Labour theory of Value and Surplus value

Labour theory of Value and surplus value As the market economy was developing and the barter system in which producers of different products exchanged their products according to their use, was being replaced by commodity based exchange of various products through middlemen, the relative quantities of various commodities being exchanged appeared to be through mutual consensus. But as the mercantile economy developed, it transpired that there must be some element commonly present in all the commodities, amounts of which determined the relative quantities of commodities in exchange. This element could not be utility or use-value as utility of different things was different. This element came to be known as ‘exchange value’ or simply ‘value’. No one knew what determined the value of a commodity and was generally thought to be determined by the balance between supply and demand. Here we can not go into the history how a fixed quantity of a precious metal, a commodity, assumed the role of the standard unit to measure the value of all other commodities, that is money. But one thing is obvious that value of any commodity is intangible and equal values can be exchanged only when they are manifested as something tangible either in the form of commodities as in barter, or any other thing whose value as a standard of exchange is acceptable to both the parties without any ambiguity. In the developed market economy, within the domain of a state, coins minted or paper currency printed by the state came to be accepted as money. since then value of every commodity is expressed in terms of money, and price expressed in terms of money has become synonymous to value. Because of this obfuscation people are unable to understand the real character of value and that how it is created and how profit is generated. In the initial stage of fully developed market economy in which mercantile capital controlled exchange of commodities, economists and philosophers were intrigued about the genesis of the element of ‘Value’. But with industrial revolution and mass scale production with wage-labour, it was becoming clear that wide varieties of commodities are being produced by same kind of uniform labour and thinkers started contemplating some relation between value and labour. Two important economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo postulated that value is a measure of the average uniform labour time spent in producing a commodity. While equating value to labour time, Adam Smith considered only the direct labour time spent, David Ricardo included the past labour also in terms of raw material and depreciation of means of labour. But they were unable to understand how profit is generated when in a fully developed market economy every commodity including wage-labour is sold at its value. The credit goes to Marx to reveal the true essence of value and surplus value. With his thorough understanding of Dialectics of Nature, he could conceive the dual nature of human labour power and also the dual nature of the product of labour, and also the Dialectical relationship between the ‘Labour Power’ and the ‘Labour’. Labour power is expanded to produce physical means of life, and consumption of physical means of life regenerates the labour power spent. And this dual relationship is not ‘cyclical’ but is ‘spiral’. With every cycle the productivity of labour power rises to a higher level. The human labour power is naturally endowed to be capable of producing more than what is needed to regenerate it. Or in other words it is capable of generating ‘Surplus-value’. By establishing his ‘Labour Theory of Value and Surplus-value’ Marx converted political-economy into a real science. In order to understand ‘value’, you have to keep in mind that human labour power and the useful outcome of that labour power spent, have dual characters. Firstly any useful labour can be seen as sum total of very small fractions of labour power expanded in very small fractions of time. In this aspect labour of different workers is same. Secondly, permutations and combinations of well arranged fractions of labour can produce different unique labour outcome to produce different commodities capable of satisfying different needs. Congealed labour is absorbed within the commodity and an observer can not perceive it by sense organs. The two aspects of labour can not be separated physically and any product of use presents itself only as an useful product. In barter system both parties see only utility of other’s product without so much as bothering about ‘value’. But when the barter system takes the form of exchange, the scenario changes and so does the outlook of the producer as a ‘seller’. He sees only a value in his product as he is not interested in using it but is interested in exchanging it for something of utility. But his buyer is not in a position to offer something of immediate use to the producer. Instead he is able to offer something which can be further exchanged by the producer for something useful and in this sense the producer tries to asses the ‘equivalent value’ of the commodity he is receiving in lieu of his product. Thus during exchange one person sees two different values in two different commodities. In one he sees ‘relative value’. In the other commodity he sees a value equivalent to the use value of the commodity which he can get in the market for the exchange of the commodity to be received. Or in one commodity two different persons, because of their different positions, see two different values, ‘relative vale’ in the form of uniform labour and ‘equivalent value’ in the form of special useful labour. If you are conversant with Dialectical relationship between being and consciousness than it should not be difficult to understand the difference between the mentality and motivation of the producer, of the consumer and of the middleman in relation to the exchange of a commodity. 1. When we talk of ‘Lagat Mulya’ we talk of the value (Labour power x Time) spent by the workman transforming natural resource into useable form i.e. in producing the commodity and he sells it in exchange of something whereby he could buy goods to replenish all that is necessary to reproduce and sell anew. He equates the use-value of all the goods he buys, to the value invested or ‘Lagat Mulya’. Use-value of goods needed to replace his labour-power remains same but relative-value of goods produced by him reduces or ‘Lagat Mulya’ decreases with experience as his productivity increases because of improved skill and instruments of labour. 2. The consumer buys a commodity in exchange of something which he owns, whether he has produced it or has acquired by any other means and assesses that the use-value of the commodity which he is going to buy is equivalent to the value of goods he is giving in exchange. 3. The middleman buys a commodity to sell it, and to sell in exchange with something of higher value than he paid for buying it. Otherwise he will not be interested in buying and selling of that commodity. To be able to sell, it is necessary that his buyer has a need for the commodity being sold and assesses its equivalent value same as the middle man expects to fetch. Or in other words the middleman must know in advance at what price he will be able to sell to the consumer. Thus the middle man buys a commodity at the relative-value as assessed by the producer, and sells it at equivalent value as assessed by the consumer. Thus a commodity reflects three different sets of ideas in the minds of three different persons depending upon their relative positions. The producer sees the relative-value on the basis of uniform labour time spent in producing the commodity. The consumer sees the equivalent-value on the basis of the labour-power to be regenerated with the consumption of the commodity, and the middleman sees the surplus-value or the difference between the equivalent-value being seen by the consumer and the the relative-value being seen by the producer. As the exchange is being done with the help of the money, we can equate value to price and we can analyse the transaction on the basis of purchase price and sale price to understand how the profit is generated while every commodity is being sold at its value. As explained above, the capitalist purchases labour-power of a worker at a price ‘X’, and makes the worker expand this labour-power to produce commodity of price ‘X+x’. He sells part of the commodity for a price ‘X’ to a consumer to regenerate his labour-power of price ‘X’ which he sells at price ‘X’ to the capitalist to reproduce ‘X+x’ anew. The surplus ‘x’ is pocketed by the capitalist as profit. This is a simple model to explain, but in fact in modern capitalist economy there are hundreds of workers, hundreds of consumers and hundreds of capitalists under the control of a single gargantuan capital. Suresh Srivastava 8 April, 2019

Correct question begets correct answer

Asking the correct questions can give the correct answers .A lot of din and pandemonium is created these days exhorting people to usher in a 'Socialist  Revolution .' But the phrase 'Socialist Revolution' means different things to different people even to the extent that, there are as many number of Socialisms as the number of its proponents . Inspite of beating the drum about 'an alternative narrative' , 'a new paradigm' etc many of the proponents are not able to give much details and nuances about what the 'alternative narrative ' and the 'new paradigm' .
  A) In defence to their inability to give out much details , the logic given out is that there are no readymade and all weather solutions to the problems and that problems need to be accessed based on the time period and region where the change is to be usherd in to provide the nitty gritties of the new paradigm .The same is a valid fact, but the same doesn't mean that there can't be and there shouldn't be planning and working out of the fine details (based on the specific time period and specific region ) of what ought to happen once the 'socialist revolution' is usherd in .

   B)Another aspect that is put forward is that it is not possible to preconceive and predict with  perfection and absolute certainty  about the course of action that is to be taken . The same also a fact worth reckoning but that cannot by any stretch of imagination made to propose that planning is not possible .To juxtapose prediction with planning is a logical folly . Planning ,preconception and conceptualisation of the alternative path forward should be made to the maximum extent possible (of cours,e with the disclaimer regarding the assumptions made and the possibilities of errors) based on the historical experiences (and the information derived from the same) available as on date and by taking into consideration the specific context of the time period and the region . The effectiveness of the plan can be judged and should be judged during the course of execution(praxis / practice) of the same and the outcomes achieved shall be compared with the desired outcomes and new inferences and course corrections ought to be made in the future course and the same shall proceed all along .

C)Some others put forward the argument that knowledge comes through practice and experience and the fine details can evolve only in the course of action . That knowledge doesn't arise from contemplation , meditation and speculation alone is true, and ,on the contrary knowledge is created based on the observations made based on the past  experiences obtained from the course of action (practice/ praxis) and verifying the reproducibility and replaceability of the the knowledge and making the necessary updations and modifications in the future and the process goes on and infinitum .But it is to be taken note of the fact that for a particular generation to start a course of action the knowledge available can be obtained only from past experiences ,and not to draw the correct inferences and conclusions based on the observations made on the past observation through the 'scientific method'  (the scientific method is stressed ) is again a flawed way of decision making .

D) The argument that discussions ,debates and other activities regarding the alternative path is just a delaying tactic and that it just tries to postpone sine die the inevitable course of action by stressing too muçh on' interpreting the world'  rather than on 'changing the world ' are ignoring the Scientific method which is characterized by a)
Identification of the objective of study , b) observations of relevant facts based on past experienceand practice  c) drawing primary inferences from the observations made (hypothesis) d) Verification of the applicability and the validity of the hypothesis in varying conditions and making the necessary updations to the hypothesis based on the verification e) Establishment of the Scientific theory based on the above steps .It is this scientific method that has helped mankind to accomplish what it has achieved so far . The same is applicable for the argument that efforts in finalising the future path of action before hand is futile .Those who are enamoured and infatuated  by the idea of equality and justice and are in the urge to usher in the socialist revolution shall keep in mind that by ignoring the Scientific method and directly plunging into action may lead to a situation where the protagonists end up in rocking the boat of the very revolution (abrupt qualitative change) they try to bring forth and will further make life miserable for the very same people for whom they vouch to fight for .

The following are some train of thoughts that are enumerated in interrogative form for the proponents of the Socialist Revolution to reflect upon and to bring before public domain their views on the same so that the inquisitive and uninitiated individuals can get an idea of the same .These train of thoughts or queries are not exhaustive and complete .All others are encouraged to add further aspects for which they feel that clarification is required from the proponents of the socialist revolution

1) Will there be any change in the production process in the Socialist Stage and in the Capitalist mode
2) Will the pace of automation and Mechanisation increased in the Socialist stage
3)Will the intrest of the micro , small , medium
enterprises and the peasents with small land holdings be protected in the Socialist Stage .Or will the pace of proliterisation of the aforementioned group of people along with all those who are involved in self employment be accelerated in the socialist stage .
4) Will there be private ownership in the Socialist Stage
5) Will there be any change in the state machinery and its control in the Socialist stage and in Capitalism
6) The focus in the Socialist stage will be on the enhancement of production or will the thrust be in distribution and distributive justice
8)Will there be any change in the level of the individual worker, with respect to the working conditions and standard of living in the socialist stage and the Capitalism
9) What will be the intent of production in socialism ,will it be profit through exchage or will it be the production for use (In other words will commodity production hold sway in Socialist Stage)
10) Will the Percentage of population engaged in agriculture increase in the Socialist stage or will it get reduced
11) Will the pace of urbanisation increase in the socialist stage or will it get reduced .
12) Can the welfare policies that are implemented in the advanced nations (Scandinavia ,Canada typical examples) be part of the Socialist stage .In other words how the socialist state  differs from the welfare states of the aforementioned nations
13) Will labour intensive production techniques be promoted in socialism or will capital intensive production techniques be promoted

14) Will global rate of return on capital have any significance in the Socialist stage
15) The policy of taxing the rich and wealthy for helping the toiling masses be a policy paradigm in the socialist stage
16) What will be the primary focus of government expenditure in the socialist stage will it be on infrastructure build up like roads ,bridges ,rail network ,ports ,powerplants ,local and long distance transport networks or will it be on social sector spending like education , health care etc
17) Will there be tarifs and duties for trans national trade  in the socialist stage
18) Will there be restrictions on the investment from outside the geographical boundaries of the nation state in the socialist stage
19) Will there be freedom of religion during the socialist stage
20) Will the relationship between other nations based on moral ,ethical and ideological doctrine or will it be based on the economic interests (trade ,commerce , investment)of the people of the nation

21) What will be the extent to which the freedom of expression (including the freedom of press) will be permitted in the socialist stage

Anoop Nobert

Understanding fundamental of Marxism

Dear Naren,

You may not agree that classical political economy, is predominantly occupied only with the directly intended social effects of human actions connected with production and exchange. But if you see objectively, all around in public or private discourses issues are prices, wages, tariffs, investment policies, maritime rights, strategies for coalitions and domination in regions having natural resources and their exploitation, GDP and equitable distribution etc, all related directly or indirectly with production and distribution of goods and services. 

When one wants to judge someone or something correctly, one needs to be objective and keep his prejudices aside. If you want to study Marxism scientifically you need to pay attention to the idea being expressed irrespective of who is the person expressing the idea. Since Marxism is a philosophy to begin with and is termed as scientific world outlook by all those who have tried to understand it, I shall be using text and ideas of such people but without giving their names, lest prejudice for a name may affect your objectivity. You judge yourself whether the string of ideas fits into your scientific outlook or not. If we agree on an idea we accept it and move on. If we disagree on an idea we dissect it into smaller strings and follow the same rule of accepting if agreed, if not, further dissect and discuss in parts. 

There  is  no  royal  road  to  science,  and  only  those  who do not  dread the fatiguing  climb of  its  steep paths  have  a chance  of  gaining  its  luminous summits.

Just because it is a living philosophy with innumerable concrete applications, its full power and importance can only be gradually understood, when we see it applied to history, science, or whatever field of study interests us most. For this reason a reader whose concern lies primarily in the political or economic field will come back to his main interest a better dialectical materialist, and therefore a clearer-sighted politician or economist, after studying how Marx and Engels applied Dialectics to Nature.

If your interest does not lie in political field, don't try to understand Marxism through political discussions. Trie to understand how dialectics of nature apply to your field of interest and see whether you get better concurrence between your preconceptions and results of practice. May be you are following the Dialectical analysis without realising it. Need is to apply it consciously so that you become conversant with the dialects which will help you not only in correctly understanding Marxism, but also in getting better concurrence in not only in your field of interest but in every other field also.

Marx had a very open minded approach to everything which he expressed thus, ‘Every  opinion  based  on  scientific  criticism  I  welcome.  As  to  prejudices  of  so-called  public opinion,  to  which  I  have  never  made  concessions,  now  as  aforetime  the  maxim  of  the  great Florentine  is mine:   ―Segui  il  tuo corso,  e lascia  dir  le genti.‖   [Follow  your  own course, and let  people talk  –  paraphrased  from  Dante]’   

What makes living organisms different from non-living ones? Two basic characteristics, first the former take material from surroundings to preserve own body since birth till death and second they procreate their own replica before they die. Natural scientists agree that life evolved on earth from non living matter some 3.7 billion years ago as single cell organism and after a series of evolutionary process man evolved from ape some 3.5 million years ago. 

Hand in hand with the development of the brain went the development of its most immediate instruments - the sense organs. Just as the gradual development of speech is inevitably accompanied by a corresponding refinement of the organ of hearing, so the development of the brain as a whole is accompanied by a refinement of all the senses.

This further development did not reach its conclusion when man finally became distinct from the monkey, but, on the whole, continued to make powerful progress, varying in degree and direction among different peoples and at different times, and here and there even interrupted by a local or temporary regression. This further development has been strongly urged forward, on the one hand, and has been guided along more definite directions on the other hand, owing to a new element which came into play with the appearance of fully-fledged man, viz. society.

Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.

The production of life, both of one's own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship.  By social we understand the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end. It follows from this that a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of co-operation is itself a “productive force”.

The  old  economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when  they  likened them  to the laws of  physics  and chemistry. A more thorough analysis  of  phenomena  shows  that  social  organisms differ  among themselves  as  fundamentally  as  plants or  animals.

When, therefore, it is a question of investigating the driving powers which -- consciously or unconsciously, and indeed very often unconsciously -- lie behind the motives of men who act in history and which constitute the real ultimate driving forces of history, then it is not a question so much of the motives of single individuals, however eminent, as of those motives which set in motion great masses, whole people, and again whole classes of the people in each people; and this, too, not merely for an instant, like the transient flaring up of a straw-fire which quickly dies down, but as a lasting action resulting in a great historical transformation. To ascertain the driving causes which here in the minds of acting masses and their leaders -- to so-called great men -- are reflected as conscious motives, clearly or unclearly, directly or in an ideological, even glorified, form -- is the only path which can put us on the track of the laws holding sway both in history as a whole, and at particular periods and in particular lands. Everything which sets men in motion must go through their minds; but what form it will take in the mind will depend very much upon the circumstances.

With  the varying  degree  of  development  of  productive power, social  conditions  and  the  laws governing  them  vary  too. Whilst  Marx  sets himself the  task  of  following  and explaining  from  this point  of  view the  economic system established by  the  sway  of  capital, he  is  only  formulating, in a strictly  scientific manner, the  aim  that  every  accurate investigation  into  economic life must  have. The  scientific value of  such  an inquiry  lies in  the  disclosing  of  the special  laws that  regulate  the  origin, existence, development, death  of  a given social  organism and its  replacement  by  another  and higher  one.

The  value-form,  whose  fully  developed shape  is  the  money-form,  is  very  elementary  and  simple.  Nevertheless,  the  human  mind  has  for more  than  2,000  years  sought  in  vain  to  get  to  the  bottom  of  it  all,  whilst  on  the  other  hand,  to  the successful  analysis  of  much  more  composite  and  complex  forms,  there  has  been  at  least  an approximation.  Why?  Because  the  body,  as  an  organic  whole,  is  more  easy  of  study  [discernible because its size being within the capabilities of human senses] than  are  the cells  of  that  body.  In  the  analysis  of  economic  forms,  moreover,  neither  microscopes  nor chemical  reagents are of  use. The force of  abstraction  must  replace both. But  in bourgeois  society, the commodity-form  of  the product  of  labour  –  or  value-form  of  the commodity  –  is the economic cell-form.  To  the  superficial  observer,  the  analysis  of  these  forms  seems  to  turn  upon  minutiae.  It does  in  fact  deal  with  minutiae,  but  they  are  of  the  same  order  as  those  dealt  with  in  microscopic anatomy.

As  early  as  1871,  N.  Sieber,  Professor  of  Political Economy  in  the  University  of  Kiev,  in  his  work  ‘David  Ricardo‘s  Theory  of  Value  and  of Capital’,  referred  to  Marx’  theory  of  value,  of  money  and  of  capital,  as  in  its  fundamentals  a necessary  sequel  to  the  teaching  of  Smith  and  Ricardo. This is why I asked you to analyse and understand your self, ‘what is value’ before you embark upon understanding Marxism as political economy - the science of human society. And you must understand the Dialectical relationship between ‘being and consciousness’ before you embark upon understanding Marxism as Philosophy - the science of human thoughts and ideas.

Looking forward to your reaction

With warm regards

Suresh

20 March, 2019

Human, under feudalism and capitalism

(On 23/04/16, 03:17:20: Anoop Nobert wrote: "Sir,in Your discussion with Mr Ajay Kabir dated ,15 th April You have stated that hero worship ,individual worship & choosing & fostering one's own icon is an attribute of Feudalism. But sir can the idea of an independent individual not depending on society ( individualism) generate in human consciousness without the advent of Capitalist mode of production? So isn't individualism an offshoot of Capitalism rather than of Feudalism?")

Dear Anup,

To understand the complexity of individual thought process and ideas in present day Indian society, you need to understand the dialectics of human-consciousness and social-consciousness, and the dialectical relationship between the two.
Human consciousness is to be seen as a set of information stored in the brain which is being processed and modified continuously through a complex phenomenon of intermixing of information already available within and being received from environment. The processing and modifications of information are done through transfer of electro-chemical signals between neurons, nerves and sensory organs; in three separate but closely interlinked areas, subconscious and conscious on two ends and intellect in between.
Though the neurons are fixed in numbers and locations, the number of paths of communication between neurons - synaptic gaps - is not fixed but is varying all the time which makes the neural network far more complex than the internet networks which we all are familiar with, paths of which are fixed.
Further, presence of three separate areas of processing, sub-conscious, conscious and intellect, makes human consciousness qualitatively different from animal awareness. In animal awareness the communication of information is back and forth, one dimensional exchange of information, between two nodal areas, sub-conscious and conscious. In human consciousness, the presence of three nodal areas and varying routes between them makes exchange of information multidimensional, far more complex and qualitatively different.
Because of the presence of intellect, human consciousness is capable of creating varied ideas with the same set of information, which endows it with the capability of conceiving things which it has not perceived or in other words imagine things which are not yet in existence, and then it can transform the existing information into new ideas and material things on the basis of imagination and flexing of muscles and limbs.
This capability of imagining and creating something new made it possible for humans to express ideas through spoken words, thus creating spoken and written languages, which no other animal could do. The biological instinct of humans for production of material life collectively with labour, and exchange of information through language, developed a new living organism - 'Society', a living organism without any physical form of its own but having consciousness and characteristics of living human beings. Thus society is not a biological physical formation but is purely ideological formation which resides only in the thought process and ideas of humans. Being a collective thought process of humans, the society also has three tier consciousness - the material-social-consciousness in the form of culture or the way of life of people depending upon their production-distribution relations, the ideological-social-consciousness or the creative ideological activities in the form of art, music, literature etc., and the intellect or logical thought process creating ideologies affecting the political-economy, revealing secrets of nature and  developing scientific knowledge and creating technologies, and transforming the socio-economic structure.
Humans with their individual activities, affect the society through the combined effect of their individual and collective efforts, and the society affects humans individually through the result of the organised activity. A group is to be seen as the manifestation of collective consciousness of its members who are bound by the idea of a common goal and activities to achieve that goal. In view of complexity of society, there are multiple organisations with diverse goals, with separate and overlapping interests. Therefore there will be different sets of people acting as carriers of social consciousness of different ideological formations, with lot of segregation, cross-linking and overlapping. Every individual acts as an entity, housing individual consciousness and social consciousness of multiple groups simultaneously. Another thing also has to be kept in mind is that the rate of change and development of social consciousness is far slower compared to the rate of that of individuals. Thus a person may appear to be having many progressive and retrograde ideas at the same time.  
Feudal mode of production depends on division of labour on the basis of skill. A producer of a product, who needs various products for consumption, depends on products of others' specialised labour. He sees others' labour as more valuable than his own. Since production is at a very small scale and the product is owned by the labourer, communication between various producers is at personal level and people tend to be more cooperative. Raw material and natural resources are the property of individual lords and kings who are seen as representatives of God. Workers and peasants see rich people as special and superior to themselves. This is the root for hero-worship and icons.
In capitalist mode of production, the skill is transferred to machines and the worker has to provide simple uniform labour power to run and control the machine. He is no more owner of instruments of production and does not own any product. Only thing which he owns is the money which he gets as wages from the capitalist. He does not see others' labour different from his own. He sees that everything is available in the market and there is no discrimination between purchasers. Anyone can buy anything depending upon the money one has.
Religion as an organised ideological product originates from the feudal mode of production, but continues to be an integral part of social consciousness even under capitalist mode of production, though in a modified form, because capitalism also finds it useful in providing credence to the myth that profit is not produced by human labour.
I do not see any mystery that humans who amalgamate into society through empathy,  disintegrate into family and then monads, as mode of production transforms from tribal to feudal and then to capitalist mode of production.

Suresh Srivastava
3 May, 2016

Land acquisition, to be or not to be

Land acquisition, to be or not to be

  Land acquisition, to be or not to be, is the issue before the government, political parties, social activists and socially conscious intellectuals, and everyone seems to be addressing the issue with myopic vision and prejudices.
  Unlike other living beings, who consume necessaries in their natural form, humans produce necessaries of life by transforming natural resources provided by the mother earth into useable form with their individual and collective labour power. During this production process, humans learn more about the laws of nature and use this knowledge for improving efficiency and productivity of human labour and Mother Earth.
  Earth provides not only crops and minerals as raw material for production, but land also for housing infrastructure and industries for productive activities. When a piece of land is good for a single category of activity then there is no problem but when a piece of land can be put to various uses, there can be a conflict of interests and in such a situation, normally the rate of return on the perceived cost of the land will decide the land use.
  A problem arises when the land is owned in parts separately by different people. Land divided in small plots, say few hundred square meters, though owned by different individuals may still be suitable for agriculture, but for infrastructure or industry a minimum size of land, few to hundreds of hectares may be required and if such land is owned by different individuals, then there is problem because of differing perceptions about the cost of land. Those who are politically or economically more powerful may demand a much higher price for parting with their piece of land or may refuse at all, rendering the infrastructure or industrial development prohibitively costly and unviable.
  Only government is in a position to consolidate, by acquisition through enactment of appropriate law, fragmented plots into minimum land mass necessary for the infrastructure or industrial development. But successive governments have been failing to enact appropriate law because on one hand they have been guided by the interests of powerful sections and not of the  weaker sections. On the other hand, in land acquisition, the interests of land owning feudal class and the interests of industry developing capitalist class are antagonistic and government of the day does not know how to resolve this contradiction.
  When agricultural land is converted into industrial or commercial use, its value increases or in other words ' surplus value is created '. This surplus value must belong to the society and not to any individual, landlord or industrialist. If government formulates policies to utilise this surplus value  for the benefit of the society at large, the riddle of land acquisition and industrial development will be solved.

Suresh Srivastava
16 July 2015

MAKE IN INDIA, WITH CAUTION

MAKE IN INDIA, WITH CAUTION


Mr Rohit Azad, teaching Economics at JNU, on his blog wrote an article criticising Prof Jagdish Bhagwati's article published in Economic Times of 9 January 2015. While Prof Bhahwati made a strong case for PM Modi's 'Make in India' and (sell abroad), Mr Rohit opposes an export driven approach, claiming it to be in contradiction with a domestic demand driven approach. Both authors seem to be missing that in today's world, both domestic and export markets are inter-related and capital is interested in maximisation of rate of return only. Below are comments by Mr Suresh Srivastava.
_________________________________

Mr Rohit Azad's article 'Prof. Bhagwati's has got it wrong' appeared on 9 January 2015 on rohitazad.wordpress.com.
__________________________________

Suresh commented on January 11, 2015

Lenin had observed that ‘in view of the extreme complexity of the phenomena of social life it is always possible to select any number of examples or separate data to prove any proposition.’ Present day neo-Marxists, with their petty bourgeois consciousness, fail to understand ‘value’ correctly with its form and content and hence, consider capitalist mode of production and capitalism, synonymous. They choose data and arguments at will, to prove what they want to prove. Evaluating ‘Make in India’ per say, in isolation with domestic and international Socio-economic formations, is a futile exercise.
___________________

Rohit replied on 12 January 2015

So, are you suggesting that what is proved here is wrong? Instead of prices, you can use the labour theory to prove exactly the same set of assertions, so please let me know where is the argument wrong? By the way I have not used any data to prove any thing here.
______________________

Suresh commented on 14 January 2015

In modern world, with the development of technology, boundaries have broken down for products and money, which can travel across the globe, wherever needed, in no time, and commodities and capital have become truly global. But to produce any commodity, human labour power can be expanded only where the worker is present, and hence creation of value in manufacturing or in distribution will continue to be local.
Newly created value is split into two parts, wages and surplus value. Wages have to be disbursed locally to the worker. Surplus value is shared amongst various owners of the assets and of money or, means of production needed to set the labour power into motion to create new value. The share in the surplus value could be termed rent, interest, profit etc. The surplus value in the form of money is free from any geographical constraints and can move globally at will.
Sharing of the surplus among various players depends upon their respective strengths, and the state as a moderator between various conflicting classes is the most powerful arbiter. Whosoever can influence a state within the national boundaries or various states globally, will get the larger share in the surplus produced nationally or globally.
Every effort to increase efficiency and productivity of human labour through cooperation and large scale production is innate quality of human society, and hence liberalisation of economies for globalisation is progressive and must be supported. Marx in his speech on 9th January 1848 before Democratic Association of Brussels stressed, 'But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade.'
The problem is in individual, disproportionate appropriation rather than social appropriation of the surplus value, which is produced collectively.
Any effort to oppose the natural forward movement of global integration of various national economies is counter-progressive and reactionary. Every effort to curtail the share of private appropriation and to augment the share of social appropriation of the surplus produced, is progressive and revolutionary.
Every socially conscious intellectual, who understands Marxism as a scientific world outlook, must support globalisation to ensure large scale production and distribution, and must participate in every movement which may push for collective ownership of resources rather than for individual ownership and may augment share of social appropriation of the surplus value produced.
In his famous pamphlet 'Marxim and Revisionism', written in 1908 on Marx's 90th birth anniversary, Lenin warned, 'Whoever does not understand the inevitable inner dialectics of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy—which leads to an even sharper decision of the argument by mass violence than formerly—will never be able on the basis of this parliamentarism to conduct propaganda and agitation consistent in principle, really preparing the working-class masses for victorious participation in such “arguments”.' CPC, with correct understanding of Marxim, was able to follow Lenin's warning to understand correctly the contradictions in the Chinese Society, and to evolve the concept of 'New Democracy' as elaborated by Mao in his famous pamphlet. 90 years of the history of CPC in successfully leading the Chinese people through revolutionary transformation of Chinese society on socialist path testifies relevance of Lenin's warning.
In the same pamphlet, characterising revisionism, Lenin observed, 'Needless to say, this applies to bourgeois science and philosophy, officially taught by official professors in order to befuddle the rising generation of the propertied classes and to “coach” it against internal and foreign enemies.' And the history of 90 years of communist movement in India, which, in the absence of correct understanding of Marxism, first disintegrated into more than 40 fragments and the fragments now trying unsuccessfully for unprincipled unification, testifies Lenin's observation.
For more on my views on left movement in India, please see my various articles on my blogs 'marxdarshan.blogspot.com' and 'marx-darshan.blogspot.com' and old issues of Hindi quarterly 'Marx Darshan'.

Suresh Srivastava
14 January 2015

Recasting Caste – Utopian and Scientific

Recasting Caste – Utopian and Scientific

(Suresh Srivastava)

I normally do not involve myself in any discussion on the proposition of convergence of class and caste, and am apprehensive whether any fruitful result can be achieved by identifying caste as class, because the discussants are normally petty bourgeois pseudo left intellectuals, who are not trained to think dialectically, hence there are arguments only and no discussions. But after reading the article written by Mr Asit Das, titled THE REAL WORLD OF CASTE IN INDIA, as a prefatory to Mr Hira Singh’s RECASTING CASTE, and circulated on a group of socially conscious young intellectuals, I could not restrain myself from intervening. Need of the time is to provide socially conscious young intellectuals every opportunity to help them develop a dialectical reasoning and scientific outlook so that some of them could play the historical role of torch bearer for emancipation of the human society. And nothing could be more effective than to juxtapose dialectical and metaphysical interpretations about any phenomena exposing inherent contradiction in the metaphysical analysis.

Ever since Marx and Engels enunciated the theory of dialectical and historical materialism, and on the basis of that theory suggested a revolutionary praxis for the working class, in the form of ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’, multipronged attack by bourgeois intellectuals was unleashed against the theory. When bourgeois intellectuals failed in their frontal attack to contain the spread of Marxist ideas among the working masses all over the world, they chose to sabotage the theory from within, by obfuscating the core content of the Marxist theory, importing numerous metaphysical concepts, in the name of developing Marxism in line with ever developing society.

In last 175 years, plethoric documentation has been churned out by middle class left intellectuals, in the name of development of Marxism with reference to the modern and post modern stages of development. About any social phenomenon, first they choose an interpretation at will, and then to justify the veracity of their conclusions, conveniently gather some data and some quotations from Marx, and configure an analysis in a metaphysical manner to claim their interpretation to be dialectical. In the preface to his famous pamphlet ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’, Lenin categorically warned against this revisionist trend. He writes ‘In view of the extreme complexity of the phenomena of social life it is always possible to select any number of examples or separate data to prove any proposition.’

With their petty bourgeois consciousness, self-proclaimed Marxists fail to distinguish between dialectical approach and metaphysical approach, and feed the young minds with their utopian concepts in the name of scientific concept of socialism. In his preface to ‘Anti-Duhring’, Engels writes ‘And finally, to me there could be no question of building the laws of dialectics into nature, but of discovering them in it and evolving them from it’. Pseudo-Marxists, unable to comprehend the philosophical aspect of Marxian dialectics, fail to understand that the whole world of political, social and religious ideas of any class is a superstructure built on the infrastructure of material production relations between various classes, and which may appear to be completely unrelated with its foundation.     

Those leftists who propagate the idea that Marxist understanding of caste and Ambedkarite understanding of caste are convergent or that the caste shall be annihilated with class, have not been able to get themselves rid of their petty-bourgeois consciousness. Again in the above pamphlet, Lenin writes ‘For they are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working class movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class, real vehicles of reformism and chauvinism. …….. Unless the economic roots of this phenomenon are understood and its political and social significance is appreciated, not a step can be taken toward the solution of the practical problem of the communist movement and of the impending social revolution.’

If one has understood philosophical aspect of Marxism - which most of the leftists either do not understand or consider unimportant – one will be clear, that caste system is an ideological manifestation of, division of labour in the process of material production and relations of production, and hence question of caste cannot be solved in a predominantly feudal society but will fizzle out as division of labour fizzles out with the growth of capitalist mode of production.

Marx had identified that division of labour was based on the development of individual skills and on an individual providing specific kind of skilled labour power in the production of one particular kind of product. But production of one particular kind of goods was not confined to an individual or a family, in some areas like India, a whole community was producing one kind of product which is the basis of development of caste system in India. Even today a cast is identified by the kind of work the community has been doing.

Marx had further identified that ‘Upon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought, and views of life. The entire class creates and forms them out of its material foundations and out of the corresponding social relations.’ (Marx, XVIII Brumaire). Thus caste system developed on the material foundation of division of labour, but took the form of religion and social stratification with un-touchability. Caste system, like religion is an integral part of feudalism and continues even during the development of capitalism.

Marx did not deal with the subject of caste because he had realised that the cause of human woes is the private appropriation of surplus value produced by collective labour and he focused on finding how exploitation of man by man can be annihilated. Different classes and identities will be having their own specific problems at different stages of historical development, which will have to be dealt specifically by people of that particular era, but emancipation of human race as a whole will occur only when surplus produced collectively, is appropriated collectively.

Metaphysical view of Indian left is to assume that, in India, caste is synonymous to class because both have a common foundation in division of labour and hence class struggle and caste struggle are coterminous, and since annihilation of class is possible only with annihilation of capitalism, hence annihilation of cast is also possible with annihilation of capitalism only.

Dialectical view is that division of labour leads to production of commodities and division of society into classes. Within the domain of production workmen were divided between classes on the basis of skill, but, while in class structure individual workman is identified by the skill he acquires and becomes member of a class, in caste structure an individual is part of a caste, which is identified by the particular trade it follows, and the individual acquires the same skill. Because in caste structure division of labour was linked to birth, over a time, concept of caste became part of ideological consciousness of the particular class and integrated with religion.

In a feudal socio-economic formation castes and classes are synonymous because working masses are divided into various classes on the basis of skill. But with development of capitalist mode of production, machines take over the skill of the craftsmen and all workmen become simple wage labourer, and workmen hitherto divided into various classes converge into one class, proletariat and so will converge all castes into one oppressed class.

At social level there could be various oppressed groups e.g. ethnic groups, religious minorities, women and children, refugees etc., and at social level different groups may have to fight different battles, but at economic level there are only two classes, oppressed or oppressor, and at political level there has to be a united fight by all the oppressed people. Any identity politics will weaken the proletarian class struggle, and hence communists may be part of all social movements but shall not be in the forefront of social movements. Their task is to bring in political awareness among the masses through their participation in these social movements.

With due apologies to Mr Asit Das and Mr Hira Singh, I have to take up this ungrateful task of identifying the content in Mr Asit Das’ article which obfuscates Marxism, and appeal to the young intellectuals not to identify ideas with individuals, and rather dwell upon the idea forgetting the author, to guard against subjective understanding of the subject matter. I shall reproduce some of the phrases from the article which, in my opinion are contrary to Marxist thought, and leave it to the young readers’ reasoning.   

·                     The annihilation of caste is intrinsically related with the abolition of class rule in India.

·                     Identification of India with caste and reduction of caste to its religious essence is a product of the colonial process of essentialization.

·                     Hence, caste is very much an important component of Indian politics, and it is a reality which no sensible Marxist can afford to overlook.

·                     Communists should be in the forefront in the fight against caste, gender, racial, national and ethnic oppressions. One need not miss the wood for the tree. In the light of above arguments, Hira Singh’s book “Recasting Caste” is a serious Marxist intervention in the contemporary caste debates. 

·                     In India, in the era of Mandal and Kamandal politics, caste has assumed an overwhelming importance both in politics and in the Academia.(The result of XVI Lok Sabha elections shows that caste has not assumed an overwhelming importance in politics, rather it is waning. In Academia, yes of course, because it suits the existing system.) 

·                     Delineate a strategy for a classless and casteless society.

·                     The question whether caste is infrastructure or superstructure is redundant.

·                     It is here that the Marxist and Ambedkarite project of ‘annihilation of castes’ converge.

·                     And it is here that the political project of Ambedkarites and the political left converges.

While fighting against revisionism in Russuian communist movement, in 1902, Lenin wrote his famous pamphlet ‘What is to be done’ and in the preface he writes, ‘But the confusion and vacillation which constitute the distinguishing feature of an entire period in the history …….. [may be read as history of 90 years of Indian communist movement]; ………. also acquires significance, for we can make no progress until we have completely put an end to this period.’

I hope Indian Marxist will pay heed to Lenin’s teachings.

Suresh Srivastava

15 July, 2014