THE FUTURE OF CAPITALISM:

DOES CAPITALISM REPRESENT THE

BEST HUMANITY CAN EVER HOPE TO ACHIEVE?

by Buzz Hargrove, President

CAW-Canada

Presentation to John Crispo's Class, University of Toronto, September 19, 1994

A few years ago, someone referred to the period we're living in as "the end of history." What he

meant was that there had been fundamental changes in economic and social systems in the past, but

this would no longer be the case. The collapse of communism signalled that capitalism would now be

here forever - some tinkering here and there of course, but no fundamental change.

At one level, it's hard to see why such a statement should be news. After all, most people in our

society had already taken a lot of editorials or TV debates about the possibility of capitalism being

changed to another kind of system. The irony is that when this writer announced the end of the

debate on capitalism, he actually ended up putting the question of capitalism on the agenda!

It's a question that is, in fact, rarely asked. A question that, given your own ambitions, you may

never pursue. Bat a question which, for reasons that will take up most of my talk, won't go away.

What I'd like to do, over the next twenty minutes or so, is make some observations relevant to the

issue, observations which, I hope, you will continue to think about after you leave the classroom.

Let me start with a brief summary of what capitalism is. I don't want to oversimplify, but to highlight

two features which distinguish capitalism as a system, and are key to understanding how it functions.

First, some people own the means of production, the factories and offices, the tools and equipment,

the financial capital for investment, while others (workers) sell their labour power to these owners. In

selling their labour power, working people are really selling their own potential, handing it over to

someone else. This is the basis for what is meant when we say that capitalism is inherently structured

as a class society: some have power over the use and potential of others.

Second, the owners themselves compete with each other over who gets what share of the overall

profits produced. When these owners push for profits, it's not just that they "like" to make more or

that they are greedy and materialistic (though many often are!) but that the pressures of competition

force them to behave aggressively if they want to remain capitalists. This interaction of class and

competitiveness created not just an economic system, but a social system: what happens in this kind

of economy tends to dominate every aspect of our lives.

This system has been around for only two centuries of the estimated 3 million years since humans

first came on the scene (on the time scale that's comparable to this two-hour class relative to all the

classes you will ever attend since kindergarten...).

Although its emergence was incredibly painful in human terms, and although the benefits have been

very unevenly spread and new social problems created, the material achievements of this relatively

new system were in fact incredibly impressive. No other period of human history can come close to

matching its technological progress and its acceleration of the provision of goods and services.

The issue today isn't to deny any of this but to go beyond it: Are there limits to capitalism continuing

on as it is? Is this the best humanity can ever achieve? Have the achievements of capitalism

themselves laid the groundwork for moving on to a society based neither on class nor the drive to

compete?

In addressing these issues, let me turn now to the following half dozen assertions for you to consider:

1) For a good number of people, the system, capitalism, is no longer "delivering the goods."

2) The responses put forth by the economic and political elite of our country will make this worse,

not better.

3) The internationalization of competitions is undermining global economic stability and leading to a

sustained crisis of jobs and economic waste.

4) The financial system is failing in its role of channelling savings into productive use, undermining

needed investments, and aggravating economic instability.

5) An economic system based on valuing only what is profitable cannot deal with the growing

environmental crisis.

6) The increasing power of capital over our lives (i.e.,) the lives of those of us those not sharing in

that power) means a corresponding growth in the democratic deficit in each country.

Is the System Working?

It's clear that capitalism remains dynamic in terms of its ability to change and restructure the global

economy, including our own economy. It's equally clear that there are some who are benefiting from

this . But would anyone, and especially young people looking to what they will do in coming years,

deny that the system is also failing to address the needs and hopes of a substantial share of its

citizens?

Individual companies may be more productive, but the system is wasting more human potential than

ever before. The worst unemployment rates of the first thirty years after the war were actually lower

than the best unemployment rates in the last decade! Excess overtime for some, no work for others.

Pressures to work faster for some, forced part-time work for others.

We have more education than ever before, but less opportunities. More technology and national

wealth, but our lives are less secure. We no longer expect, never mind assume, that our kids will

have it better than we did.

Single mothers on welfare are threatened with cutbacks, while the financial pages proudly announce

a few more millionaires. Inequality is not being reduced but is growing. An environmental crisis is

looming but we're too busy with daily survival to worry about the consequences for our health or the

survival of the planet. Name any need, any goal, any value, and you'll hear we can't address it

because of its impact on competitiveness.

It's not just Canada I'm talking about. Unemployment within the advanced capitalist countries is a

staggering 38 million - that's equivalent to a country three times the size of Canada having its entire

labour force unemployed. Even those most optimistic about a recovery warn that it might be "fragile"

(since who knows how international financiers are going to respond?) and that it's likely to be

"jobless" (who defines these kinds of changes as a "recovery"?). And internationally, capitalism's

victory over communism was supposed to usher in a new era of global stability and advance. Some

stability and advance:

Hundreds of thousands of children dying from lack of medicine as a result of the Gulf War;

A world standing helplessly by as the hard-to-grasp scale of the suffering in Bosnia and

Rwanda continues without end;

The dangerous rise of national chauvinism and the re-emergence, especially in Europe, of

fascist and new-Nazi movements.

The "new world order" is full of disorder. And worst of all, so many people feel they no longer have

any control over their lives, no longer feel like there's a handle on where things are going. Those who

reduce all of this to a single focus on "the deficit" are simply telling us how out of touch they are. We

are in a social crisis and the real deficit is not so much in budgets but in jobs, equality, justice,

democracy, and - especially amongst those who think that things are fine or that the system only

needs a tune-up - a revealing lack of vision.

What About the Establishment's Solutions?

In the months before the crash that ushered in the Great Depression, the Financial Post declared that

a survey of the leading brokers and investment bankers "failed to reveal any person who is

pronouncedly pessimistic as to the future." When the crash came, the quite universal advice from the

business community was to slash budgets and cut wages - policies that guaranteed that the

Depression would grow worse. While business likes to dress itself in the garb of the future as it puts

forth the "only" solutions and direction possible, it sounds very much like it did back in the 1930s -

or even earlier.

But even laying that aside, there is a more direct way to evaluate the answers coming from the

business community. After all, the corporations have pretty much had their way - whoever was in

government - for some time now. How does their record measure up? Remember the promise that

the U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement of 1992 would raise our living standards, strengthen our

social programs, leave us more secure? Has this come to pass? Did deregulation of airlines and

trucking leave us better off?

What about wrestling inflation to the ground - remember when that was the key to getting everything

on track? Did increasing the inequality of the tax system create jobs? Will making parents poorer

reduce child poverty? Business constantly points to the United States, months watering at the "more

favourable environment" in the home of free enterprise. Fine for them. For us, the question is a little

different: is U.S. society a model for the kind of society we aspire to?

They ask us to be "realistic." Well, the reality is that we have lived through a period in which the elite

has had the increasing power to enforce their agenda and they have failed miserably. Like all elites,

they present their self-interest as the national interest. What the record shows - exposes is more apt

-- is that their agenda is more about reinforcing their wealth and power than solving our problems.

As time goes on, the declining credibility of their answers will, as it eventually did in the 1930s,

raise questions about the credibility formerly unquestioned, of their power over our lives.

The Race Downward: Who Will Buy the Goods?

In the face of increased global competition, companies and all levels of government have faced

increased pressures to reduce those costs that don't support competitiveness. This has meant

restraint or cutbacks in the wages and social programs of Canadians. But this means a lowering of

purchasing power. Who will buy the goods and services we're increasingly able to provide?

The glib answer is "Don't worry. Canadians may not buy the goods but there's a whole world out

there. We'll export and the exports will provide jobs and everything will be wonderful." Nice

answer. But what if every country is facing the same pressures and reacting the same way?

We're back to "who will buy the goods" and the answer starts getting a little murky. Recessions sink

deeper and last longer; expected upturns seem less certain and sustainable. Individual companies

and even particular countries may end up much more productive that ever before, but not so the

overall efficiency of the global economic system, saddled as it is with the waste of factories and

machines sitting idle, tens of millions in the developed world denied a chance to use and develop

their skills, and - amidst the growing potential for abundance around us - a Third World suffering the

worst kind of poverty and lost potential.

For a time, the United States had the unilateral power to allow it to play the role of an "international

government," creating a measure of global stability. But that era (never ideal anyway) is gone. And

with it the assumption, held by many in the 1950s and 1960s, that the waste of capitalist cycles and

unemployment was behind us, that technical adjustments to the system would smooth things out.

Does anyone still really believe that the system is capable of self-regulation, self-regulation that

doesn't exact an enormous price?

The Financial Community: Who Serves and Who Rules?

The point of money and finance in a capitalist system is to grease the wheels, to facilitate the

movement of savings and credit so that the world of production and services can do its thing. Again,

does anyone consider this an accurate description of the role of finance today? Isn't it closer to the

truth to point out that its finance has been deregulated, but rather than making the system work

better, this has exposed its irrationality?

There is plenty of money around, but instead of being channelled to useful needs, it's going into

mergers, speculation, private fortunes, or leaving the country to do who knows what with our

savings and the tax breaks we've conceded.

Seven of every eight dollars that crosses international borders is now linked to speculation rather

than facilitating economic activity. Since the mid-1970s, real interest rates, what we allegedly pay

financiers for taking "risks," have steadily increased but net investment, what they contribute to the

economy, has steadily fallen. Interesting isn't it: when workers face a high risk of unemployment the

policy prescription is, as we see today, to cut unemployment insurance and welfare payments; but

when investors face a real (or imagined?) risk, we increase their welfare...Surely this speaks to

something terribly amiss about how we carry out our affairs.

Nothing infuriates me more than to hear obscenely overpaid bankers lecture working people about

the need to work harder, be more productive, make more concessions so they, the financiers,

cannot only continue to enjoy their privileges but, through their actions, actually sabotage, rather than

support, our ability to carry on and improve our lives. The financial elite are not serving Canada's

needs (I include here the needs of important sections of business itself). And it's threatening to get

worse. How much longer will we accept this? When will the issue be placed front and centre on the

national agenda?

Maximizing Profits, Devaluing the Environment

I must say that, although I care about the environment and treasure Canada's physical beauty, like

many others I have not yet fully accepted the importance of the environment as a priority in my daily

life. What keeps drawing it to my attention is partly the stubborn determination of young people in

our society to make it an issue, partly a growing activism within my own union by a similarly

stubborn and committed group of local activists, and partly the growing evidence from even

establishment scientists and researchers that our air, our lakes, and our health are greatly at risk.

Someone, a Mexican writer, said "capitalism knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

I think we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question about the environment (which, in fact, is

hardly limited to the environment): Can a system whose very being is to maximize profit and which,

in its single-minded devotion to this objective pushes everything else aside or demands that it

conform with this single goal, can such a system leave room for the king of sensitivity to the

environment which is necessary to defend public health and ultimately maintain the survival of the

planet?

Some will argue that it's not just business that stands in the way, that workers and unions have not

always been consistent defenders of the environment. Some of such criticism is valid, and some is

not. I'd be very happy to compare the position of labour and business on environmental issues in the

workplace and in society.

But this misses the point that capitalism, as a system, undermines concern for the environment. It's

not just the rush for profits by particular individuals and corporations, but the creation of a set of

values that stress "more" at the expense of better and fairer, that undermine the value of collective

goods and needs like the environment, and that maintain the kind of insecurity that leaves some

people so desperate for jobs - any jobs - that environmental concerns become an "unaffordable

luxury." If capitalism undermines the future of our environment, something we cannot do without,

then what does that imply about the future of capitalism?

Capitalism and Democracy: A Growing Contradiction?

The greatest deficit in our country, the one growing the fastest, the one that will cost future

generations the most, the one undermining the confidence not of financiers but of ordinary people, is

the deficit in democracy, the deficit in our collective ability to shape our society and its vision so that

it can truly address our needs.

How come, if we can produce so much more than ever before, we don't generally feel more

liberated from material needs? Why are so many of us feeling less in control than ever before in all

dimensions of our lives? Why should we accept the "new reality" that elections are meaningless

because governments should or must follow the logic of the market? What king of democracy tells

us there is no alternative but to structure our lives and our society around the fear of losing our

competitiveness"?

Capitalism defines freedom in terms of market freedoms, freedoms based on the power that

capitalists have in the marketplace. But those "freedoms" increasingly stand in the way of a different

kind of freedom, a freedom based on the ability of everybody to develop their potential and all

dimensions of their lives. When the two clash, we have to make a choice.

Look around you. Do you see a healthy society? Do you see a society that supports bringing out the

best in people, all people not just the few? Do you believe that more of the same will do anything but

reinforce the rat race and meanness so increasingly prevalent in our society? Does this kind of

society strike you as the ultimate in human possibilities?

I happen to believe that something else, something better, is possible. I can't offer anyone any

blueprints or guarantees, but when I hear "there's no alternative," I can only think of this as "no

alternative but to search for that something better." And, unless young people pick up this challenge -

and that's what real democracy and real change is, a challenge - nothing will in fact be possible.

Last Updated by CAW Webmaster on Tuesday, 1 October, 1996 at 3:02 PM.

Macquarie University

POL264 Modern Political Theory

MARX ON CAPITALISM

Copyright © 1996 R.J. Kilcullen

A society is capitalist if most production is carried on by employees working with means of

production (equipment and materials) belonging to their employer, producing commodities which

belong to the employer. (Employees: those whose services are treated as commodities. 'Labour is a

commodity like any other', 'an article of trade' - Edmund Burke, Thoughts on Scarcity, 1795.)

By a commodity Marx means something produced for the purpose of being exchanged. Things

produced for the producer's use are sometimes later exchanged, but that does not make them

commodities, since they were not produced precisely for that purpose. In modern society most

production is of commodities. (Note that these days 'commodity' means something traded as raw

material. This is different from the usage of Marx's English translators.)

When commodities are exchanged the ratio in which they exchange is their exchange value - e.g.

one pear may exchange for two apples, and the exchange value of a pear in terms of apples is two.

Exchange value is different from use value: some things which are very useful have no exchange

value, and are normally free - e.g. the air we breathe. No-one will give anything in exchange for it,

despite its usefulness. On the average and in the long run, the various exchange values of

commodities reflect, according to Marx, the various amounts of labour, measured in time, that their

production and marketing requires. That is, commodities exchange in the ratio of the time taken to

produce one item of each kind. One pear is worth two apples if producers have to work twice as

many hours to bring a pear to the market. This is true of average long term rates of exchange; there

may be fluctuations due to seasonal factors, frost, etc.

More precisely: the exchange value of a commodity reflects the amount of 'socially necessary'

labour, i.e. the labour needed if the producer works at the normal level of intensity, with normal

skill, using normal methods - normal in that society, normal in relation to that market. Otherwise a

thing made by an incompetent producer using obsolete methods would exchange for more because it

took longer to make - which is obviously not true.

In calculating the value of a product of skilled labour we must add a fraction of the time taken to

acquire the skill - by the normal trainee under the normal methods of training. The fraction is

calculated by the number of units normally produced during their working life by those with that skill.

If the total number produced is 3,000, then the value of each is the time normally taken by the skilled

producer to make it, plus one three-thousandth of the time normally taken to acquire the skill.

Value is not the same as price: it is one of the determinants of price, the cause responsible for the

long-run average price. In the short term the price may be pushed above the value by shortage or

exceptional demand. Also, the price of a commodity that requires more capital investment for its

production is normally, even in the long term, above the level corresponding to its relative value (for

reasons to be explained later).

This theory of value, the labour theory, was not invented by Marx. It was commonplace among

economists at the time. It was given currency by Adam Smith: 'The real price of everything, what

everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What

everything is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or

exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can

impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour';

Wealth of Nations, Bk.1, ch.5.

This theory of value uses a notion of common, general, abstract, undifferentiated human labour. In a

society in which there is little division of labour there would not be much meaning to the notion of

human labour as such, in the abstract: there would be the kind of work needed for one task, the

different kind of work needed for another. But as the division of labour progresses, the work is

homogenized. This may not seem true, since some tasks require specialized skill. But no-one is

expected to do a specialized task without training, and training is divided into stages so that anyone

can master the first stage just by spending time paying ordinary attention, and anyone who masters

the first can then master the second - again by spending time paying ordinary attention; and anyone

who has gone through all stages of training can do the job by spending time with ordinary attention.

If this is not true, then the task will be changed: further division of labour will take place, or

machinery will be introduced. If this process were carried right through (which it has not been, and

never will be) then all work would be merely giving ordinary attention for the required time. The

essence of work would be the time it takes. This seems to be the sort of reasoning behind the labour

theory of value. If so, then it is applicable insofar as there is division of labour. See Heilbroner,

Marxism, for and against (HB/197/.5/.H37), pp.99-100.

How explain the possibility of Capitalism?

Capital is money used to make money - by buying commodities which are then to be sold to get an

increased amount of money. How can money be used in this way? One answer is: by buying cheap

and selling dear as prices fluctuate. This may explain how this or that individual makes money for a

while, but since every gain made this way is someone else's loss, if those who gain that way now

have an even chance of losing later, then it cannot explain the existence of a definite class of people

who regularly make money. The explanation for the existence of such a class (capitalists) is that a

limited set of people are in a position to buy a commodity which regularly yields an increase when

they sell. This commodity is the service of the worker, which may produce commodities which

exceed that service in exchange value (and only when when it does will the worker's services be

bought).

The service of a worker is a commodity which has the special use of producing other commodities,

which may have more exchange value than it has itself. There are other commodities (e.g. machines)

which produce commodities, but (on the labour theory of value, which makes human labour the sole

source of value) the exchange value contributed by a machine is simply a fraction of the cost in

labour terms of making and working the machine. If over its whole working life it costs $3,000 and

produces 3000 items, then it adds $1 to the value of each item. But the amount of labour a worker

puts into what he produces over a lifetime may exceed the amount of labour needed to produce and

maintain that worker. If some employer buys the worker's services at their value - i.e. for the

equivalent of the labour needed to produce the worker - then, since the worker's product belongs to

the employer, there will be an excess or 'surplus' value, additional to the value of the wage, that the

employer appropriates.

Marx does not think that in the real world full value is always paid. But he conducts his argument on

the hypothesis that full value is paid, for several reasons. First, he wants to make it clear that his

analysis of capitalism does not rest on the assumptions that capitalists defraud the worker. Even if

there were no cheating, capitalism could still exist. Second, he wants to show that even an idealized

capitalism would be doomed to destruction (the argumentative strategy of proving the point for the

hardest case: a fortiori it holds for other cases). Third, he wants to make it clear that it is in

production itself, and not merely in the distribution of the product, that the capitalists' profits

originate; it is not accidental that most (though not all) capitals are used to finance production (not,

e.g., for buying non-human commodities and selling them unmodified).

Let us consider more carefully the notion of the value of the worker's services for a day - not the

price, which may be forced down by competition for a time, but the value, in terms of the labour

theory of value. It is the total quantity of labour necessary to bring that worker into the labour

market, and keep him fit for work during a normal working life, divided by the number of days in the

normal working life. The total includes the amount of labour necessary to produce his food, clothing,

shelter, general education, job training, medical care, necessary recreation, and so on. These are the

'wages goods', the goods that have first call on the labourer's wage; or the 'necessities of life'. The

necessity is not merely biological; there is a social or conventional or cultural element (e.g. in the

standard of general education, the sort of food and shelter regarded as necessary, the sort of

recreation needed, and so on).

The quotient, today's share of the total, Marx calls the 'necessary' labour. He pictures the working

day as divided into two segments, in the first of which the worker produces for the employer the

equivalent of the necessities of life to be purchased by his wage - this is the 'necessary' labour time;

the product of the rest of the day is the source of the employer's profit, the 'surplus' labour. It is not

'surplus' in the sense of unnecessary, to the employer - for him it is in fact the whole point of the

employment contract. But it is labour 'in excess of' or 'surplus to' the labour needed to produce the

equivalent of the necessities of life. The individual employer's profit is not simply identical with this

surplus; but in general surplus labour is the source of employers' profits, and also of rent and interest.

So even if the employer pays full value for the hire of the labourer for the day, the labour the worker

does during that day will normally exceed the labour equivalent to the value of his hire. The day's

share of the labour socially necessary to bring the worker into the workforce and maintain him in

working order for a normal working life is less than the whole of the working day. Marx says that it

is not labour that the employer buys, because the equivalent in value of a day's labour would seem to

be the product of a day's labour, and there would be no profit (if full value were paid). The employer

buys labour power, Marx says: more accurately, I think, he buys the right to use the worker's

powers for a day. Just as the value of the right to use a machine for a day is one day's share of what

it costs to produce the machine and maintain it for its working life, so the value of the right to use a

worker for a day is the day's share of what it costs to produce and maintain the worker, which will

be less than the value of what that worker can produce in a day (or the hire will not take place).

Sometimes Marx says that the 'necessary' part of the day is paid labour, and the surplus 'unpaid': but

in fact, in this theory, what is paid for is not labour. What is paid for is the right to use the labourer's

powers for the day, for the whole day. The capitalist is supposed in justice to pay the equivalent to

the whole value of that.

This is not the full explanation of the possibility of the existence of a class of capitalists, people who

can regularly use their money to make money. We need to know why the worker will work for an

employer, instead of working the whole day on his own account and keeping the 'surplus' for

himself. This is the point that distinguishes Capitalism from what Marx calls 'simple commodity

production'. There were (perhaps) some societies which were characterised by commodity

production - i.e. most of what was produced was intended for exchange. But the production was by

independent farmers and artisans working on their own land and with their own equipment. The

village blacksmith, cobbler, tailor, etc. were not employees. The capitalist system is one in which

producers are employees, and do not themselves own, or have the means to buy, their own

equipment and materials. Marxists often say that capitalism presupposes that the workers have been

'separated' from the means of production. This suggests coercion, and there have in fact been many

examples (e.g. the enclosures in England), and continue to be (e.g. in less developed countries) of

forcible dispossession of peasants, who then must offer themselves as wage workers. But there is

another aspect not to be overlooked: 'separation' in the sense that the labourer's own equipment and

resources have become insufficient to compete with the capitalist firm's. And another: the

productivity and associated lifestyle of modern industry may make wage work an attractive

alternative to workers who could still work in the old way if they were satisfied with the old life. In

most historical examples we should probably find coercion mixed in with these other causes. But

however it happened, the fact is that in capitalist societies most producers do not have the means of

production, and this is what makes capitalism possible. All the worker has to enter the market with is

his labour power, which he hires out for a wage. The 'wages system' is another, and perhaps more

revealing, name for Capitalism.

(The question 'How is Capitalism possible?' seems to allude to Kant's questions about the possibility

of various kinds of knowledge - a reminiscence of Marx's days as a student of philosophy.)

The laws of motion

Now let us consider the dynamic of capitalism, its 'laws of motion', the trends arising from its nature.

First, there is what Schumpeter calls a 'gale of innovation'. But if human labour is the sole source of

value, and machinery adds nothing but the labour equivalent of its cost of production and

maintenance (yields no 'surplus'), why does the capitalist invest in labour-saving machinery?

Shouldn't he maximise the amount of labour embodied in each item produced? But remember that

value is the quantity of socially necessary labour, the labour needed by the normal worker using

normal methods. If a worker uses a method that needs more than the normal amount of labour, that

does not enhance the value of the product. Conversely, if he uses a method that needs less than the

normal amount of labour, that does not diminish the value of the product. This is why each individual

capitalist has reason to introduce labour-saving machinery. If he can introduce a method that uses

less labour, then he can still sell the product at the ordinary price (its value is undiminished), though

his labour costs will be less, and his surplus will therefore be greater. He has diverted to himself what

would normally go in wages to workers the machinery has displaced. Of course his competitors will

have to copy the new method or go out of business, so the new method will soon become the

normal method. Then the amount of labour 'normally' required will be less, and the value of the

product will be less, the price will fall, and the surplus will be reduced to a lower level. But while the

innovator is still ahead of his competitors he makes greater profits, and will work his plant and

workforce overtime to make the most of his advantage. Thus, although human labour is the sole

source of value, capitalists will introduce a continual series of labour-saving innovations, and compel

one another to do so by competition. The gale of innovation is also a gale of unemployment, and in

the end the increasing capital investment needed because of continued technical development will

reduce profits: the displacement of human labour reduces the possibility of profit, but the individual

capitalist does best by innovating.

(2). Also, capitalism tends to spread from country to country. At the beginning of the capitalist era

there were national or local economies in which different methods of production were normal, in

which the 'necessities of life' were defined differently. The value of a commodity is the quantity of

labour needed by methods normal for the market in which it is to be exchanged, the value of labour

as a commodity reflects the value of the necessities of life. Just as an English capitalist, let us

suppose, could make more profit if he adopted a more productive method than was normal in

England, so he could take advantage of the superiority of English methods to those of another

country by exporting to that country, where his products will have the value corresponding to the

amount of labour normally needed there to make such things. Or he could set up a factory there

using English methods, and pay local workers the value there of their hire, a value which reflects the

local definition of what is needed to sustain life (and if cheaply-produced wages goods begin to be

imported labour may become even cheaper, until the standard of subsistence rises). Competition

from other English capitalists, imitation by local producers, reduction of English standards of

subsistence (because of migration of English capital to other countries and competition from factories

in low-wage countries), and changes in the standards of subsistence assumed in other countries, will

result in standardization. All countries tend to be drawn into the one world-economy, in which there

is a continual search for new products, new methods, new markets, new work-forces, and so on, a

world in which all producers become 'separated' from the means of production, and in which

employers must innovate constantly to stay afloat.

(3). There is a long-term trend for rates of profit to fall. Capital is money spent to make more

money; it is spent partly on machinery and materials and other non-human means of production (this

part yields no surplus), and partly on wages; the second part is the source of the surplus. Only the

wages part of capital increases or 'varies' in the course of the transactions the capitalist engages in;

so the two parts can be called respectively the 'constant' and 'variable' parts of capital. Now if we

assume that the inevitable result of the gale of innovation is an increase in the amount of capital tied

up in machinery, then the rate of profit must fall. The rate depends (though not simply) on the ratio

between surplus and total capital. If we think of all the capitals as if they formed one, we can say that

the rate of profit is the ratio surplus/ (variable plus constant) capital. As innovation goes on, the

numerator of this fraction, the surplus, will increase to some extent, because of increased

productivity in wages-goods industries - it does not take so much of the day to produce the

equivalent of the value of the necessities of life, because their value falls as the industries producing

them become more productive. Provided subsistence standards do not rise (remember these are to

some extent conventionally defined), and provided the working day is not shortened, reduction in the

'necessary' labour time will increase the surplus. But there is a limit: the day has only 24 hours, so

there is an upper limit to the possible surplus. Meanwhile, however, the denominator of the fraction

(variable plus constant capital) steadily increases without limit, as the constant capital increases. If by

the displacement of labour the total surplus falls, and there is a limit to the extent to which this can be

countered by taking more surplus from each worker still employed, and if constant capital is

increasing as a result of constant introduction of labour-saving machinery, then eventually the rate of

profit must fall.

This argument has nothing to do with the idea of 'diminishing returns' (double the inputs and you will

get less than double the output): that assumes constant technology. Marx's argument is precisely that

as technology changes the rate of profit must fall - assuming that technological change ties up more

and more capital in machinery or other equipment.

It might be thought that the fall in the rate of profit might check the introduction of more machinery.

But each individual capitalist will still benefit by introducing more machinery because this has a

favourable effect on his own profit. So no matter how much the rate of profit falls innovation will

continue.

Notice the assumption that innovation leads to an increase in the capital tied up in machinery and

equipment. It does not always do so. Electricity, radio and electronics have probably had the

opposite effect. Some innovations make it possible to reduce fixed investment. It therefore cannot

be predicted that the rate of profit will fall, but Marx expected that it would. Cf. Mill, Principles of

Political Economy IV.4.

(4). Another trend is the centralization of capital. The greater the amount of capital investment

required to set up a factory capable of competing with those already in existence, the harder it is to

become an independent capitalist. Also, smaller capitalist are continually eliminated. If one firm

manages to introduce a new process and undersell competitors, the smaller capitalists go bankrupt

sooner. They are less likely to win the race to innovate. They are more vulnerable to market

fluctuations, because they find it harder to get credit. So smaller capitalists are eliminated, or merge

in self-defence, and new capitalists seldomer break in because of the increasing investment needed

to start off. Ownership and control are steadily centralized. (This argument overlooks the possibility

that new fields are being found into which small firms may enter.)

(5). Another trend is the 'immiseration' of the working classes. In the 19th century the standard

explanation of poverty came from Malthus's Essay on Population (1798). Malthus believed that

population grows faster than production. Increasing poverty is therefore inevitable; any increase in

the standard of living of the poorest classes simply leads to increased birthrate or lower deathrate,

and population again 'presses on' food supply. J.S. Mill and other liberal writers drew the conclusion

that the standard of living of the working classes could rise only if they practiced birth control.

Marx held the Malthusian theory in great contempt. Population does not tend to grow faster than

production. Under capitalism, production grows very rapidly because of continual innovation

(Malthus assumed constant technology). The 'surplus' population - a pool of unemployed, living in

destitution - is not the result of natural population increase, but of the displacement of workers by

labour-saving machinery. The surplus population could all be put to work if the length of the working

day were reduced. But employers don't want this, for various reasons. The reason Marx stresses is

that if the working class is divided into a group of employed and a group of unemployed (the

'industrial reserve army'), then the employed must submit to reduction of their wages below the true

value of their hire, to the extension of the working day (they've been hired for the day - but how long

is that?), and to stricter discipline, because they are afraid of being sacked and replaced by someone

from the pool of unemployed. Thus it benefits employers to divide the proletariat into a section that is

idle and destitute, and another section that is being worked to the utmost: this yields the maximum of

surplus value. (And employees can be taxed to support the unemployed.) Not that any employer

need see it that way or plan it: competition among capitalists compels each to maximise profit or go

out of business, and it is often more profitable to pay overtime than to take on more workers.

Earlier Marxists expected that the working class would simply become poorer and poorer. This

does not seem to have happened. Perhaps it has, if we take proper account of the condition of

workers in all parts of the world. Maybe the workers in Britain are better off than they were in

Marx's time, but not in 'third world' countries (especially those who have died of starvation or in

war). Some Marxists say Marx did not mean poorer absolutely, but relatively to members of the

capitalist class. Others say he did not mean to make a definite prophecy, but just to point to trends

inherent in the system, which might be countered by other factors. Others say that it is too early to

know - the time-scale of the prediction is unclear.

(6). Also, there will be depressions and crises. One of the leading features of the modern economy is

the fluctuation of prosperity, the alternation of booms and busts, growth and recession (the

terminology changes all the time because of reluctance to admit that another 'downturn' is occurring).

The Great Depression of the 1930s is the best-known 'crisis'. Some economists have believed that

there is a regular 'trade cycle' (with perhaps an 11 year period). According to Marx, competition

compels capitalists to introduce labour-saving machinery; as they do the rate of profit falls, which

increases the pressure to innovate, and so on. Eventually there will come a point where production is

no longer profitable, and where so much labour has been displaced that the working class does not

have enough income to buy what is produced. So there is a crisis of 'overproduction'. There are

several other kinds, but this is interesting because of the paradox (the 'contradiction', Marxists would

say), that to make a profit in a competitive world the capitalist must put out of work the people who

must have incomes to spend if capitalists are to make a profit.

To get out of a depression, capitalism (no matter how idealized - or rather, at this point idealization is

impossible) must temporarily abandon the principle that things are to exchange at their true relative

values. In a depression workers must accept wages lower than value (furthering their 'immiseration'),

and the strongest capitalists can buy up firms going bankrupt, paying less than the true value of their

assets (furthering 'centralization'). This destruction of values (sometimes literal destruction of

commodities) makes it possible for the economy to begin moving again. (Cf. Mill, Principles

IV.4.v-viii.) But the underlying trend that produced this crisis will after a while produce another.

Increased immiseration and centralization amount to increased social polarization; and the

organization and discipline of the workplace makes the workers a strong force that can be turned to

other purposes than the capitalists intend. 'Centralization of the means of production and socialization

of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This

integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are

expropriated.' (Capital Bk 1 ch 32).

About the kind of society that would follow the revolution Marx had little to say. It would be one in

which the means of production would not be anyone's private property. But beyond that it will be up

to those who bring about or experience these events to construct the new society.

Return to POL167, POL264

Fight the New Right-Wing Congress

An open letter to the youth and student movement

from the Young Communist League,USA

The Right-Wing Threat

The new right-wing Congress and the many Republican state and

local governments represent a threat to our entire future. Many of

the basic rights and benefits that we expected to enjoy throughout

our lives - rights that generations before us fought and died for -

are now in danger of total elimination. Public education, food

stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, student financial

aid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare and

Medicaid, even the right to raise our own children - all are in

jeopardy.

It's an attack on young people and working class families led by

pro-corporate attack dogs like Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and Co.

Many Democrats are going along with the attack and siding with

the corporate and rich agenda, known popularly as the "Contract

on America".The Contract with America eliminates most of the

rights and programs that have saved thousands of lives and

improved the standard of living of millions through the decades. It

does away with the idea that government has the responsibility to

help people. Newt and Co's only interest is to help the rich and

corporations make more money.

It's the ultimate in reverse-Robin Hood. While viciously criticizing

"greedy" welfare recipients or blaming teen-age mothers for the

economic crisis the country is in, they propose massive tax

giveaways - corporate welfare - to Big Business. The Contract

with America is really a contract with the rich and corporate

America, not the people.

The New Racist Offensive

Racism is being used by Gingrich and Co. to split people along racial and national lines and

ram through their anti-people agenda. Racism is used as a weapon against all youth and

working people. The same Republicans, right wing democrats and their corporate backers

who want to destroy social welfare programs want to destroy Affirmative Action, the Civil

Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and other civil rights legislation. They push the vicious,

racist, anti-immigrant Proposition 187 in California and seek to spread this anti-immigrant and

racist law to other states as well. It's in all young people's interest, Black, Brown and white, to

fight the new racist offensive.

The "Contract on America" uses racist lies, like in the recent book The Bell Curve based on

discredited and disgraced Nazi-like theories linking race and intelligence, to justify the

destruction of all social programs. The idea is people are poor because they are less intelligent

not because they are discriminated against or exploited. Therefore there should be no special

programs to help overcome poverty. The Contract with America is The Bell Curve theories in

action.

The Bell Curve has even gotten attention and credibility among certain liberals. The racist

remarks by the President of Rutgers University said in a speech to the faculty is an example of

the dangerous impact of The Bell Curve theories. These ideas must be rejected. The militant

actions like the ones taken by Rutgers students - Black, Brown and white - to demand

Rutgers presidents resignation are an example of what kinds of actions are needed today to

fight racism and the overall economic crisis.

The Contract on America promotes an atmosphere of hate and terror, where workers, youth

and children, people of color, women, gays and lesbians are the victims. They constantly try

to blame African Americans, Latinos, and all non-whites for the economic crisis. Immigrants,

youth, women also face special attacks. But the economic and social crisis is really caused by

the corporate drive for maximum profit - one of capitalism's basic laws. Racism and poverty

go hand in hand - you need to fight both to win.

The Solutions Are There

The only solutions to the economic crisis we ever hear about on TV and radio are more

budget cuts, more tax giveaways to the rich and tax hikes on working people. The solutions

are always at the expense of working class and poor families and the youth.

But what about the corporations and banks who are making billions of dollars in profits each

year? What about the billionaire who winds up not paying any income tax on their billions,

stolen from working and poor people, and live a life of obscene luxury while others starve?

It's time for them to sacrifice for the economic mess that they got us into in the first place.

All tax breaks for the super-rich and corporations must end. No more loop-holes, no more

cuts in capital gains, no more privatizing public services. It's time to stop corporate welfare

and welfare for the rich! Taxing the rich and Big Business and cutting the military budget

would create billions and billions in revenue. Enough money to restore funding to programs

cut in the past decades.

But most importantly, there would be billions in revenue to create millions of needed jobs - a

massive public works jobs program to rebuild the country, provide millions of union jobs at

union wages, with strict affirmative action guidelines to ensure equality in hiring, training and

promotion. A jobs program that would build houses for the homeless, schools for the youth.

There would be money to provide free national healthcare and education. There would be

money to build community, recreation and cultural centers and clean-up the environmental

destruction wreaked by years of corporate abuse.

Amazing things can happen when there is full employment. Street crime will go down

dramatically. Drug and alcohol abuse will go down. Why? Because people will have lives with

dignity and hope.

Youth Must Fight Back

This letter is written at a time when young people are joining the YCL like never before. We

think this is important for the youth and student movement. Young people want to protest.

They want united action - Black, Brown and white. They want radical solutions to the crisis

they face. That's why they're joining the YCL.

During the 30's and the Depression there were great struggles to demand that the government

provide for the millions of starving, unemployed and homeless people and families. That's how

unemployment insurance, social security, AFDC and other major social programs were won.

Every right and program that benefits people was achieved through mass, united, militant

struggle. Marches, sit-ins, demonstrations - locally and nationally were held. This is a lesson

for today. Under this system, nothing is ever given to us - it must be fought for.

Today our backs are against the wall - we have no place to go. We must take a stand and

fight. All youth, Black, Brown and white, citizen and immigrant, men and women must unite

with labor and all movements for economic and social justice if we are going to win. And we

can! More marches, more sit-ins, more demonstrations, more strikes with unifying, militant

demands are the order of the day. We can build broad all-youth unity and win!

The YCL is working with and prepared to work with every youth and student organization

that are fighting these cuts and the Contract on America. We are issuing this open letter as a

call to action for the young generation to meet the challenges that history has assigned us. We

are confident that our generation will do no less.

Home

Info

Dynamic

Organize

Contact

ReadUp

Join

Donate

Fun

Links

YCL-USA, 235 W. 23rd St, NY NY 10011. (phone)212-741-2016 (fax)212-229-1713 e-mail: yclwebmaster@yclusa.org

How to Build a YCL Club

Putting Rubber to the Road

I.Building a YCL Club

Every YCL club has to start somewhere, so take a chance. If you feel like the only communist

in your city or sometimes even your state, build a Young Communist club to fight for

economic and social justice. Look around at the developments in your city or in your school.

Are there issues that piss other people off?

Policies that discriminate against people of color, immigrants, gays and lesbians or

women?

How are poor and working students treated by authorities?

The best way to build a club is to build solidarity around issues, and to develop understanding

of what the problems are, what systems are in place and most importantly, how those systems

can be changed. Call a meeting around a problem in your area, invite people to join a YCL

club in order to fight the issue. At first the weight will be on your shoulders, persuade a friend

or friends to help you run and plan the meeting.

Don't limit your invitations just to friends or people you know. Post fliers with either a phone

number or a place they can meet to ask questions. Call other community and youth groups in

your area. Talk to anyone who will listen. With time and perseverence you will develop other

leaders and organizers who will share in future events.

II.Building Solidarity

The best way to fight isolation is to build solidarity. Take the first step towards building a

YCL club in your area:

Invite a speaker from the Young Communist League or the Communist Party. Post

fliers madly, overwhelming odds are that other people also want to fight capitalism.

Set up a YCL table at a school event. Call the national office for literature to hand out.

Ask questions about what is the YCL so you are comfortable answering other people's

questions. Stress that the strength of the YCL is the sum of its members-- members

ultimately determine what YCL can mean, what YCL can achieve.

Throw a YCL party. Do you belong to a band or know a DJ that has similar interests?

Communism is rooted in culture, solidarity and unity, what more does a good party

need? Lenin puts it in his own way, "Revolutions are festivals of the oppressed."

Be creative. You could run a comic strip contest or a poetry reading around a leftist

theme, whatever you're into can help build the movement.

Ask for advise from veterans of the movement and communisty leaders. Getting tips

from the wise halps you avoid the mistakes they've learned from.

Sign up sheets are great. Use them. Call back people who sign up to find out more

about YCL. Call back once, twice, three times, leave messages, don't give up on those

who are always "out."

Distribute responsibilities among members, do not let a small leadership assume all of

the work.

Invite a wide circle of people, at all costs avoid cliques. The greater numbers of people

you draw into the club the greater range of talents and skills you will have.

Share the joys of phone calls among all the members. Give each club member a phone

list of people to call, contacting these people is their responsibility.

Pair up a new member with a more experienced member, working in teams builds

confidence and organizing skills.

III.Nuts and Bolts

You've put together a club of people who come to meetings consistently, or who work

steadily on campaigns. How do you build an organization out of a core group? The club

structure varies slightly from club to club, but most clubs have elected office holders, regular

(ish) meetings and membership lists. The following suggestions are for guidance, not hard and

fast rules. Different clubs develop their own styles for running an effective and participatory

meeting.

Structure

Officers can help a YCL club run smoothly and ensure that club decisions are followed

through. Commonly, clubs elect three officers: coordinator, educational coordinator and

treasurer who are accountable to the YCL members and club policies.

Meetings

At the end of each meeting: elect a meeting chair for the following meeting. The meeting chair

could be a new member or an older member, for the next meeting they must draw up a

tentative agenda (with help from other YCLers), present the agenda at the meeting and make

any necessary changes or additions. The meeting chair can write down people's names in the

order they raise their hands and call on speakers in turn. The meeting chair makes sure the

meeting doesn't go through the night, that all members get a chance to speak, that discussions

are respectful and to the point.

Members

Members should sign a membership list once they decide to join, keep the national YCL

informed about new members. Membership dues for the YCL are presently a bargain at $1

per year. To build a strong club, all members should be involved in strategy sessions: one

person cannot decide what campaigns to run and how to proceed in campaigns. Member

discussions about the club goals and direction are vital to developing a strong club.

Leaders

The primary responsibility of a leader is to find and develop other leaders. A leader helps

other members build the skills to mobilize, inspire and educate other people. A strong leader

motivates others to take on more responsibility rather than do everything her or himself. A

powerful club builds on the strengths of all its members to build a star team rather than one

star player. A good organization demands many different skills and abilities, so build initiative

and creativity in members' responses, and trust in the abilities of your comrades. To repeat an

old YCL slogan, "Every YCLer should become a leader."

Strategy

Strong political activism develops from a united YCL. Discuss the club's strategies and goals

in meetings, give members a space to express disagreement and come to resolutions about

how the club should proceed. Build the line together, give ample room to hear different

opinions, actively work to persuade and consolidate different perspectives, since squelching

dissent can only lead to problems further down the way. When the club votes on a strategy all

members should follow the club's decision as best as possible given the changing political

conditions.

Communication

YCL is a national organization and your club is part of a larger movement to organize young

people. Keep the YCL national informed about what's going on in your highschool and city.

Drop a note or give a call from time to time.

IV.Planning a YCL Campaign

The primary purpose of an organizing campaign is to educate people. Campaigns develop

leadership, teach people about their collective strength, and most importantly, illustrate in

concrete terms how capitalism functions to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a

few. A well-run campaign can win important concessions, build broad solidarity between

people to combat injustice, and strengthen YCL clubs to fight the next battle.

Questions to Begin a Campaign:

What is the political and economic context of this problem?

How does this campaign raise issues of class struggle and the fight against racism,

sexism and homophobia?

What problem are we trying to address?

How can we change this problem?

Has this problem come up before? Where? How did people respond?

Who are the front-line decision makers on this issue?

How will this campaign build and strengthen the YCL club?

Who is most affected by the problem? Who is our constituency?

Who are our allies? Who are our opponents?

Define your long-range and short-term goals: for whom and for what is the YCL club

being organized? Be specific in your answers.

Characteristics of a Campaign

Clear time frame-- There are advantages to short and long-term time frames. While

long terms campaigns develop leadership skills and in-depth analysis, they can suffer

from burn-out. Look at the conditions for your campaign: keep in mind when and how

long vacations are, whether people are around in the summer, and how long members

can participate. Most importantly, lay out the incremental steps for a campaign so that

people feel a sense of progress.

Clear target or enemy-- The campaign should be focused to target either the person

who has the power to grant your demands, or someone who can pressure that person

to concede. Figure out what structures the target hides behind, and who can influence

the target. Also, know your target's soft spots and self-interest. The target may change

in the campaign, but aim for specific people rather than amorphous bureaucracies.

Clear issues--Define your campaigns so that solutions are brought to the fore. Also,

demand specific changes in the system. Rather than organize around a larger problem

such as "poor schools," target racist and ethnocentric curriculum and books, weak or

nonexistent rape and sexual harassment policies, elitist funding policies that give huge

salaries to administrators and peanuts for books, computers and teachers' salaries.

Clear constituency--Define the issue to appeal to the broadest possible constituency

without compromising the integrity of your campaign.

Clear ideological position--Develop a strong critique of the capitalist system to draw

the connections between your specific campaign and larger systems at work. Denial of

human rights and equal access to resources are an integral facet of a global capitalism.

Only in solidarity with each other can we build the strength to combat exploitative and

oppressive conditions. The campaign should build your constituency's sense of their

collective strength and their rights to economic and political equality.

V.Solidifying the Campaign

Once your club has thought through the general campaign, the second stage is to solidify. In

this phase you research potential campaign handles, consider your club's resources and plan a

strategy which contains tactical steps.

Research

Identify and thoroughly research your opponents, in the process don't forget to locate

your allies. Investigate the dirt on your opponents, you can use this information to draw

wider support for your campaign. Research can help you build ethical, political and

economic arguments that legitimate the justice of your campaign. Your analysis of the

issue shows how your position is good, fair, just, constitutional, legal etc.

Use this information to develop a campaign handle. A handle is your point of entry--of

turning a "problem" (poor public schools) into an "issue" (failure to allocate enough

money towards school resources such as books, teachers and computers). A handle

relates your position to specific decision-making authorities who can act to do what is

right. A handle does not define the parameters of your campaign but helps your

organization and your issue gain legitimacy. Every issue has a wide variety of handles.

In the case of poor schools, handles might include:

the provisions of an act on public education (get specifics)

a federal mandate on minimum standards for public schools (get specifics)

a legal case on public neglect of schoolchildren (get specifics)

a specific school board member or college trustee who fights for economic

justice in education

misused federal funds that fail to support the educational future of all students

Resources

To effectively plan your campaign take a clear look at your club's resources. Evaluate your

club funds, active members in the club, the experience of your club leadership, your club's

strength to disrupt the system, any internal problems to solve in order for the campaign to

succeed, media contacts, access to decision-makers, and alliances that could lead to other

resources.

Strategy

Clearly outline your long range approach (strategy) and your short range approach (tactics).

Strategy includes all of the following parts:

Definition of your goals

An evaluation of your resources

Identification of your constituents, allies and opponents

Definition of your target(s)

An outline of your tactics.

Tactics

Tactics include media events, actions for information and demands, public hearings, strikes,

law suits, accountability sessions, elections and negotiations

Tactics should be fresh, creative, witty, imaginative and pointed. Tactics develop from the

idea that you have the numbers and/or the capacity to embarrass a target and alter the usual

course of business. Some tips about tactics from Mike Miller, director of the Organizing

Training Center:

Use tactics that your club understands and are excited by

Power is what you have and what the enemy thinks you have

The press plays a role in the latter

Whenever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy. Try to catch them off

guard, do the unexpected, put pressure where it is not expected.

Ridicule (and flattery) are important tools--label the enemy.

Keep up the pressure on a campaign. Pick new fights. Have a new action every week.

Keep on top of the issues.

Have constructive alternatives to offer. Always press for written and binding

agreements, for timetables and due dates.

Pick the target, personalize it, and don't let the target diffuse responsibility

Know Your Opposition

At the beginning of your campaign try to neutralize your opponents by inviting as many

as possible to join the campaign. Consult potential opponents to put them in the

position of encouraging your action. Recruit individuals who know opposition leaders

to ask for their support.

For a public meeting, invite a representative of the opposition to attend (you may want

to sandwich the speaker between your most effective speakers, or cut down on their

time to talk, but the invitation defuses a potential attempt to disrupt the event).

Research the background and spokesperson of your opposition carefully. If opponents

try to disrupt your event, you can expose their true interests and counter their efforts. If

publicity will stir opposition into actions, don't publicize your specific actions in

advance.

Evaluating the Campaign

After an action, or after one leg of the campaign review your actions. The purpose of

reviewing the action is to develop a consensus definition of the experience. To build

consensus, elicit as many opinions and reactions from participants as possible. Evaluate what

meaningful concessions were gained, assess turnout, and press coverage, check the

performance of leaders and committees. Connect each event to the campaign as a whole,

since the evaluation stage can develop and change your club's conceptualization of the

problem and your strategy.

VI.Press Coverage

Press coverage of YCL campaigns and actions can build your base of support, recruit new

members and bring additional people to your events. Press coverage is not entirely

predictable, but typing your own stories can help bring you the coverage you want. Also,

develop contacts in the press who are sympathetic to the YCL and your campaigns.

A press release includes the following:

Cover letter -- the cover letter should provide a YCL club member's name who will

act as a press contact, the name of the YCL or coalition and a phone number. If

possible, address the fax to a specific journalist's or editor's name, the newsroom's or

paper's name, and add their fax and phone number (in case your fax goes astray). In

"memo" you can tell them if there is a particular release date for the article. If it's

reporting a surprise action, ask them to hold the article until a certain time and date.

Article -- the article should give a short, engaging and clear account of your event,

action or position. Include quotations from people involved in the action or event,

provide some analysis of the issues involved. Draw the media into covering the event

through your reportage. Chances are that your framing of the issue will affect how the

press reports it-- your article gives them a shortcut and can give you good publicity.

Press release procedure:

Fax the cover letter and article to your local and/or national papers and news channels. For

announcements of upcoming events, give your paper time to publish your bulletin, a week or

more depending on your paper's policy. The morning before the event is scheduled to take

place call the newspaper or TV station:

Find out if they received (and filed) your fax

Ask if they will cover the story

Try to get a definite answer about whether they will attend

Home

Info

Dynamic

Organize

Contact

ReadUp

Join

Donate

Fun

Links

YCL-USA, 235 W. 23rd St, NY NY 10011. (phone)212-741-2016 (fax)212-229-1713 e-mail: yclwebmaster@yclusa.org

**The most basic fact of life: the class

struggle**

(Reprinted from the April 5, 1997 issue of the People's Weekly World. May be reprinted

or reposted with PWW credit. For subscription information see below)

By Gus Hall

This is the second in a series of articles on the class struggle which began in the March 22 issue. Gus

Hall is national chairman of the Communist Party USA.

The class struggle is the most basic fact of life in our capitalist society. It determines who we are. It

molds our personality, our character.

It is a major factor in how we think, how we approach all questions in life. It is basic in our politics,

in our ideology, in our culture. It is basic because it is basic in real life, the real world we live in.

The class struggle is the most fundamental, defining feature of our capitalist system. There can be no

capitalism without the two main, opposing classes - the working class and the capitalist class. There

can be no capitalism without the every day class struggle between them. A study of the class struggle

is a study of capitalism.

Working class ideology

Some call it working class ideology; others call it the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, or socialist or

communist ideology. I will simply call it our ideology, because it is just that - ours.

The working class of all countries has the same ideology. However, each working class reflects the

specific racial and national composition of its country.

Our U.S. working class is a single class - multiracial, multinational. But all are exploited as a class.

That is what unites the class, exploitation as a class. Class "oneness" is the most fundamental

question within the class struggle.

There can be class unity only if the organizations of the working class, specifically the trade unions,

fight against both class exploitation and the super-exploitation as a result of racism.

The struggle against racism is most successful when it is related to the working class, the class

struggle and class exploitation.

Capitalist ideology

The main opposite ideology is ruling class, capitalist ideology, including anti-communism. Capitalist

ideology has an advantage in a capitalist society because it is the ideology of the ruling class.

Its sole purpose is to defend and cover up for the capitalist system of exploitation for corporate

profits. It is rooted in the idea that there is no class struggle or class exploitation.

The capitalist class, the monopoly corporations, spend many millions every year to spread its

ideology - in the mass media, in movies, books and magazines, in the schools, in the workplace,

everywhere.

Another opposite trend argues that U.S. national interests overshadow and supersede all other

interests. Therefore, they argue, there must only be cooperation and collaboration between the

bosses and the workers in the common interests of the whole country.

Then there are the more middle class currents. Their ideology is based on the concept of

downgrading and minimizing the working class. They push concepts of class collaboration,

labor-management partnership and social democracy.

Working class ideology and an understanding of the unrelenting class struggle between the exploiters

and exploited enables workers to avoid the pitfalls of all the anti-working class ideological trends.

Sole source of profits

Exploitation of workers in the production process - the source of all profits - takes place at the point

of production. It is here that the working class produces more than it gets back in the form of wages

and benefits.

It is the difference between the added value this class produces and what it is paid that is the source

of all profits. Marx named it "the law of surplus value" or "the law of profits."

For example, today out of a working day of eight hours, the average worker works two hours and

nine minutes for himself and five hours and 51 minutes for the boss. That's corporate profits.

How the class is made

The fact that surplus value (profits) is generated at the point of production and that workers in this

relationship to the corporations daily confront naked exploitation compels them toward unity and

struggle because the labor process is social, collective and increasingly global.

Workers in basic and mass production industries carry on the class struggle at the point of

production daily. They must constantly use their accumulated organizational skills. They have a

history of fighting the class enemy. They understand, through struggle, the necessity of class unity

based on Black, brown, white unity.

The working class is molded in this production process and thus forced to play an advanced role in

the struggle for a better life. Thus, a working class outlook is shaped by a constantly reinforced

understanding on the part of workers that they are not getting a fair shake, that exploitation is unjust

and has no moral justification.

The experience of struggling against exploitation itself becomes a part of the cumulative objective

framework that molds a working class outlook.

Unity of the many

The class of exploiters has political power. They have the government machinery, the armed forces,

the police. They have control over the press, radio and television.

The ideology of the capitalist class justifies the use of governmental authority and force in the

interests of the few, even when such use is against the best interests of the people as a whole and of

the nation.

The working class under capitalism has no such instruments on its side. Workers are compelled to

seek strength in their great numbers, organized into unions. Their only weapon in struggle is the unity

of the many.

Unity in action

Mass action, mass movements, strikes are concepts that grow from this realization. Disjointed

actions by individuals is not a working class trait.

There is no other section of the population that has such compelling reasons for acting in mass as has

the working class. It is in this process that the working class is made and molded, by capitalism, into

the leading class. It is through this process that the working class realizes that as a class, under

capitalism, they have no place to go, that there is no escaping the class struggle.

The process of alienation that takes place under capitalism pushes non-working class people into a

feeling of helplessness, to shifts and swings as individuals. Such helplessness and frustration is

overcome in the working class because the worker has a class to turn to and from which to gain

strength. This, in turn, leads to action, to struggle to collective effort. This becomes a feature of

workingclass ideology.

Classes & change

Thus, only after the basic nature of the working class and, within that, the basic industrial and mass

production workers, is firmly established, is it possible to view the working class as a part of a much

wider and a more complex social, political and economic framework.

Then we can ask: Has the working class changed over the years, especially as a result of the

scientific and technological revolution? Of course.

Are other sectors much bigger and more important today than even 10 years ago? Of course. How

could it be otherwise. However, this does not change the position or role of the basic industrial,

mass production workers - i.e., steel, auto, electrical, rubber, machine tool.

The actions of these workers have an impact on the whole class. When they move, the whole class

moves. When they win a struggle, the whole class wins. And the fact is that the greatest surplus value

(profit) still comes from exploitation of these workers.

Victory in the all-out class war by Wheeling-Pitt will mean not only victory for the steelworkers and

their union in its eight plants. It will mean victory for all steelworkers. It will save the steel union. It

will greatly affect the upcoming basic steel contract negotiations. It will have an impact on all contract

negotiations. It will be a tremendous class victory.

The revolutionary class

It is true that there are moments when other groups or sectors of people project radical ideas. And

that at moments other groups or sectors come to the fore to play a special role. But they are just that

- momentary.

The working class is the ONLY consistently revolutionary force because it is the only force that is

directly and consistently exploited. This is not a choice or decision of the class. It is the objective

reality of the class struggle.

The middle class and professional strata experience exploitation second hand, more indirectly. This

is reflected in their ideology, in their attitude about exploitation, in their approaches to life and

struggle. They are exploited more as individuals. The working class is exploited as a class.

However, as mass layoffs, downsizing, mergers, monopolization and the overall deterioration in the

quality of life more and more victimize intellectuals, professionals, academics, students, scientists,

etc., they gravitate toward the class that is in the center of the oppression - the working class.

They increasingly tend to identify their self-interests with the working class. Ever greater numbers

become an integral part of the class struggle.

Working class legacy

It was Marx who first stressed that the most revolutionary class, the working class, appropriates the

entire progressive legacy of the past, all that which is positive in human achievement. He stressed

that the workers take up and represent the interests of all oppressed and suffering humanity. This is

part of working class ideology.

Another of Marx's fundamental ideas is that it is precisely through the pursuit of its own class

interest, organizing itself for itself, that the liberation of all humanity would be achieved.

Our working class science

Just as there are laws of nature and natural science, so there are laws of society, of social

development and the social science of Marxism-Leninism, which includes the law of class struggle

and the law of profits.

Like the mastery of any science, the science of the working class does not come to most workers

spontaneously, as a result of struggle. However, it is easier for workers to understand and adopt

these concepts and the ideology because the ideas are related to the exploitation they experience as

workers.

Our ideology is a system of thought. It gives us a unique way of looking at everything in life. And the

role of the working class and the class struggle is the very foundation stone of our Marxist-Leninist,

working class ideology.

##30##

************************************************************

*** * Read the Peoples Weekly World * *********

**** * Sub info: pww@igc.apc.org * **** *

**** 235 W. 23rd St. NYC 10011 *** * **

**** * $20/yr - $1-2 mos trial sub * **** *

*** * * *********

************************************************************

Tired of the same old system: Join the Communist Party, USA

Info: CPUSA@rednet.org; or (212) 989-4994; or

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/cp-usa

************************************************************

Return to the ComInterNet Listing of World Communist and Workers

Parties