8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 28 Jan

1/8

FORUM 6d.INTERNAL JOURNALOF THE S.P.G.BNo. 28 January 1955RELATIVE SURPLUS VALUE

A Criticism of F . Evans' ViewsF. Evans, in the Sept. issue of Forum,asserts that the production of surplus value inits relative form, being the dominant method

of exploitation, ensures for the capitalistsever higher rates of profit, and for theworkers ever higher standards of living. Thisit appears is due to the tremendous produc-tive powers of present day society whichthrough the agency of the competition ofcapitals is constantly cheapening products andmaking available an ever-increasing quantityof use values which are being indiscriminatelybestowed on all and sundry. In this mannerdoes capitalism become cornucopia, N 0-where, however. does he offer data onstatistical evidence for his views. Frankly Ido not believe he can.To anticipate a possible objection it hasbeensaid that Evans' views are more relevantto; the lield of social psychology than toeconomics. Nevertheless his statements thatthe undermining of capitalist power andprivilege has its font and impetus in theproduction of surplus value is primarily aquestion of social production. i.e. economics.Moreover Evans. himself, offers. as a theoreti-cal justification for his views. what he deemsa Marxist explanation.In order to clarify my criticism of Eva\1sI trust I shall bfl forgiven if I digress a littlein a brief recapitulation of the subject ofrelative 'surplus value and its, relation to

labour-power. It is a fact that with thegrowth of machinery per worker the produc-tivity of labour increases. If this leads to acheapening of commodities which extend tothose items constituting the cost of workingclass subsistence then the value of labour-power as a commodity will fall along withother commodities. This in time will lead toan increase in the rate oJ surplus value

because a smaller portion of the workingpopulation will now be required for theproduction of working classmeans of subsist-ence. To put it another way a smallerportion of the working day. is needed for thereplacing of the value of labour-power and alarger part remains for the production ofsurplus value.

Value of Labour-PowerTo put the matter concretely. supposingthe value of labour-power to be 30/- perday then if productivity is doubled andprices halved, 15/- per day will purchasethe same amount of goods as did 30/-.suppose. however. bhat workers' wages arenow reduced to the monetary value of 18/-

per day. Even though they are able topurchase more goods with this sum than theydid at the former rate of 30/- per day itdoes not follow that they are getting over thevalue of their labour-power, i.e. that theyhave increased their standard of living. Itmight be that the further intensification ofthe Labour process, called forth byincreasedproductivity, does not constitute a recompense,for the extra wear and tear which is entailed.In these circumstances 'bheworkers would begetting below the value of their labour-power-their living conditions would haveworsened. Increased consumption does notnecessarily mean the same thirig as an increasein the standard of living. In short, increasedearnings are not the yardstick which finallymeasures benefits obtained by workers. Thereal measure of these benefits is the worker'soutput in relation to input. What helgets' inwages to what he gives in the productiveprocess.If of course the workers obtain the sum of24/- per day then this, share in increased

productivity may be sufficient to make theadded intensity of effort, worth while. Ifthe mass of use values representing 24/- perday becomes permanently incorporated intoitems" necessary for the production andreproduction of their labour-power then thevalue of' labour-power will have beenraised.

Ev~ns' own assertions that increasedproductivity by cheapening commoditiesautomatically increases living standardsraises interesting implications. For him theclass struggle is a charade. Yet surelyEvans knows that the capitalist in pursuit ofclass interests will attempt to push wagesdown to the lowest possible level consistentwith their requirements. Just as workers willattempt to .push their wages up as far as ispossible in a profit making society. Thequestion to be asked is, in the alleged absenceof the class struggle as an important factorin maintaining and raising living standards,what economic mechanism operates to con-stantly higher real wages? What are thefactors which determine given wage levels?Or ,90~S Evans maintain that the capitalistsdo not' try to get labour-power as cheaply aspossible; that their policy instead is one ofhigh wages. In short that capitalism is asystem which pursues socially motivated ends.If Evans agrees that the class struggle isitself one of the determinants in the standardof living then he invalidates most of his ownarguments.

It is true that in the early stage of capital-ist development large reserves of cheaplabour-power were available by the dispos-session of small producers, artisans, andpeasants. This exercised a powerful down-ward pressure on wage levels. But with theThe opinions expressed in this journal are those of the individual contr-ibutors, and are notto be taken as the official views of the party

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 28 Jan

2/8

98 FORUM J a n u a r y 1955expansion of capitalism more and morelabour-power was absorbed, while the sourcesof expropriation diminished in scale. Capital-ists thus met increasing obstacles on the supplyside of labour. At the same time there wasa continuous growth of powerful labourorganisations-Trade Unions. The effect ofall this was to bring about an upwardpressure on wage levels, This I suggest offersa better explanation to account for the risein wages occurred during a considerablepart of the 19th century than the inelu~tab!eprocess called by Evans "the accretions ofcapital '~-reminiscent of Adam Smith's" Invisible Hand". Finally in this connec-tion that phase of capitalist exploitation, theproduction of relative surplus value, was notthe outcome of a metaphysic of history butthe need to overcome the approachingexhaustion of cheap labour supplies by' newand more intensive methods of exploitation.In short, relative surplus value was thecapitalist's answer to compensate for a fallingrate of profit due to rising labour costs.Evans fails to really understand the proposi-tion that men make history albeit theirmotives and aims are rooted in an objectivemilieu.

Rising Standards?To talk as Evans does of working class

standards being continuously raised by thecheapening of products is the same thing asasserting that real wage rates have shown asteady and cumulative increase for generationsbeginning presumably about 1850 when theproduction of relative surplus value became .general. According to Bowley " Wages andIncome since 1860," the real wage rate ofskilled workers was estimated to.' be ~bout6 per cent. lower than in 1914, -whileunskilled workers' wage rates were 'abb'.lt 6per cent. higher. Undoubtedly poverty hadbeen reorganised but would Evans assert thiswas proof of ever increasing living standards?And remember the production of surplusvalue in its relative form had beengoipg onfor nearly 75 years. If these cumulativeincreases of items of working class consumn-tion due Ito relative surplus value had reallytaken place then by 1924 there should 'haveoccurred some remarkable changes in theliving conditions of the working class. Inpoint of fact, agriculture and the productsof the building industry constitute the majoritem in working class consumption, yet neitherof these are amenable to increasing andcumulative changes brought about by theintroduction of machinery.

Just one more word on the question 0fwages. It is not denied that net' earnings can

EDITORIALReaders will probably notice that this

issue is rather better balanced than someprevious ones. Writers will probably noticethat their article has for some reason notappeared. These two facts are inseparablyconnected. The issue is better balancedbecause we have had quite a fair amount ofmaterial to choose from: .For exactly thesame reason we have had to omit this monthmore material than for many previous months,though of course all this material will appearin due course.It is perhaps worth mentioning that short

letters will always appear straight away,whereas long articles may be delayed longer.

increase while wage rates remain the same oreven decline. But that is due to. increases inworking population, piece work and over-time. Moreover net earnings vary fromindustry to industry. As such, increases innet earnings cannot be shown to be theresult of vast increasing output arising fromthe production of relative surplus value withits ever cheapening products ..It seems almost superfluous to remind a

party member that before the present war,Boyd Orr estimated that 8 million people inBritain did not obtain enough nutritionalmeans consistent with a healthy life. ThatLord Beveridge has said that between' thewars nearly half of all working class childrenin this country were born in want. Againaccording to Mr. Rowntree in 1936, 31per cent. of famil~es were below the level ofwhat he called "a human need standard"and this after over ithree quarters of acentury of the produdionof relative surplusvalue which vide Evanshas given the workingclass ever increasing living standards. Howdoes Evans explain this?

There are in addition some serIOUS errorsin Evans' theoretical assumptions. Forinstance he tells us that thl? capitalists obtainan ever - increasing rate of exploitation orprofit-s-he never seriously attempts to proveit-at the same time We are told' that.commodities in general are subjected to anever 'cheapening process' as the result ofincreased productivity. But it is fairlyevident if the price of labour-power remainsconstant and the price of finished productsfalls correspondingly per increased output, itis hard to see where the rate of profit canincrease. If for instance a given capitalconsisted of J OOc and 100" and the rate ofexploitation doubled but pricesiwere halvedthen the rate of profitwould be' the same.

If, however, the value of labour-power roseduring the process then the rate of profitwould fall. Again what is Evans' solutionto this dilemma?

Again Evans points to t~ increasingorganic composition of capital as a corollaryof relative surplus value. But an increasein the organic composition of capital leads toa tendency for the rate of profit to fall. . Ifthese increases in the organic composition ofcapital had proceeded on the scale thatEvans seems to suggest, then its fall wouldhave been little short of catastrophic. Nowthe only thing which could offset this wouldbe a tremendous increase in exploitation butin order to do so such exploitation would notbe human but super-human. Does thehistory of capitalism especially Britishcapitalism, over the last 50 years, show this ?Again if the intensity of productive effortwassuch, not even the extra input of consumptionitems would compensate the workers for thelevel of output which would be required forthe maintenance of such conditions. Itappears that Evans unwittingly supportsHoratio's views of increasing misery. SThretysome better explanation is required fromEvans than the one he has given?

Reserve ArmyThere is another logical inconstancy abou,t

Evans' reasoning. It is of course a COoUi2

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 28 Jan

3/8

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 28 Jan

4/8

100 FORUM . J anua ry 1.955not seem to be having the effect that it usedto have.

Thus the more virile members at timesbegin to feel despondent,. they begin to thinkthat maybe. our propaganda is wrong, that ourDeclaration of Principles is wrong some-where, or that our Party's speakers are notputting the Party's case over right. Thus thesearch for the imaginary f/yin the ointmentbegins, and as it develops' more members loseinterest and the Party's propaganda sufferseven more.

There is nothing wrong with our propa-ganda-thousands of debates and publicmeetings have proven that. There is nothingwrong with our Declaration of Principles-s-years of criticism have been unable to. shatterthem. The trouble lies in the majority of

people who, have not heard the Party's case,or, having heard it, do not respond. Theydo not understand the economics ofCapitalism in their simplest terms, they havebeen unable to penetrate the veil. They willone day, but until that time, we must bewareof {aIling into this trap -of despair.Iwould like to finish off by repeating astatement that Imade at the Conference andat the Party meeting-" It is a good thingthat we do criticise our D. of P.; if anythingis wrong with them we should find them out,but let's be sensible, let us deal with themas our Comrades in the W.S.P. of U.S. didand in future there will be no more of thisterrible waste of time."

]. G. GRISLEY,Southend Branch.

WISDOM FROM 1908My friend asks me for details of, my

scheme. Of all the forms of opposition toSocial ism, this one of' a craving for detailsseems to be the most pronounced. NO ' N , ifSocialism was a. scheme, Iquite admit thatm y opponent would have a right to ask fordetails. But what is the difference betweena scheme and Socialism ~ Just this! one isa manufactured product and the other is anevolutionary product. So that for ananalogywe -must take not a scheme, but somethingwhich evolves.Tak e a Floeer. We may know when thepeduncle makes its appearance that it is goingto be a flower, but we cannot gives detailsas to the number of sections which is going toconstitute the calyx, and after that has come,

we do not alway's know. ho w many petals thecorolla will have, nor their actual size. shapeor colour, ncr can we say until a later stageis. reached, and they 'actually unfold them-selves to. our eyes, how many stamens andpistils it has.

So that, while it is logical enough to askfor details of a scheme, where is the man ofscience who would ask for details 0_ an evo-lutionary product? If I attempted to givedetails of the plan of the f u tu r e , Ishouldcease to stand asa scientific man, and shouldbe a Utopian, a dreamer, a fool.

Extract from a debate beween . Gee(S.D.F.), and Rev. M..P. Davies, B.A,B.D.

A SOULJohn Stuart Millheld that the way society

treats its women is. a measure -of its civilisa-tion. How much more true, is this of thecritic and the treatment he receives at theands of accepted opinion.

Students of primitive society tell how, inany cultures, the man who breaks the tabooeets a swift end at the hands of his fellowsr is thrust from the group to die in theilderness. Every step in the process maye rationalised from the moment of accusa-ion to that of punishmenlt-always there areound reasons. The group must face naturenited if it is to . survive. A broken ..tabooeans an angry god visiting the group with

OF TRUTH

is most acceptable when it is presented asareturn to. the wisdom of earlier ages and mostobjectionable when felt to be at variance 'withgroup tradition. The importance attached to.traditional attitudes and practices : the greatreluctance to question their truth or applica-bility in . changed conditions, make adaptivechange a difficult and dangerous business ..Faced with new situations the group actsin ways which have been successful in thepast though they may be quite inadequate tocope with ,the new problems. The frustrationproduced by its failure results in hostilebehaviour towards other groups and withinthe group 'itself. Those in any way critical ofgroup policies or practices tend to-he crushed.or intimidated. Those questioning and critical"attitudes which may alone contain thepre-requisites for solv.ing,phe ne w problems' arelost to the group. Its behaviourbecomesmoreand more regressive as its. failure' becomesmore and more apparent. Social extinction'ultimately results.

This brief black or white stereotype ofcrudely conservative authoritarian organisa-tion brings out dearly that they tend t o pr.e~serve the group at the expense of adaptability.Rigidi ty of structure means rigidity ofresponse and lack of internal self-correctingprinciples. Once 'Started upon. a course 0 : action it is completely committed. Mistake,s,once made become fixated responses incor-porated into its organisational principles.A much more rational attitude to thecritics and one which we should adopt is totry and derive benefit from criticism. Theman intolerant of criticism is a man whobelieves he has found the finlished article o ftruth. To him intolerance of criticism, issimply a rebuttal of falsity-a black or white;" either or ....posi tion.

Life is rarely so simple. So often whenwe examine criticism we find that element oftruth which' in .our hurry we were trying toleave behind' and which, left undiscovered,would have caused us to retrace our steps at-a later date.If in our attitude. we can aim to. derive.

from criticism that "soul of truth" which'inspired the critic we wil! obtain a very high-degree of stability indeed, coupled with thegreatest degree of adaptability.

Joan Lester.

Correspondence and articles should be sentto FORUM, S.P.G.B., 52 Clapham High Street,'.London, S.W.4. Subscriptions: 12 months, 7/6d.,6 months, 3/9d. Cheques and P.O.'s should e.e'

made f'}yable to : .E. Lake, S.P.G.B.

some dread disease or hastening its failure inbattle, all resulting in the breakdown orweakening of the group. Thus the groupmust defend itself hom those within w]:owould, by action detrimental, w-eaken it inits struggle for self conservation. Thus isborn the oldest political ideology the worldhas known-simple conservatism. This doc-trine,' not without usefulness as a social pre-servative force makes adaption or adjustmentofestablished fact very difficult, What hasalways been done is right and good, becauseit has always been done. What is new is badland wrong, because ilt is untried, has neverworked, because ,it is in fact new. Change

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 28 Jan

5/8

u ary 1'955 FORUM 101

A LAPSE FROMRIGHTEOUSNESS

Although Ihave been a member of therty for over forty years, Itill regard thebject and D of P a magnificent piece oflitical writing,comparable only with the.communist Manifesto' in its pungency ofyle and power of exhortation.This Socialist objective and call to action,ough perhaps premature in point of historicale, has been, however, a tremendousurce of inspiration to many thousands ofe more seriouslypolitically minded workingass men and women throughout the world.Asa very, humble rank and filer may I,erefore, be allowed to voice my viewsgarding the issues raised in the abovecular, be~ause Paddington Branch appearbe slightly disgruntled and dissatisfied withe progress of Socialism down the years.eir ..reaction seems to take the form ofshing to dispense with principles altogetherd to keep company, presumably with the,They must know, however, that member-ip of. the Party is conditioned by an Objectd D of P. Despite this they now claim.right to disagree with ,them, remain ,ind' be allowed to continue to represent therty. Naturally enough they also disagreeththe E.C. for ,imposing disciplinary actioncause 'of 'their claims.Paddington's objection to this action of theC.on thegrounds of .. principle" and fore other reasons cited, seems to be merely aver to hide a regrettable arrogance, or atulant desire to' have their own way,regy concealing the nonsensical andogical nature of their claims.A parallel case may perhaps illustrate thesurdity of these claims. An acquantancemine, a devout Christian protestant,

his religious views and decided togoer to the Roman Catholic church. He didt wish, Jhowever, to, cut adrift from histestant colleagues. and their church in thepe that hemight eventually win some overto what he"nowconsidered was the" rightd" and of course for Ohrist's sake. Henveyed these, desires to his new spiritualders, What did they say? In effectas" Thou shah have none other Gods butan,d also for Christ's sake, we cannot haveIII our ranks under any conditions,conceived by you or otherwise". Accord-to their'ljghtsthis was quite logical andrefore reasonable.

The contentious claims of Paddington,therefore on the grounds of " principle" too,is nothing lessthan an unprincipled license (toquote from the above circular) ..... to haveevery facility within the Party to advocateany change in its principles & etc. .' "Well! how could you, Paddington, bewirresponsible?A more straightforward intellectuallyhonest line of action is surely, resignation fromthe Party with whose Object and D. of P.Paddington no [onger agree. 'Or is there

some subtle distinction between this course ofaction - to resign - and some obscuremetaphysical doubt that the .. gods" cannotreally intend self condemnation to politicalpurgatory, after having laboured so faith-fully at the " altar" of Socialism. Or havePaddington so pitiably failed to assess thefactors which herald the advent of Socialism-in their time-s-ancl that they now-wish-tosink the boats inconsequence?

Membership StrengthWe would assure Padclington, however,

that we do not

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 28 Jan

6/8

102 FORUM January ~95-5

SOCIALISM and CLAUSE SIXIn the November issue of Forum anarticle by Comrade T umer appeared in whichhe stated his criticisms of the Declaration ofPrinciples-the general tenor of which wasthat the choice before the Party was, as histitle put it, Socialism or Clause 6. My owncontention is that, far from being mutuallyexclusive, without Clause 6 there can be noSocialism.The article commences with an accusationthat members have been making untrue state-ments about him, and as I fully agree withtwo of the three statements he mentions Ifeel that it is necessary to touch upon thisbefore dealing with the real issue. .. It has

been said," claims T urner, .. that I. amopposed to the Party," I agree, .. that I amcampaigning within the Party in order to dis-rupt it," I disagree, .. and that I do not putthe Party case when I am on the platform."This has also been the case ." If these rnem-bers really believe their statements to be true,'why, asks Comrade T urner, do they not usethe Party machinery to deal with me? Asa matter of fact there have been a numberof complaints lodged against T umer, includ-ing one lodged by myself. Why the E.C.took no action in spite of admissions made byT urner is not for me to explain.

Opposition to the PartySo much for Comrade T umer on the plat-form. The question of opposition to theParty brings us to the main point under.dis-cussion. As one who has had a great nurn-ber of discussions with T umer on thesequestions let me make it quite clear fro~ thestart that he is opposed to the whole of theDeclaration of Principles AND the Object.At a Head Office Forum some months backwhen T umer was insisting upon some pointof agreement as a basis for discussion. I,having been unable to agree to the points he

suggested, offered him any part of the D. ofP. and, as he would not agree with a singlesentence offered him the Object. He wouldnot agree with this either.This -may seem strange in view of thestatement in his article that he holds .. ThatSocialism alone is the solution," and that hiscriticism of the D. of P. is only "wherethey depart from the objective as set outabove," but it is not so strange when werealise that the .. objective as set out above"in Comrade T urner' 5 article is, li~e his

socialism, very different from ours. In spiteof the misleading similarity of the phrasingin parts it will be seen that the content is verydifferent. Nowhere is our Object quoted.Nowhere is Democracy mentioned. This isno slip. T urner has for some time now beenarguing against democracy, and it is thiswhich explains the subtle substitution of thephrase .. all things will be held in common "for our own" Common ownership." It isthe implication that all ownership has ofcontrol and authority, albeit a common, demo-cratic control, a social authority, that makesour objective completely alien to T urner' sanarchistic conception of future Society. Hisopposition is in fact to everything but a fewof our nicer sentiments.

Class InterestsNow for his criticisms of Clause 6.T urner makes the point that Class has nothingto do with a person's fitness to organise forSocialism. This is quite irrelevant, thequestion is one of who stands to gain by theestablishment of Socialism. T umer himselfrecognises this in his very next sentence, butcounters with the argument that this is atvariance with the proposition that Socialismmeans the emancipation of all mankind. DoesT urner really believe that this means that a

ruling class which is subject to none CANbe emancipated? I should have thoughtthat anybody out of knickerbockers wouldhave recognised this sentence as meaning thatall subject classes, workers or not, wouldbe emancipated and that no.new subject classwould exist in Socialist society.The same argument appears again in hisattack on Clause 7 which sees the establish-ment of Socialism as a method of furtheringworking class interests but not those of theCapitalist. To this T urner takes strong ex-ception. T urner is right when he says that.. the interest of neither class is Socialism"

and indeed it would be absurd to say .. thatthe interest (note he drops the plural) of theworking c1aa is Socialism even though theyare unaware of it." But the Party makes nosuch statement to my knowledge and certainlynot in the D. of P.Both classes are fully aware of theirinterests and it is important too that Weshould-understand them, because it is the interests,the solving of IMMEDIATE PRO-BLEMS in the struggle for existence, whichcause men to act, and not the misty future

Utopias with which they are confronted fromtime to time by public speakers. Long tenntheories can only be accepted if they can berelated to the immediate problems, and havevalue in the immediate struggle.

But what are the interests of the twoclasses? What are these immediate problems?For the working class the problem .is toobtain decent living accommodation, ~bodfood and clothing, holidays instead of twoweeks forced idleness, a working week shortenough to leave energy for real recreationinstead of passive amusement, freedom fromthe unpleasantness of having to play th~ in-ferior in their employment, and their generlally inferior position in society, etc. Some orthese worries can be partially alleviatedthrough the industrial struggle; the only per-manent answer however, is to get out of thewages category, and for the vast majoritythe only way this can be done is by,' theestablishment of Socialism. This is'; how

Socialism serves the interests of the workingclass and this is why we can expect theirsupport. But only when we integrate ourtheory in a sufficiently practical way with thepresent straggle in which they find themselves.The immediate problem of the Capitalistis different. His interests are mainly probtem'~of conserving the advantages he alreaqypossesses, the ability to do very nearly whaihe likes, when he likes and where he likes;the pleasant illusion of superiority, theproblem of expanding his capital, of incre'~?ing productivity in any way which does hoiinvolve taking off his jacket, and of keepingthe worker in his place whether it be w'itBtruncheon or psychology. Socialism can helphim in none of these matters. It cannot in"crease his rights, only his social obligatio~sand h~ must resist such a movement whereverhe encounters it. This is why the working

class must get control of the State machinebefore they can attack the class structure ofsociety.The Dynamic View

There is one more contradiction whichappear within Capitalism. Also the D. of P,_T urner manages to read into the D. of P.the State in particular, remains unchangedwhile the ideas of people change revolution-arily. He states that .. when the mass ofpeople hold Socialist ideas there will be 110'

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 28 Jan

7/8

' 1955 FORUM 103ate machine to capture" which, if it meansything, must mean that as socialist ideascome prevalent the State will gradually dis-pear within Capitalism. Also the D. of P.nores, in his view, the " dynamic character

society."Let us see what really happens. That

apitalism changes and develops there canno. doubt, hut it changes, not through the

reading of socialist ideas, but as the resultefforts to solve immediate problems and,far as Capitalists are concerned, within

e framework of class society and, whetherpitalist or worker, always motivated byass interests. These changes may then in-uence the whole pattern of social ideologies.

The need for developing an industry whichnnot attract the necessary new capitalrows up nationalisation which as it developsn bring the concept of a socially plannedonomy within the grasp of the ordinary,actical minded worker who, because hislitical theory is slight, wisely refuses tolow his ideas to stray very far from what

sees operating around him. So also theelfare state thrown up by the need forgher productivity brings into being a general .ceptance of the principle of social welfare.The State also changes and develops.ationalisation and the welfare-warfareganisation cause it to spread its admini-rative tentacles more and more into everypect of economic life till they begin to over-adow that class-coercive function whichakes it a State. This too brings within theach of the" man in the street" the concept

a social "administration of things "-ancept which can only fully materialIsehen those men have taken control of thatate machine and used it, consistently withause 6 and in their own class interests, to

the class structure which makes theate necessary. Only as the class structure

society crumbles can the State disappeard then only in the sense that it will bensformed or grow into an organ of socialWhere, I would ask Comrade Turner,

es this outline conflict with Clause 6?here does it fail to corinectideas with theaterial conditions out of .which they arise?hough not perhaps in the oversimplifiedms of a rigid correspondence which Turnerems to hold, but rather in terms of the.C.H. to which of course, T urner has oftented his opposition. And furthermore, whatore dynamic view of society does Turnernt than this, which when put to him in thest was always opposed in favour of hismous "woosh" theory of revol~tion intoe dignified sock-knitting society of his

Incidentally, T urner does not show ussocialist ideas or socialist society (particu-larly his version) developing anywhere.

Two DangersFinally, T urner rightly tells us that " the

whole of the D. 0 . P. lead" u p . to the objec-tive as contained in Clause 6." If the rest isaccurate then it must be that Clause 6 iscorrect. But nowhere does he deal with theseclauses and their analysis of the real world.He should have done, instead of merely show-ing that Clause 6 was inconsistent with hisown quite arbitrary ideal 0 . future societyexisting only in his own head and quite un-related in any way to the real world whichwe know. The whole argument is in factnothing but an essay in philosophical idealism,

the danger of which is that it must lead itspossessor into all the peculiar positions inwhich Comrade T umer finds himself fromtime to time.It is my firm conviction however, that weirdideas such as Turner's can do no harm in theParty provided they are rigidly barred fromthe platform. Normally, they would eitherdisappear from the individual or the indi-vidual would disappear from the Party. Acouple o f warts on the neck does not meanweare suffering from cancer. The realdanger is that some members are beinJpanicked into violent and unnecessaryremedies which threaten the Democraticprinciple (I use the term in the broadest-sense) in the Party o f which we are so justlyproud. J . Trotman

NOTES ON CRISESIn the last article it was shown that dis-

proportionality of production can take twoforms; one originating in the department pro-ducing the means of production (capitalgoods) and the other in the department manu-facturing the means of consumption. All datapublished on crises shows that break in equi-librium, resulting in a crisis, occurs moreusually in the trades producing capital goods.

In the first place the profit distribution incapitalism is calculated not on the amountof variable capital employed (wage labour),hut in proportion to the total capital invest-ment. Because, then, that branch of produc-tion which manufactures capital goods costsa great deal more to make than the branchwhich produces the means of consumption, agreater mass of capital will be invested in theformer, and consequently a greater mass ofprofit will be made. Thus, owners of capitalgoods will be able. to invest in their branch ofproduction a greater part of their profit thanthose who own the means of consumption.This bias towards an unequal rate of capitalaccumulation between the two branches ofproduction accentuates the disproportionalityfactor inherent in capitalist society.

Again, the period of rapid capitai accumu-lation which characterises a boom generallytakes place at a time when there are amplereserves of cheap labour power; that is, con-siderable unemployment, with its additional

5downward effect on current wage levels. Andagain where there exists the possibility ofcheapandplentiful utilisation of idle wealthresources, i.e., power, technical facilities andraw materials. Such a state of affairs willprovide a field for large scale capital invest-ment for the owners of capital in the industrywhich produces the means of production,

Heavy Industry. Because these are ,the more appropriate

conditions for the start of a boom, it can bes~en that it i.sin the stage prior to consump-tion output, i.e., retail seIling, that the initialimpulse of trade expansion begins. It is inthe first stages of a boom that heavy industryseems to' expand ata greater rate than otherindustrial sections, while the level of wageearnings rises more slowly. As the boom,however, goes from point to point, there isa decline in the rate of expansion of con-structional goods, while wage payments risemore sharply. I > t is at the back end of aboom that purchasing power is at its highestlevel, that is when more wages are beingearned than at any) other time. This highlevel of wage earnings is itself a signiffcantcost factor in the emergence of a crisissituation.

Nevertheless, it must be shown why, at acertain stage in a trade expansion of this type,

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 28 Jan

8/8

104 FORUMa slowing down of activity begins to first takeeffect in the heavy engineering and construc-tional trades. To begin with, the opportuni-ties for investment with an associated highprofit level in these trades will attract an ever-increasing volume of capital. Under thestimulus of expanding investment, productionwill proceed rapidly; as a result idleresources will be quickly used up. Again, asproduction goes ahead, and more and moreworkers are absorbed, cheap labour reserveswill tend to diminish and the price of labour-power will begin to rise.

labour CostsFor the capitalists who have invested incapital goods, the expenses of production willbecome ever greater as the boom gets underway. This is because, as production proceedsto higher Ievels, there will be an increasingdemand for ever greater additional supplies.of all types of power, technical facilities, rawmaterial, etc., and consequently the price ofthese things will rise sharply. This will be

especially so i,f the production of such goodsand services has failed to keep pace with -thetempo of capital accumulation in the capitalgoods industry. Thus, in a not too advancedstage of the boom, elements of disproportion-ality, although not observable, may still bepresent. Nevertheless, because high pricesand profits still continue, ithere will be noslackening of continued investment in heavyindustry. As a corollary to this, capitalaccumulation may tend to outrun the supplyofcerta.in kinds of skilled labour-poweressential for ~ts needs, and labour costs willrise.

Anarchy of ProductionThe whole process is complicated. by thefact that fixed capital, i.e., factories, build-ings. massive machinery, etc . by its verynature takes far longer to produce than itemsof consumption. and cannot' therefore quicklyassert themselves on the market (which is theonly means which will enable the capitalistswho have invested in capital goods to knowwhether their investments have made theanticipated profit yield). And, while these

new means of production do not appear onthe market. the demand for them remains un-sated, land no dis-incentive for investment willexist.It is here, then. that the anarchy of pro-duction comes into the picture. Because eachconcern in the making of capital goods willseek to expand as rapidly as possible in orderto realise maximum profit earnings. regardless

of what other concerns are doing, it will notbe able to effectively gauge to what extent itsown expansion and the expansionof othersare contributing to' raising to ever higherlevels the expenses of production. and sonarrowing the gap between production costsand realisation price. Indeed. the gap maybe so narrow as to bring about an acute dis-appointment on the part of the entrepreneurin his profit expectation. Moreover, as onecannot stop the production of capital goodsby a wave of the hand-in other words suchmassive production carries. its own momentum-this will intensify competition among thevariousconcerns and lead to speeding up ofoutput in order to gain the quickest access tothe market. Thus. from the standpoint of therealisation price of capital goods, things willtend towards a state of 'affairs where profitmargins cease altogether.

DISCUSSIONAt Lewisham Branch. Monday.

10th January 1955. 8 p.rn. on thesubject .. Will There Be AuthorityUnder . Soci ali em " . Opener:]. T r ot-man. Davenport House, DavenportRoad. Catford, 5.E.6.

January 1955

In actual fad the entrepreneur whofinances the production of capital goodsgenerally borrows large sums in addition tohis own capital from banks and finance houses(ioa.ncapital) in return for which he pays acertain rate of interest. When, however, themarket price of such goods reaches the levelwhere the repayment of interest-bearing loansexceeds the rate of profit, the entrepreneurwill lack any further incentive for investment.As aresultcinvestment will recoil. productionslow down and massive unemployment ensue.What has happened is that too much capitalhas been expended in a particular line ofgoods, or disproportionality of production hasoccurred in a particular line of industry.resulting; in a state of relative overproductiongenerally. This is not the same as saying tha'ttoo much has been produced from the stand-point of social needs. or that it is a genuinemaladjustment of social resources-as someeconomists would have us believe-insepar-able from large scale organisation. What itis in fact ,is the inability of capitalists toassess even approximately the proportionaldevelopment of the various productivebranches, and further their impotence torectify their errors until after the event. It

is only the market which will reveal whetherinvestment decisions have been faulty orotherwise. If proportional development is atany given time preserved in capitalist society.then. as ,Marx said, it was only by accident.

DisproportionalityThe need for the capitalist to invest aportion of surplus value-generally the majorportion-c-into additional capital. for the ap-propriation of more .surplus value. constitutescapital accumulation. and is the driving forceof capitalist development. Moreover. as hasalready been pointed out. this process of'accumulation is integrally connected betweenthe two major -branches of industry, thebranch producing the means of production andthe branch producing the means of consump-tion. The demand of the first branch is' de-pendent on the extent to' which the latter

branch replaces constant capital and the' rateat which it increases its existing plant. r .tfollows, then, that any sharp change in therate of investment would tend to disequilib-rium between the two branches as a result ofdisproportionality, Or again. any changes inthe organic composition of capital-that is.the ratio of constant capital to variablecapital-between the tW0'branches, hold ten-dencies towards disproportionality. Marx'sanalysis of this relationship between the twosections of industry is one of his major con-tributions toeconomic theory. If Marx hadlived he might have given a more exhaustiveaccount of the whole matter. It was left forEngels to piece his notes together from" arough draft.

In the next article I hope to gather up someloose ends which have been left unavoidably,and in addition to deal with two alleged curesfor crises, viz. increased capitalist spending,and raising workers' wages. Another aspectof crises whi.ch is essential to its understand-ing is the connection between the falling rateof profit and disproportionality, Assuredly ..much confusion exists here in the minds ofmany Marxist commentators, especially thosewho treat them as separate causes of crises.For the present writer the falling rate ofprofit, although inseparably connected withthe. factor of disproportionality, is neverthe-'less dependent on and subsidiary to the latter;This. however. will have to be dealt with a tmore length in a further article in which it isproposed to deal with the confused and evenunsound views on crises put forward by Dr.Paul Sweezy in his T he T ,he olT Y of C apita li!Development . published by Dobson.

E.W.Printed by L. E. Westwood Ltd. (T.V.) 14 Kingsbury Green Parade, N.W.9. Colindale 3117 and published by S.F.G.B., 52 Clapham High Street, S.W.4