Controlling Soviet Labour

Bob Arnot

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315493237
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Business
• Categoria: Business generale

With a growing population, deteriorating economic conditions, and an unstable imperial centre, Soviet Central Asia would seem destined to become a trouble spot. Instead Islamic traditionalism has survived and flourished in Central Asia. This book looks at the reasons why.

Part I
Social Relations of Production and Economic Problems in the USSR

1 The Surplus and Class Structure

The aim of political economy is to explain the predominant mode of production within the socio-economic system under consideration; to explain how it has developed, how it presently functions and how it may develop in the future. It is, therefore, an attempt to comprehend a dynamic process which is neither finished nor static, but is characterised by motion and change. Furthermore, the subject matter is often contradictory and complex, with superficial similarities to other periods of time and other social systems. It is for this reason that the mechanical transposition of categories from one social system to another, on the basis of little or one-sided empirical knowledge, as already noted, is doomed to failure. However, there are elements of methodology which are ahistorical and applicable to all epochs, and from a Marxist perspective these provide the starting point.

The key to understanding the nature of the social system and its mode of production is the socially produced surplus (Marx, 1983, p. 85). This is based upon the notion that purposive human activity, particularly when carried out in cooperation with others, acts upon nature and can produce more than is necessary to simply reproduce human life (Marx, 1977a, p. 315; 1977c, p. 818). Marx (1977a, pp. 208-9) identifies, as a consequence, a division within labour time between necessary labour (necessary labour time), that is, labour socially necessary to reproduce the direct producer, and surplus labour (surplus labour time), that is labour over and above necessary labour, when the direct producer produces not for himself but for another or others. This idea of a socially produced surplus, based upon surplus labour time, is therefore, according to Marx, a nonhistorical category (1977c, p. 819).

Capital has not invented surplus labour. Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the labourer, free or not free, must add to the working time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production (1977a, p. 226).

The basic antagonistic relationship, therefore, in any hierachically structured social system, is between the direct producers of the surplus and the controllers of the surplus once extracted. This relationship is fundamental to all hitherto known class societies. However, the actual form of surplus extraction will differ between different historical modes of production.

The essential difference between the various economic forms of society, between for instance, a society based upon slave labour, and one based upon wage labour, lies only in the mode in which this surplus labour is in each case extracted from the actual producer, the labourer (Marx, 1977a, p. 209).

The nature of the extraction of the surplus will provide the general contours of the social system, its class structure.

The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself, and in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element (Marx, 1977c, p. 791).

For example, in societies based upon slavery the extraction of the surplus is direct and unfetishised, because the direct producers are the property of the class owners and function simply as an instrument of production (Marx, 1977a, p. 191; 1983, p. 98). The surplus is extracted in a relationship ultimately based upon force and the class structure can be identified around this process, slave and non-slave. As Marx (1977a, p. 505) points out, it appears as if the whole of the slave's labour is unpaid work for the master and the onus is on the master to provide for the slave's reproduction. The relationship is one of complete dependency. In the end, any slave failing to fulfil his or her economic function can simply be disposed of and replaced, as well as being subject to barbarous conditions whilst working.

Under feudalism the nature of the surplus extraction process changes but is still direct and non-fetishised. As Marx (1977a, p. 81) suggests, under feudalism, 'we find everyone dependent, serfs and lords, vassals and suzerains, laymen and clergy. Personal dependence characterises the social relations of production'. Here the surplus is extracted via the medium of compulsory labour. The dependent labourer can clearly identify the magnitude of both surplus labour time, expended working for the owner of land (whether Lord or clergy), and the necessary labour time spent reproducing his own existence. There may develop a degree of independence within the surplus extraction process, which may even allow the labourer to generate a surplus of his own, but this is ultimately dependent upon his relationship with his master (Marx, 1977c, p. 790). This does differentiate the serf from the slave, but ultimately, both slave and serf labour can be viewed as 'an inorganic condition of production' (Marx, 1983, p. 489) and subject to the ultimate sanction of force to maintain their position in the surplus extraction process. It is only with the onset of the capitalist mode of production that these relationships are fundamentally changed.

Under the capitalist mode of production, the question of the surplus is more veiled than under previous modes of production. Capitalism relies not upon relationships of dependency but on particular forms of non-dependency, or freedoms: 'the economic structure of capitalist society has grown out of the economic structure of feudal society. The dissolution of the latter set free the elements of the former' (Marx, 1977a, p. 668). Free labourers, as Marx (1977a, p. 166) points out, are free in a double sense. They are no longer part of the means of production (as were slaves and serfs) but equally they do not own their own means of production. Their freedom from the fetters of feudalism also frees them from 'all the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal arrangements' (Marx, 1977a, p. 669). Consequently, capitalism ends dependency, custom and external extra-economic force as arbiters in the surplus extraction process, but it does not end that process itself, it simply transforms it, 'replacing feudal exploitation with capitalist exploitation' (Marx, 1977a, p. 669).

The free labourer, who is no longer an element of production, is, however, unable to make his labour concrete either in use-values to guarantee his own existence or in commodities to sell. As a consequence, to maintain his daily existence he is forced, (not by custom or direct force but by economic necessity), to sell the one commodity which he possesses, his capacity to work or labour power. This is sold to the owners of the means of production, for a specified period of time, in a freely contracted exchange.

The historical conditions of its [capital's] existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It can spring to life only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free labourer selling his labour power (Marx, 1977a, p. 167).

Labour power, however, is a peculiar commodity. It has an exchange value, determined by the socially necessary labour-time needed for its production and reproduction, but its use-value to the capitalist is its capacity to produce a surplus:

The value of labour power and the value that labour power creates in the labour process, are two entirely different magnitudes; and this difference of the two values was what the capitalist had in view, when he was purchasing the labour power (Marx, 1977a, p. 188).

In other words, the capitalist mode of production provides an economic motivation to both worker and capitalist. For one, necessity born out of freedom provides the impetus for alienated labour. For the other the desire to accumulate surplus value and capital is equally a necessity, because failure to do so threatens the individual capitalist's existence as an independent unit of capital (Marx, 1977a, p. 257 and p. 302). The capitalist labour process is not simply a process through which man acts upon nature to produce use-values, but a process of surplus extraction. Within the freely contradicted wage relationship between worker and capitalist (which ironically is an absolute necessity for both parties), an unpaid surplus is extracted; the major difference between this and previous forms of the surplus extraction process being that what was once open and obvious is now veiled in the apparent exchange of equivalents. As Rubin (1972, p. 5) points out, 'the theory of fetishism is, per se, the basis of Marx's entire economic system and in particular his theory of value'. And, as Perlman suggests, in his introduction to Rubin's book, the theory of value is essentially about 'the regulation of labour' (p. xxix).

Therefore, the mode of surplus extraction conditions the class structure of any social system. However, it should be recognised that at one and the same time class relations affect the nature and magnitude of the surplus. They are both determined and determining and interpenetrate one another. (This is just as much the case for feudal or slave-based societies as it is for capitalism.) The political economy of any mode of production is, therefore, the result of this process. The specific forms that develop reflect these fundamental relationships.

Analysis of the capitalist mode of production, therefore, begins at the level of the most basic economic relationship, within the labour process itself, identifying the manner in which the surplus is extracted from the direct producers. Under capitalism this would consist of analysis of the individual capitalist firm (Nichols and Beynon, 1977; Beynon, 1973). However, given that the productive capacities of capitalism have been so massively advanced by capitalism's necessary conquest of science and technology (Rose and Rose (eds), 1976; Braverman, 1974, pp. 157-67) why does the potential for production far outstrip actual production? (Baran, 1957, pp. 133-4).

Firstly, this is because production is social, but the surplus is appropriated individually by the owners of the means of production, and conflict is generated. This conflict manifests itself in the first instance in a reduction of production. It was precisely the aim of Taylor's scientific management (1947, p. 19) to break the 'systematic soldiering' of the workforce, through which workpace and output are deliberately reduced. This is supplemented by a lack of interest, on behalf of the workforce, in enhancing production capacities on the basis of their own initiative (Dubois, 1979, p. 51). Secondly, this form of resistance to the imperatives of surplus extraction necessitates the employment of a whole section of the employable population in activities of supervision and control, which, whilst they are functional to the class of owners, are not directly socially productive. Marx (1977a, p. 496), for example, points out that, because of the anarchic nature of capitalism, it generates 'a vast number of employments, at present indispensable but in themselves superfluous'. The purchase of labour power, after all, only gives the purchaser the possibility of extracting a surplus. Once purchased for the specific period of time, that potentiality has to be turned into a reality. As Braverman (1974, p. 67) suggests,

Under the special and new relations of capitalism, which presuppose a free labour contract, they [capitalists] had to extract from their employees that daily conduct which would best serve their interests, to impose their will upon workers whilst operating a labour process on a voluntary contractual basis.

Consequently, 'the capitalist strives through management to control' (Braverman, 1974, p. 68). This necessitates the employment of foremen, overseers and layers of management responsible for control functions, whose job it is to see that an actual surplus is produced within the labour process.

Furthermore, the volume of the surplus will be affected by the ability of the direct producers to resist these attempts at control and to assert their own forms of control over the labour process. Dubois (1979), uses the term sabotage to describe a series of activities undertaken by workers as a response to their particular work circumstances under the capitalist mode of production. These activities range from active, illegal forms like vandalism, arson and theft to more subtle and less active elements, like go-slow, absenteeism, working without interest, enthusiasm or initiative. A wide range of examples of these activities can be found in Dubois (1979, pp. 21-59) and Friedman (1977, pp. 51-2).

Dubois's use of the term 'sabotage' for these activities does not appear to me to be particularly appropriate, as the term implies specific physical acts to halt the production process. It would be more appropriate to describe this resistance as forms of 'negative control' operated by the workforce over the labour process. This response either seeks to minimise the worker's participation in a necessary but alien system of surplus extraction, or is simply an attempt to make tolerable the conditions under which the surplus is extracted (Dubois, 1979, pp. 51-79; Marglin, 1976, p. 34). The forms negative control may take can be individualised or collective, consciously co-ordinated or spontaneous. However, the end result is the same. A reduction in the surplus extracted by the capitalist because some portion of the final output has been either destroyed or rendered useless, or because the potential for surplus extraction has not been achieved. This would arise if the workforce reduced the intensity of its labour, thus cutting the relative surplus extracted or if they reduced the time spent working, thus cutting the absolute surplus extracted. In other words, the class structure of capitalism generates conflict, which conditions the surplus extracted at the level of the individual firm and provides the objective basis of class struggle. This means the day-to-day struggle around production, and not just its periodic manifestation in strikes, occupations, sit-ins, and so on (Nichols and Beynon, 1977, pp. 133—46; Watson, 1971).

From the point of view of the individual capitalist, this necessitates a series of strategies which seek to limit the degree of negative control exerted by the working class. It seems futile to argue that any one strategy is the embodiment of capitalist rationality, as different strategies will predominate at different times and could well co-exist, both within different sectors of the economy or even within the same firm (Thompson, 1984, p. 151). It is more likely that the individual capitalist will adopt the strategy thought appropriate in differing circumstances. This will depend upon the nature of the production process, the level of technology, the level of worker organisation and the sophistication of worker responses, the degree of necessary autonomous initiative, the market conditions that the individual firm faces and so on. All these features will interact to produce the specific strategy. Presumably a firm operating in a market characterised by restricted competition, in a period of high unemployment, will adopt different strategies to a firm in a strongly competitive market, in a period of full employment. This needs qualification, as it cannot be assumed that the choice of strategy is always correct, nor does it assume that the range of choices is limitless. The reason for this latter point is that the struggle over the generation and control of the surplus manifests itself not only at the level of the individual capitalist's relationship with his own workforce, (that is, around the labour process) but also at the level of the class relationship between the capitalist class and the working class and within different fractions of the capitalist cl...