Letters

Ahistorical

There are so many errors in Paul B Smith’s letter that it is difficult to know where to start (March 21). The first thing to say is that Smith’s conception of value is ahistorical. He can only conceive of value as it exists under capitalism, and thereby deprives the concept of any historical nuance and process of development. Somehow, value, along with exchange-value, is supposed to spring into existence fully formed from the head of Minerva, along with capitalism!

But Marx demonstrates that that is not the case. The whole point of his examples of Crusoe, and of the division of labour-time (which now Smith also wants to deny exists along with value other than under capitalism) is to show that value itself goes through a process of development through history, in order to develop from individual value (which itself continues to play a significant role for Marx under capitalism in explaining surplus profits and rent) to social or market value, which becomes the basis of the determination of exchange-values.

The labour of the hypothetical Crusoe is simultaneously concrete labour and abstract labour, because Crusoe alone constitutes society. When Friday joins him, their individual concrete labour continues to result in an individual value of their separate labour, but their total production now has a different, average individual value, and, to the extent they cooperate in production, they become a collective labourer, whose output of use values is greater than that of each separately, but whose total individual value remains the same, so that the value of each unit of production falls. It is that reality of the law of value that encourages further cooperation and division of labour, amongst members of the primitive commune.

Directly contradicting Smith’s assertion about labour-time, Marx notes in Capital volume 1, chapter 1: “In all states of society, the labour-time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence must necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages of development.”

He refers to the collective labour-time of the peasant household and here, as with Crusoe, we are dealing with different forms of concrete labour - the collective labour of the family determines the individual value of its total output. Marx is here talking about the value of products, not commodities, and the need for products to precede commodities, just as value must precede the expression of value as exchange-value.

To conclude this refutation of Smith’s claim not only that value is specific only to capitalism, but that labour-time is also specific to capitalism, let me also cite Marx’s comment from Theories of surplus value, chapter 21, as I am tired of using his comment from Capital to prove this same point.

Marx says: “Labour-time, even if exchange-value is eliminated, always remains the creative substance of wealth and the measure of the cost of its production ... It is self-evident that if labour-time is reduced to a normal length and, furthermore, labour is no longer performed for someone else, but for myself, and, at the same time, the social contradictions between master and men, etc, being abolished, it acquires a quite different, a free character, it becomes real social labour, and finally the basis of disposable time.”

Now let’s turn to the defence that Smith gives for his claim that value only springs fully formed into existence with capitalism, and with the commodification of labour-power: ie, when labour-power becomes sold generally as a commodity itself by the working class. Smith tries to get out of this by putting words in my mouth, and using the fact that, in previous modes of production, there were also wage workers. This is duplicitous. Firstly, he fails to mention that most of these wage workers were employed as retainers, or the like, whose labour exchanged with the revenue of their employer, and not with capital. But that is just an aside. The main point is that the reason his claim is obviously wrong is that Marx’s explanation of the law of value, and of the formation of exchange-values, is based not upon the wage workers employed as retainers or of wage workers employed by capital, but on the exchange of commodities produced by individual peasant and handicraft producers! Marx in Capital volume 3, chapter 12, sets out, in detail, this historical development of exchange-value, under the commodity production undertaken by independent producers, who owned their own means of production, and how this relates to the transformation of exchange-values into prices of production under capitalism.

Indeed, it is only during that phase of society, as Engels points out, running from around 7,000 BC to the commencement of capitalist production in the 15th century, that commodities do exchange according to their values. Prior to that time, products are produced which have individual values, and these products are exchanged with other tribes, or they are distributed within the commune or tribe. The exchange of products as gifts, over time, leads to the development of trade between communities. This trade is not based upon value, but the increase in trade necessarily brings out the underlying fact that these products are values, especially as merchants are able to compare the individual value of the products of one group to those of another, so that gradually these individual values become transformed into market values, as the average labour-time required by a group of communities/tribes, etc to produce a given type of product.

It is this historical development of individual value into social or market value that is the basis of exchange-value, as the product develops into the commodity. It is this process, which means that what was there all along, in determining the value of products, and the allocation of social labour-time, becomes manifest, once these products become exchanged with other products, as commodities.

After this period - ie, from the start of capitalist production in the 15th century - it is no longer true that commodities exchange at their values, precisely because the drive towards an average rate of profit results in commodities being sold at prices of production, not exchange-values. But it is precisely at this point that labour-power becomes commodified, and sold by wage workers to capital. So, contrary to Smith’s claim that value only comes into existence along with exchange-value, and both only come into existence under capitalism, it is quite clear that Marx and Engels say the exact opposite. Value comes into existence as a result of use-values being produced by labour: ie, as a result of them being created as products. Exchange-value is the phenomenal form that value assumes during a specific historical stage of human development.

And that is the answer to Smith’s other question: what did Marx mean when he wrote that exchange-value is “the phenomenal form of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it” (Capital volume 1)? Had he read my original statement, he would know the answer. Yes, of course, “phenomenal” refers to a form of appearance, and exchange-value here refers to the form of appearance of value during a particular mode of production: ie, that of generalised commodity production. But, if Smith thought about that concept for just one moment, and thought about it in relation to Marx’s historical materialist method, and the letter to Kugelmann, he might then actually arrive at the rational conclusion that value itself, therefore, has different phenomenal forms in different modes of production - which is precisely what Marx says!

Arthur Bough
email

Historical

Arthur Bough’s assertion that “exchange-value is the form that value takes in a society where the exchange of products has developed into the production and exchange of commodities” is precisely the mistaken understanding that Wagner had and Marx sought fit to correct (Letters, March 14)!

Marx was criticising not the idea that value is specific to exchange and private property, but that value has no prerequisites. The truth is that value is an historical development - over many centuries, a development that like all developments is subjected to natural laws.

But the fact that value has certain prerequisites rooted in natural laws is not the same as saying value has always existed and always will. The idea that people need to labour to reproduce their conditions of existence is not Marx’s theory of value and it should not be misunderstood to be. Reducing the theory of value to this childish universal level is not only anti-scientific: it is also staggeringly crude. If every child knew the truth then there would be no need for science at all, to paraphrase Marx! Take exchange as an example. As Marx says, paraphrasing Adam Smith, “a specifically human propensity which is probably not accidental, but is conditioned by the use of reason and speech”. So exchange has its own prerequisites and is rooted in natural laws. But does this mean exchange, the division of labour and private property are destined to always exist because they have natural prerequisites?

Marx did not ‘discover’ value in the same way that oxygen was discovered. Marx by analysis and critique brought to the surface the underlying mechanisms that underpinned capitalist society, and from that the question naturally arose, did this value theory hold for all human societies? Marx and I categorically say no, based on the logic and the evidence! Marx never claimed the bourgeoisie had stumbled upon a law of nature when they developed the labour theory of value. In fact what Marx claimed is that the law of value was simply a manifestation of the total dominance of private property over labour. Furthermore Marx makes the point that it is only in the era of industrial capital that private property can complete its dominion over man and become, in its most general form, a world-historical power. Marx says in his comment on James Mill that value comes from exchange and private property.

As Marx says, “On both sides, therefore, private property appears as the representative of a different kind of private property, as the equivalent of a different natural product, and both sides are related to each other in such a way that each represents the mode of existence of the other, and both relate to each other as substitutes for themselves and the other. Hence the mode of existence of private property as such has become that of a substitute, of an equivalent. Instead of its immediate unity with itself, it exists now only as a relation to something else. Its mode of existence as an equivalent is no longer its specific mode of existence. It has thus become a value, and immediately an exchange-value. Its mode of existence as value is an alienated designation of itself, different from its immediate existence, external to its specific nature, a merely relative mode of existence of this.”

Of course. And why do we need to remind some comrades of this? The whole point of communism is the abolition of private property!

Maren Clarke
email

Sick and sad

John Smithee says that, by supporting a single state in Palestine, “Tony [Greenstein] only pushes working class Israelis into the arms of rightwing reactionary politicians in Israel” (Letters, March 21). I have news for John. The Israeli working class is already in their arms! As in all settler colonial states, the working class in Israel is on the right of Zionist politics.

John cites the myth born of the siege settler mentality that Israeli workers fear being driven into the sea. This racist fear is a product of their own guilt. The only people in Palestine who were, literally, pushed into the sea were the Palestinians of Haifa in 1948, who, in their haste to avoid the mortar bombardment by Zionist militias, drowned in their desperation to get away.

It is only when the Israeli working class, like its white South Africa counterpart, lives in a single state, cheek by jowl with Palestinian workers, that they will understand that their fears had no material basis. No doubt Protestant workers in Ireland entertain similar fears and, as long as partition continues, they will continue to have them.

My main purpose in writing, however, is not to cross swords with John Smithee, but with Dave Douglass. He says those of us opposed to Brexit have “lost the plot”. Let me return the compliment: it’s not the plot, but his marbles, that Dave has lost!

Brexit does not represent the “will of the people”, nor was the referendum in any way democratic. It was bought with illicit funds, NHS bribes that were lies and a hefty dose of chauvinism. Brexit is and was a racist project, born of national chauvinism. Excluded from the vote were some three million European workers living in this country. That, in itself, renders the vote undemocratic.

Dave is simply wrong if he thinks that my opposition to Brexit is on account of my love of the European Commission, its free market competition policies or any other aspect of the European Union. Still less do I defend the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

I oppose Brexit because the alternative to being in the EU is being in an independent capitalist Britain, whose main attraction will be a flexible labour market, lower standards of food and environmental protection and which operates as the Singapore of Europe. It will be a haven of low taxes and low worker protection. It will swap parity in Europe for the benefits of domination by Trump’s USA and its chlorine-washed chickens.

It is tragic that large sections of the northern working class, because of austerity and deindustrialisation, have taken their revenge on the EU. It is a classic example of scapegoatism. We should not be afraid to point out that it wasn’t European bureaucrats or EU commission officials who closed the mines, docks and shipyards, but Tory politicians addicted to monetarism and controlling the money supply. It wasn’t Jacque Delors, but Margaret Thatcher, who sent the police into the Yorkshire coalfields.

Dave Douglass, for all his militant talk and anarcho-syndicalism, ends up in the same political boat as Rees-Mogg, Bill Cash and Boris Johnson. Working class heroes all. Immediately after the referendum there was a wave of racist attacks directed at European workers in this country. That is what his unholy alliance with the Democratic Unionist Party and the Tory right wing means in practice.

Has Dave ever bothered to talk with European nationals in this country about Brexit? People who may have been here 20 or more years and who are now scared stiff and worried as to what will happen, now that they no longer have the protection of European law and whose status is uncertain? Although in theory their rights are also protected, we know that black British citizens have been deported ‘back’ to their countries of origin after more than 60 years in this country.

Brexit fosters an illusion in the idea that workers have more in common with the British than the European ruling class. It allows ‘us’ to regain control of our borders and cannot but help increase racism and chauvinism. Brexit is a project of the right and the far right, which is why there is unanimity amongst fascist groups and racists in its support. It is why Euroscepticism and hostility to the EU is a common factor amongst the growing European far right. Has it escaped Dave that one of the strongest supporters of Brexit is one Donald Trump?

I have no doubt at all that a second referendum will result in a defeat for the nationalists and racists, which is why Farage, May and Rees-Mogg are so scared of such a vote. I am sorry that Dave Douglass, with his infantile posturing and misplaced analogies, has decided to join them.

Finally I want to comment on Eddie Ford’s article, ‘Maggots, Marxism and Muslims’ (March 21). I do not accept this bourgeois idea of ‘free speech for fascists’. We don’t control the airwaves: the ruling class does. No platform for fascists means opposition to those who would take away our democratic rights. It says that their ideas are illegitimate and not worthy of debate. To debate the idea of white genocide is to accord it some legitimacy. Perhaps we should debate holocaust denial too?

Last week, as news from New Zealand was seeping out, the BBC’s Newsnight decided to interview Benjamin Jones of Generation Identity in order that he could explain the finer points of replacement theory. Although he condemned the murders, he endorsed the motives of the killer, Brenton Tarrant. The BBC did not at the time of the Islamic State attacks in Paris interview someone from Stop the War to explain where IS came from or to paint the background to the attack, but they were happy to accept a fascist explanation of the motives of this sick and sad creature.

We held a picket of BBC radio in Brighton a few days ago, and the reaction from people was extremely sympathetic to what we said. In particular one Asian woman in tears, who thanked us for standing by her community. I really don’t think Eddie understands the palpable sense of fear that has been caused by the New Zealand bomb attack and now the attacks on five mosques in Birmingham.

Yes, gun control by itself will not prevent mass murder, though it will make it harder for genocidal maniacs to lay their hands on large quantities of weapons. Of course, mass murder in the USA has its roots in the frontier nature of American society, but to pretend that gun control is irrelevant is to stick one’s head in the sand.

Eddie mocks the pledge of New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, never to mention the name of Tarrant again. I think most people will be moved by the reaction of Ms Ardern to this fascist murderer and her embracing the Muslim community in New Zealand, her empathy and promise that the New Zealand state would pay for the funerals. The reaction of the people of New Zealand has been moving, at least for me.

It is in stark contrast to the reaction of our own leaders or those in Australia. Yes, not mentioning Tarrant’s name won’t make him disappear, but what it symbolises is that he deserves not to be remembered. What he clearly craved is the status of a hero.

Tony Greenstein
Brighton

Capitalistocene

The evidence for, firstly, climate change and, secondly, ecological destruction, which has accelerated to unprecedented levels during the period of industrial capitalism, is undeniable. This poses an existential threat for the future of civilisation, as we know it (exploitative and wasteful as that is). To what extent man is responsible for the first is debatable - certainly capitalism must take some responsibility. But the system is entirely responsible for the latter (eg, soil erosion, use of pesticides, plastic waste, which has now entered the food chain, urban pollution caused by automobiles, etc.) Therefore, in geological terms, instead of talking about a new Anthropocene age, we should be talking about a capitalistocene one!

If capitalism was going to deal with this existential threat, then it would have to make a rational decision that would involve public planning, as well as a massive, demand-led, Keynesian-style state intervention to turn things around. If only capitalism would give the green light for a Green New Deal to tackle climate change. Here in Britain, if the Greens’ call for a move to eco-capitalism is not enough to command the support of the working class, then perhaps the Labour Party can? At the end of last year, Rebecca-Long Bailey, Labour’s shadow business secretary, told The Guardian that a Labour government would start “an economic revolution” in order to “tackle the climate crisis”, by investing in “hundreds of thousands of green jobs”, which will bring “well-paid, highly skilled jobs and economic regeneration to some of the marginalised regions in the country”. Labour’s plan echoes that advocated by leftwing democrats in the US, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders.

Citing the experience of president Macron in France, Long-Bailey said that the imposition of “environmental taxes” on the less well-off sections of society was the wrong policy, because it led to widespread protests, which were also being exploited by the far right. Rather, “action on the environment [requires] a wider programme of social and economic regeneration”. Labour aims to base 60% of the UK’s energy resources on renewable energy by 2030 and to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by the middle of the century”.

Given the shambles which the Tory government has made over Brexit, there is no rational reason why international capital should not be amenable to the election of a Labour government, which is also pledged to a Green New Deal for Britain. But there is no indication that the capitalist class is inclined to turn to a rational solution to the climate crisis. Whilst the managerial bureaucracy is made up of rational human beings, they are also deeply imbued with the alienating effects of commodity fetishism - which means they are habitually incapable of acting in the interests of humanity as a whole, let alone that of their own class.

The fate of the Green New Deal depends on whether the American ruling class is prepared to back it, bearing in mind that this is a two-edged sword. Yet consider what has happened to the Paris agreements on climate change of October 2018. President Trump had already announced the US’s decision to withdraw from it. Yet, if the Green New Deal does not materialise in the near future, then, as Peter Frase points out in his book, Four futures (2016), mankind would be moving towards a capitalist-made apocalypse.

Frase points out that “the key question … is not whether climate change is occurring, but rather who will survive the change”. The worst-case scenario predicts that the world will become uninhabitable: “... it may be possible for a small elite to continue to pollute the planet, protecting their own comfort, while condemning most of the world’s population to misery. It is that agenda, not any serious engagement with climate science, that drives corporate titans in the direction of denialism.” Neither can we trust the free market to deliver solutions, for the “enlightened eco-capitalists” are no different from the “troglodyte denialists”. The former are more concerned with preserving their privileges and the lifestyle that goes with it, despite their environmentalist pretensions.

So we are a long way from achieving a Green New Deal!

Rex Dunn
London

EU and Labour

Jeremy Corbyn has told Theresa May: “The government’s approach to Brexit has now become a national embarrassment. Every step of the way along this process the government has refused to reach out, refused to listen and refused to find a consensus that can represent the views of the whole of the country, not just her own party.”

What is wrong with Labour’s position? First is the immediate programme. He is not talking ‘democracy’, but about reaching out, finding consensus and listening. Labour has tried to find a middle ground between reactionary ‘leave’ and liberal ‘remain’, calling for a customs union and remaining close to the single market. There is no democratic rationale for this.

A democratic programme is not about consensus, but taking seriously the votes in Northern Ireland and Scotland to remain, and England and Wales to leave the EU. Let us call this, the ‘Republic of June 23’ and remember that England and Wales did not vote to leave the single market and customs union. Respecting this is consistent with the rights of all UK citizens to move freely around the EU.

Labour should have reinforced its position by making it clear that any settlement would be put to a ratification referendum. Any deal would not be imposed on the people. It is a democratic right to vote to approve whatever comes through. Labour must commit to that.

The one thing that Corbyn does have right is his continued opposition to the withdrawal agreement. Yet because of his adoption of ‘consensus’ he is vulnerable to being pushed and pulled to compromise. It is easier to oppose May’s deal on democratic grounds than a ‘consensus’, which has one foot in the Tory cesspit.

Then we have Labour’s tactics. The party has made the call for a general election its first demand and only later a people’s vote. If Labour’s tactics were correct, he would be marching at the head of one million people demanding a general election. What other weapons does he have? Wait for the Tory coup? Move a vote of no confidence in May?

In a radio interview on March 25, Deborah Matinson, from ‘Britain Thinks’, explained that people are hostile to the idea of a general election. Only 13% thought it would help the Brexit debacle, 45% thought it will make it worse and 32% thought it will make no difference. People blame May for the mess, but were “bemused” by Corbyn’s call for a general election. They thought a man of principle was now “playing politics” with a national disaster. This was not building up trust in Corbyn or Labour’s leadership. However, the offer of a ratification referendum is something which engenders trust, because it implies Labour trusts working people with important decisions.

Then we have the failure to turn up and support the People’s March. One million people were not marching for a general election, but the right to vote. It is not ruled out by Labour’s own policy. Of course, this campaign is being led by liberals to the right of Corbyn who want a ‘remain’ question on the ballot paper.

Corbyn needed to be brave enough to explain the distinction between ratification and a second referendum which prematurely tries to reverse the 2016 vote and could deepen divisions in the working class. By staying away, he left the door open for his arch enemy, Tom Watson, to speak at the demo and offer to back May’s deal in exchange for a second referendum with a choice between that and ‘remain’.

The crisis is deepening. Now the ‘leave’ section of the working class has been abandoned by its Brexit leaders - Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Davies, etc, who condemned May’s agreement, yet are now going to support it. The sense of betrayal by their rotten millionaire leaders will make workers angry. They too have a right to ratify. But a referendum between May’s deal versus ‘remain’ simply cuts them out of the process and should be unacceptable to any democrat.

It is not necessary to revoke article 50, but democracy and any alternative to May’s deal will require a long extension, as offered by Germany. Labour should declare it is ready to fight the European elections and Corbyn should take his message to the European working class.

Steve Freeman
London