chimx
3rd February 2007, 10:32
It is late, and I apologize in advance that makes the following less than clear. However, I would like to focus in on points that were mentioned in another thread on Marxism-Leninism, but never really addressed. That thread was meant to be a discussion on the issues of centralization as a distinguishing feature between Marx and Lenin. I would like this thread to focus more towards the idea of imperialism.
To do this we need to begin by returning to Marx. In his work Das Kapital, he describes the process for what he calls extra surplus-value:
If one hour’s labour is embodied in sixpence, a value of six shillings will be produced in a working-day of 12 hours. Suppose, that with the prevailing productiveness of labour, 12 articles are produced in these 12 hours. Let the value of the means of production used up in each article be sixpence. Under these circumstances, each article costs one shilling: sixpence for the value of the means of production, and sixpence for the value newly added in working with those means. Now let some one capitalist contrive to double the productiveness of labour, and to produce in the working-day of 12 hours, 24 instead of 12 such articles. The value of the means of production remaining the same, the value of each article will fall to ninepence, made up of sixpence for the value of the means of production and threepence for the value newly added by the labour. Despite the doubled productiveness of labour, the day’s labour creates, as before, a new value of six shillings and no more, which, however, is now spread over twice as many articles. Of this value each article now has embodied in it 1/24th, instead of 1/12th, threepence instead of sixpence; or, what amounts to the same thing, only half an hour’s instead of a whole hour’s labour-time, is now added to the means of production while they are being transformed into each article. The individual value of these articles is now below their social value; in other words, they have cost less labour-time than the great bulk of the same article produced under the average social conditions. Each article costs, on an average, one shilling, and represents 2 hours of social labour; but under the altered mode of production it costs only ninepence, or contains only 1½ hours’ labour. The real value of a commodity is, however, not its individual value, but its social value; that is to say, the real value is not measured by the labour-time that the article in each individual case costs the producer, but by the labour-time socially required for its production. If therefore, the capitalist who applies the new method, sells his commodity at its social value of one shilling, he sells it for threepence above its individual value, and thus realises an extra surplus-value of threepence.
Marx then makes the important citation of an older economist in his notes that says, "a man’s profit does not depend upon his command of the produce of other men’s labour, but upon his command of labour itself. If he can sell his goods at a higher price, while his workmen’s wages remain unaltered, he is clearly benefited."
Thus we are given a rather simple model for the creation of capital. Through industrial or technological advancement, one can increase gain extra surplus-value. Further, from his notes, this can also be obtained the commanding of labor. By exploiting economies with lower wages (not to mention cheaper resources) for the sale in industrial advanced economies, one can be assured greater surplus-value. That is to say, more capital.
Enter Lenin (well, almost)
Imperialism had been building since the 16th century. Mercantilism dominated global trade which gave way to colonization. In a sense, it is backwards login from what was illustrated by Marx in the passages above. Large nation-states established colonies. These colonies were required to trade with their colonial ruler. The ideology of mercantilism was that a sound economy rested upon increasing exports, which were made in the more advanced economy, to sell in colonial economies, which were obviously less advanced. It is in complete contradiction to what Marx wrote above, but persisted due to the lack of technological and industrial advances that really allowed for the creation of an extra surplus-value of notable size.
This changed during Marx's time with industrialization of Europe and the advancement of Europe's economies. Economists like Adam Smith would come to attack mercantilist theory. Slowly nation states moved away from export dominated economies and emphasized inter-state trade due to the intricacies of economies based on resources, productive capabilities, etc. of the given country. This led to the rise of imperialism which began in the 1850s or 1860s, but would eventually come to a head in the 1890s (such as the "race to Africa"), and eventually cause the outbreak of WWI due to arms build up between Britain and Germany, land disputes, treaty agreements, etc.
Lenin used this model of imperialism to advance his own thoughts on revolutionary theory. Because of imperialism, revolution could no longer occur in countries with an advanced capitalist economy because one of the aspects of imperialism was that they created extra surplus-value, which were in turn handed over to the "1st world" proletariat. Thus labor in advanced capitalists states would come to be defenders of capitalism because they reaped the partial benefits of it.
Instead, revolution had to first come from the exploited economies. Of course Lenin thought this would be Russia in 1916. Probably because he is Russian (i'm only half joking). For communism to come to fruition, socialist states would be necessitated within the former exploited territories of capitalist powers. If exploited economies stopped providing means for advanced capitalist economies to obtain extra surplus-value, labor in the advanced capitalist countries would stop received the perks of living the good capitalist life, and be forced to turn to revolution for their own class interests. Thus, communism would develop.
My problems.
If I have one gripe about hearing about Marxist-Leninist thought today, it is that it is coming from a person living in an advanced capitalist economy. Lenin's inheritors still adhere to a revolutionary program designed for, what Lenin called, a "superexploited" economy. If you live in the United States, Britain, Korea, Japan, etc., you are a dominate force to be reckoned with.
Marx made clear what he believed to be a good model for advanced capitalist states following the Paris Commune (see my other thread). He favored decentralization of a unified proletarian body. While some argue (and it is still debatable IMO) that the material conditions in Russia necessitated Lenin's centralized program, how could one at all apply Russia's material conditions in 1917 to the U.S. or the U.K. today? It is a complete logical fallacy--an anachronistic folly.
Other points I would like to hear people defend: we no longer live in an age of political imperialism. Financial capitalism is the dominate economic model. Why do you feel that during a period of easy access to financial revenue for the development of industrial production, bourgeois elements in society would not put forth efforts in their own community or country to monopolize on labor and create capital for themselves? Why do you feel a bourgeois "revolution" is impossible in a post-industrial society? History certainly points to examples of it occurring. Just look to South Korea in the 1970s and its development into a full liberal democracy by the late 1980s. Other examples are easy to list.
If, as contemporary history has shown, bourgeois revolution and industrialization remains possible, why is Lenin's model of imperialism at all relevant to contemporary politics?
And lastly, and perhaps just as importantly, why do you feel that proletarians in advanced capitalist economies are impotent to enact change, as Lenin believed? How do you apologize the uprisings of '68 or '36 with your ideology?
Again, it is 3 a.m. and I am tired. I'm sorry if I bungled your views with my synopsis of Leninist and Marxist thought. Please feel free to correct any errors, but at the same time, I would love to here intelligent rebuttals to my questions.
To do this we need to begin by returning to Marx. In his work Das Kapital, he describes the process for what he calls extra surplus-value:
If one hour’s labour is embodied in sixpence, a value of six shillings will be produced in a working-day of 12 hours. Suppose, that with the prevailing productiveness of labour, 12 articles are produced in these 12 hours. Let the value of the means of production used up in each article be sixpence. Under these circumstances, each article costs one shilling: sixpence for the value of the means of production, and sixpence for the value newly added in working with those means. Now let some one capitalist contrive to double the productiveness of labour, and to produce in the working-day of 12 hours, 24 instead of 12 such articles. The value of the means of production remaining the same, the value of each article will fall to ninepence, made up of sixpence for the value of the means of production and threepence for the value newly added by the labour. Despite the doubled productiveness of labour, the day’s labour creates, as before, a new value of six shillings and no more, which, however, is now spread over twice as many articles. Of this value each article now has embodied in it 1/24th, instead of 1/12th, threepence instead of sixpence; or, what amounts to the same thing, only half an hour’s instead of a whole hour’s labour-time, is now added to the means of production while they are being transformed into each article. The individual value of these articles is now below their social value; in other words, they have cost less labour-time than the great bulk of the same article produced under the average social conditions. Each article costs, on an average, one shilling, and represents 2 hours of social labour; but under the altered mode of production it costs only ninepence, or contains only 1½ hours’ labour. The real value of a commodity is, however, not its individual value, but its social value; that is to say, the real value is not measured by the labour-time that the article in each individual case costs the producer, but by the labour-time socially required for its production. If therefore, the capitalist who applies the new method, sells his commodity at its social value of one shilling, he sells it for threepence above its individual value, and thus realises an extra surplus-value of threepence.
Marx then makes the important citation of an older economist in his notes that says, "a man’s profit does not depend upon his command of the produce of other men’s labour, but upon his command of labour itself. If he can sell his goods at a higher price, while his workmen’s wages remain unaltered, he is clearly benefited."
Thus we are given a rather simple model for the creation of capital. Through industrial or technological advancement, one can increase gain extra surplus-value. Further, from his notes, this can also be obtained the commanding of labor. By exploiting economies with lower wages (not to mention cheaper resources) for the sale in industrial advanced economies, one can be assured greater surplus-value. That is to say, more capital.
Enter Lenin (well, almost)
Imperialism had been building since the 16th century. Mercantilism dominated global trade which gave way to colonization. In a sense, it is backwards login from what was illustrated by Marx in the passages above. Large nation-states established colonies. These colonies were required to trade with their colonial ruler. The ideology of mercantilism was that a sound economy rested upon increasing exports, which were made in the more advanced economy, to sell in colonial economies, which were obviously less advanced. It is in complete contradiction to what Marx wrote above, but persisted due to the lack of technological and industrial advances that really allowed for the creation of an extra surplus-value of notable size.
This changed during Marx's time with industrialization of Europe and the advancement of Europe's economies. Economists like Adam Smith would come to attack mercantilist theory. Slowly nation states moved away from export dominated economies and emphasized inter-state trade due to the intricacies of economies based on resources, productive capabilities, etc. of the given country. This led to the rise of imperialism which began in the 1850s or 1860s, but would eventually come to a head in the 1890s (such as the "race to Africa"), and eventually cause the outbreak of WWI due to arms build up between Britain and Germany, land disputes, treaty agreements, etc.
Lenin used this model of imperialism to advance his own thoughts on revolutionary theory. Because of imperialism, revolution could no longer occur in countries with an advanced capitalist economy because one of the aspects of imperialism was that they created extra surplus-value, which were in turn handed over to the "1st world" proletariat. Thus labor in advanced capitalists states would come to be defenders of capitalism because they reaped the partial benefits of it.
Instead, revolution had to first come from the exploited economies. Of course Lenin thought this would be Russia in 1916. Probably because he is Russian (i'm only half joking). For communism to come to fruition, socialist states would be necessitated within the former exploited territories of capitalist powers. If exploited economies stopped providing means for advanced capitalist economies to obtain extra surplus-value, labor in the advanced capitalist countries would stop received the perks of living the good capitalist life, and be forced to turn to revolution for their own class interests. Thus, communism would develop.
My problems.
If I have one gripe about hearing about Marxist-Leninist thought today, it is that it is coming from a person living in an advanced capitalist economy. Lenin's inheritors still adhere to a revolutionary program designed for, what Lenin called, a "superexploited" economy. If you live in the United States, Britain, Korea, Japan, etc., you are a dominate force to be reckoned with.
Marx made clear what he believed to be a good model for advanced capitalist states following the Paris Commune (see my other thread). He favored decentralization of a unified proletarian body. While some argue (and it is still debatable IMO) that the material conditions in Russia necessitated Lenin's centralized program, how could one at all apply Russia's material conditions in 1917 to the U.S. or the U.K. today? It is a complete logical fallacy--an anachronistic folly.
Other points I would like to hear people defend: we no longer live in an age of political imperialism. Financial capitalism is the dominate economic model. Why do you feel that during a period of easy access to financial revenue for the development of industrial production, bourgeois elements in society would not put forth efforts in their own community or country to monopolize on labor and create capital for themselves? Why do you feel a bourgeois "revolution" is impossible in a post-industrial society? History certainly points to examples of it occurring. Just look to South Korea in the 1970s and its development into a full liberal democracy by the late 1980s. Other examples are easy to list.
If, as contemporary history has shown, bourgeois revolution and industrialization remains possible, why is Lenin's model of imperialism at all relevant to contemporary politics?
And lastly, and perhaps just as importantly, why do you feel that proletarians in advanced capitalist economies are impotent to enact change, as Lenin believed? How do you apologize the uprisings of '68 or '36 with your ideology?
Again, it is 3 a.m. and I am tired. I'm sorry if I bungled your views with my synopsis of Leninist and Marxist thought. Please feel free to correct any errors, but at the same time, I would love to here intelligent rebuttals to my questions.