On Overproduction
(WDIE reply to reader’s query, continued from issues
No. 14 and No. 18, January 27
and February 2)
Having examined in concrete terms what is the context of the
redundancies of 650 workers at Fort Dunlop and the "restructuring"
world-wide of which it is a part, let us for a moment dwell on the analysis of
the phenomenon of overproduction in the writings of the leaders of the world
proletariat, of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
When Marx and Engels were writing the Manifesto of the
Communist Party, the "Communist Manifesto", published in 1848, it
would be 50 years before capitalism, developing according to the economic laws
of motion which Marx himself discovered in their scientific form, was poised to
enter its final stage of imperialism. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of
overproduction was a marked feature of capitalism in the mid-19th century.
Marx and Engels write:
"Modern bourgeois society with its relations of
production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such
gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no
longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by
his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but
the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions
of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the
existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the
commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time
more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these
crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the
previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these
crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have
seemed an absurdity – the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly
finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a
famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of
subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there
is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too
much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend
to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the
contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are
fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into
the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property.
The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth
created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one
hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by
the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old
ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive
crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented."
This passage underlines that is the "relations of
production, of exchange and of property" in capitalist society, the
"property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the
bourgeoisie and of its rule" – relations which still prevail today
and which have become extremely stagnant, anachronistic, retrogressive and
destructive – which underlie the crises caused by overproduction.
Or take this passage from Frederick Engels’
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, where he is briefly sketching
capitalist society:
"… Production has become a social act.
Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of
individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual
capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions
in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to
light.
"… Unbridled competition. Contradiction
between socialised organisation in the individual factory and social anarchy in
production as a whole.
"… unheard-of development of productive
forces, excess of supply over demand, over-production, glutting of the markets,
crises every ten years, the vicious circle: excess here, of means of production
and products – excess there, of labourers, without employment and without
means of existence. But these two levers of production and of social well-being
are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents
the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless
they are first turned into capital – which their very superabundance
prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity. The mode of
production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange. The bourgeoisie
are convicted to incapacity further to manage their own social productive
forces.
"… Partial recognition of the social character
of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of
the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock
companies, later on by trusts, then by the state. The bourgeoisie demonstrated
to be a superfluous class…
"…Proletarian Revolution – Solution of the
contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this
transforms the socialised means of production, slipping from the hands of the
bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means
of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives
their socialised character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialised
production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth
possible…"
With the growth of capitalism into monopoly capitalism and
imperialism, all the contradictions of capitalism are aggravated to the
extreme; the necessity for revolution to resolve these problems, far from
becoming an increasingly remote prospect, becomes the issue of the day, the
problem taken up for solution. The development of large-scale production, the
relentless concentration of production and capital in fewer hands, the growth
of finance capital, the export of capital around the world, the division of the
world amongst the imperialist powers – none of this has negated the basic
economic laws of capitalism discovered by Marx. The present objective
conditions only reconfirm the validity of Marx’s analysis and point even
more forcibly to the need for the working class to resolve the contradictions
of capitalism by seizing the "public power".
When capitalism had proceeded to the stage of monopoly
capitalism, Lenin showed that the economic laws of motion of capitalism, far
from being eliminated, were still governing its development. Capital and
production had been concentrated on a large scale, and this had intensified the
class antagonisms. In his monumental work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism, Lenin described how capitalism had developed into the stage of
monopoly capitalism, capitalist imperialism. He showed how the features of
monopoly capitalism, its moribund and parasitic character, had developed on the
basis of the economic laws discovered by Marx: the growth of concentration of
capital and production and the emergence of monopolies; the development of
finance capital through the merging of industrial capital and bank capital
under the domination of the banks; the export of capital; and the division of
the world among the capitalist monopolies and the imperialist powers. He
described imperialism as the stage of capitalism when the revolution is the
order of the day, the problem taken up for solution. In particular, Lenin
analysed the operation of the basic economic law of capitalism under modern
conditions of monopoly capitalism and concluded that the capitalists seek
maximum profits by exacting tribute from every cell of the society.
Lenin writes:
"Official science tried, by a conspiracy of
silence, to kill the works of Marx, who by a theoretical and historical
analysis of capitalism proved that free competition gives rise to the
concentration of production, which, in turn, at a certain stage of development,
leads to monopoly. Today monopoly has become a fact."
He goes on:
"Cartels come to an agreement on the conditions of
sale, terms of payment, etc. They divide the markets among themselves. They fix
the quantity of goods to be produced. They fix prices. They divide the profits
among the various enterprises, etc."
And further:
"Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The
result is immense progress in the socialisation of production. In particular,
the process of technical invention and improvement becomes socialised.
"… Production becomes social, but
appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the
private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognised free
competition remains, but the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the
population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and
intolerable.
"… The statement that cartels can abolish
crises is a fable spread by bourgeois economists who at all costs desire to
place capitalism in a favourable light. On the contrary, monopoly which is
created in certain branches of industry, increases and intensifies the
anarchy inherent in capitalist production as a whole…
"Crises of every kind – economic crises most
frequently, but not only these – in their turn increase very considerably
the tendency towards concentration and towards monopoly…"
The concentration and centralisation of production and
capital have continued apace since Lenin was writing in 1916. They have
deepened the exploiting nature of imperialism at the same time as leading to an
even more extensive socialisation of production. At its current stage of
development, the entire society is made to pay tribute to the rich, and the
governments finance the rich on a continuous basis. Society is completely
dominated by the financial oligarchy. The capitalist system has long since
moved from the boom and bust economy on a ten-year cycle described by Engels.
When production has been socialised to the maximum, when the conditions are
crying out that the relations of production must be revolutionised and the
ownership of the means of production socialised, for the working class to
constitute itself as the nation and institute a planned socialist economy, the
apologists for the system are calling for more globalisation, for all
opposition to the domination by the financial oligarchy to be ended. But to
take society out of its crisis, the motive of production itself must be changed
and the direction of the economy made to serve the needs of the people.
(to be continued)
