Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:08:04 +0100
From: Lew <Lew-AT-dialogues.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-I: LOV and state capitalism


In article <199704031210.AAA11166-AT-mailhost.auckland.ac.nz>,
dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz writes

>Andrew offers the proof in the quote  he posted about  socialism emerging
>"still stamped with the birth marks of the old society". There are
>several sentences all meaning much the same thing which can be
>translated to mean "from each according to their labour [or ability
>to labour]to each according to their work". I'll quote them to make
>it clear what  they  mean substantially if not literally.
>
>"Accordingly the individual receives back from society -after
>deductions have been made - exactly what he gives to it"

>"He receives certificate from society that he has furnished suich and
>such an amount of labour....and draws from the social stock of means
>of consumption as much as costs the same amount of labour".
>
>"A given amount of labour is exchanged for an equal amount of labour
>in another form".
>
>"In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly
>stigmatised by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is
>proportional to the labour they supply; equality consists in the fact
>that measurement is made with an equal standard, labour."
>
>"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist
>society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs
>from capitalist society.  Right can never be higher than the economic
>structure of society and its cultural development conditioned
>thereby."
>
>Then the section which Andrew quoted goes on to show how this will
>change under the "higher phase of communism" when "only then can
>the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and
>society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his/her
>ability, to each according to his/her needs!".
>
>Dave.
>

The problem here is that Dave and Andrew belong to a Leninist tradition
that has a certain preconception of Marxism. It comes pre-packaged with
false assumptiopns. So they can both put in quotation marks "to each
according to their work" in the sure belief that they are quoting a well
known phrase of Marx. I'm sure that they have read the Critique
themselves, but they never noticed that the phrase - to which they
attach such importance - is not there. It's part of that pre-conception
that wage labour and surplus value will continue under communism. Hence
the quote above, which Dave thinks "substantially" proves his case. Wage
labour is not mentioned or implied whereas "certificates" (labour
vouchers or "labour money") as a way of dealing with scarcity are. Marx
was a supporter of their use in the early stage of communism, as a
"bourgeois limitation", and had written about these elsewhere:

"Owen=92s =91labour-money=92, for instance, is no more =91money=92 than a ticket
for the theatre. Owen presupposes directly associated labour, a form of
production that is entirely inconsistent with the production of
commodities. The certificate of labour is merely evidence of the
part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a
certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption" 
(Capital, Vol. 1, ch. 111).

"These producers may... receive paper vouchers entitling them to
withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity
corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They
do not circulate" (Capital, Vol. 2, ch. XV111).

Just to clarify: more than wage labour itself (which Marx called "wage
slavery") it was the social relationship to capital which it presupposed
which Marx held to be inimical to working class interests. As for
value/surplus value, the volumes of Capital go to great length to show
that surplus value is the product of legalised robbery of the working
class. It certainly doesn't feature in the quote from the Critique.
Lew


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---