the degree of development to which human labour has attained, but they are also indicators of the social conditions under which that labour is carried on. Among the instruments of labour, those of a mechanical nature, which, taken as a whole, we may call the bone and muscles of production, offer much more decided characteristics of a given epoch of production, than those which, like pipes, tubs, baskets, jars, &c., serve only to hold the materials for labour, which latter class, we may in a general way, call the vascular system of production. The latter first begins to play an important part in the chemical industries.In a wider sense we may include among the instruments of labour, in addition to those things that are used for directly transferring labour to its subject, and which therefore, in one way or another, serve as conductors of activity, all such objects as are necessary for carrying on the labour-process. These do not enter directly into the process, but without them it is either impossible for it to take place at all, or possible only to a partial extent. Once more we find the earth to be a universal instrument of this sort, for it furnishes a locus standi to the labourer and a field of employment for his activity. Among instruments that are the result of previous labour and also belong to this class, we find workshops, canals, roads, and so forth.In the labour-process, therefore, man’s activity, with the help of the instruments of labour, effects an alteration, designed from the commencement, in the material worked upon. The process disappears in the product, the latter is a use-value, Nature’s material adapted by a change of form to the wants of man. Labour has incorporated itself with its subject: the former is materialised, the latter transformed. That which in the labourer appeared as movement, now appears in the product as a fixed quality without motion. The blacksmith forges and the product is a forging. If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour, are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour.Labriola will have meant by "means of production" what nearly everybody else did and still does, i.e. the materials that originally came from nature, the machines and tools used to fashion these into useful things, and the buildings where this takes place. Actually, our Object, drawn up in 1904, is even more precise by distinguishing between "means of production" and "instruments of production", i.e between materials from nature ("means") and the human-made machines and constructions ("instruments"):
Quote:The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.Labriola,writing in 1896, also argued that this sort of definition distinguished socialism from state ownership or state capitalism ("State Socialism" as it was sometimes then called):
Quote:It is better to use the expression "democratic socialization of the means of production" than that of "collective property" because the latter implies a certain theoretical error in that, to begin with, it substitutes for the real economic fact a juridical expression and moreover in the mind of more than one it is confused with the increase of monopolies, with the increasing statization of public utilities and with all the other fantasmagoria of the ever recurring State socialism, the whole effect of which is to increase the economic means of oppression in the hands of the oppressing class.By coincidence there's an article in the latest Socialist Standard (February) on Labriola written by one of our comrades from Italy and so with access to his writings in the original Italian including on "materialismo storico":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1338-february-2016/antonio-labriola-strict-marxist
These passages from Engels raise the point of what Marx and him meant by "the law of value". The term comes from Ricardo and states that commodities exchange with each other in accordance with the amount of labour required for their production from start to finish.Engels is clearly using it here in this sense. Volume III of Capital, which Engels edited and published in 1894 (ie after Marx's death), was a bit of a bombshell as in it Marx argued that under capitalism this was not the case and that, due to the averaging of the rate of profit, commodities exchanged at what he called their "price of production", i.e their cost of production + the average rate of profit. This would only accidentally be the same as a commodity's value (according to the law of value).Marx's critics accused him of being contradictory (some of Marx's supporters were confused too) and Engels is here, as also in the preface, explaining that there wasn't one and that the law of value did apply to pre-capitalist commodity production.Since Bolshevik times the "law of value" has come to mean something else: the economic law by which the market determines what is produced. Here's Ernest Mandel, a Trotskyist and so in the Bolshevik rather than the Marxist tradition:
Quote:The ‘law of value’ is but Marx’s version of Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’. In a society dominated by private labour, private producers and private ownership of productive inputs, it is this ‘law of value’, an objective economic law operating behind the backs of all people, all ‘agents’ involved in production and consumption, which, in the final analysis, regulates the economy, determines what is produced and how it is produced (and therefore also what can be consumed). The ‘law of value’ regulates the exchange between commodities, according to the quantities of socially necessary abstract labour they embody (the quantity of such labour spent in their production). Through regulating the exchange between commodities, the ‘law of value’ also regulates, after some interval, the distribution of society’s labour potential and of society’s non-living productive resources between different branches of production. Again, the analogy with Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ is striking.I don't think Marx himself ever used the term in this sense and Engels only used it in the Ricardian sense.The reason why Mandel wanted to change the definition was to justify the market still existing in his so-called "transitional society" between capitalism and socialism where the state would be trying to control and direct the market and even to second guess it, i.e by applying the "law" itself. This in fact is behind why Leninists (like our departed troll) want to defend "value" existing beyond capitalism.
Yes, it's part of Anti-Dühring (here), a much longer and more dated work published in 1878 based on a series of articles Engels had written over the previous two years.No need for us to reprint it really as there are plenty of editions about. Essential reading anyway even if you don't agree with it if you want to know what more about socialism. I always buy one if i see it on sale in a charity shop. Some copies are available from our Head Office, 52 Clapham High St, London SW4 7UN for £1 plus postage.
Yes, Socialism Utopian and Scientific is the best introduction to "Marxist" ideas. Better in fact than the more widely-read Communist Manifesto. Can be found here:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm
Dave B wrote:"The argument was about whether an exchange economy where "all" the producers were "independent owners of their means of production" ever existed historically."I would like to say that all do not think that there was ever an exchange economy, before capitalism, where all things that were bought or sold were produced by simple commodity production.We are agreed then. Argument over.Incidentally, nodern bourgeois academic economics does in effect teach that capitalism is essentially an economy where all the producers are independent commodity-sellers including wage-workers, who are selling their labour. just as others, independent producers, sell or used to sell their products. Of course, as Marx is pointing out in the passages you quote about Adam Smith and Ricardo, this means they can't explain profits properly as surplus value does not exist in the model of a simple commodity production economy. which is essentially what they are positing. Marx solved the problem by his key distinction between labour and labour-power, i.e what wage-workers are selling is not their labour (as independent commodity-producers do), but their labour power with surplus value and profit being the difference between the value of what they produce (their labour) and the value of what they are selling to their employer (their capacity to work, or labour power) which is less. Obviously they're not going to teach that in schools and universities.
There is no logical reason why a an exchange economy composed entirely of independent producers owning their own instruments of production could not have existed (and so given rise that way to the concept of such a society). It's just that, as a matter of historical fact, no such society ever did exist. On the other hand, capitalism, as an exchange economy with wage-labour, exists as well as the concept of capitalism.
LBird wrote:Thus, there is no need for a 'pre-existing' or 'real' 'small commodity mode', because the 'small commodity mode' is an explanatory concept, introduced by Marx to help explain to workers how a more complex capitalism worked.Oh dear. I agree with LBird or vice versa (don't know which is worse).Hilferding is saying the same thing too in one of the passages Dave B quotes and even underlined:[quote-Hilferding]In fact, this can happen only when the conditions for commodity production and exchange are equal for all members of society; that is to say, when they are all independent owners of their means of production who use these means to fabricate the product and exchange it on the market. This is the most elementary relationship, and constitutes the starting point for a theoretical analysis. Only on this basis can later modifications be understood;…………..[/quote]Reminder: nobody is denying that the concept of "simple commodity production" exists and is useful (nor that "simple commodity producers" have existed; some still do).. The argument was about whether an exchange economy where "all" the producers were "independent owners of their means of production" ever existed historically.
Here's a basic definition of socialism from this site here which answers your precise question:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/introductory-articles/what-socialism:
Quote:What is Socialism?Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership. In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions. Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services. Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply. So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety. We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them. In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.It's not so much always what he says that I object to (except when he says Vote Democratic Party, as I'm sure he will again, odd for an anarchist) as the way he writes especially about foreign policy.
If you do go it might be worth making a few copies of this article from the June 1995 Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1995/no-1090-june-1995/levellers-or-diggersIn fact, if no one is going perhaps we could send them some copies to distribute.
