CAPITALISM IN INDIA (ZOOM)

A new report from Oxfam, ‘Takers not Makers’ details the wealth stripping by states in colonial exploitation.

From the introduction, ‘Billionaire wealth has risen three times faster in 2024 than 2023. Five trillionaires are now expected within a decade. Meanwhile, crises of economy, climate and conflict mean the number of people living in poverty has barely changed since 1990. Most billionaire wealth is taken, not earned- 60% comes from either inheritance, cronyism and corruption or monopoly power. Our deeply unequal world has a long history of colonial domination which has largely benefited the richest people. The poorest, racialized people, women and marginalized groups have and continue to be systematically exploited at huge human cost. Today’s world remains colonial in many ways. This system still extracts wealth from the Global South to the superrich 1% in the Global North at a rate of US$30million an hour. This must be reversed. Reparations must be made to those who were brutally enslaved and colonised. Our modern-day colonial economic system must be made radically more equal to end poverty. The cost should be borne by the richest people who benefit the most.’

It continues, ‘While the working class struggles to get by People living in poverty all over the world continue to face multiple crises… The election of Donald Trump as U.S. President in November 2024 gave a huge further boost to billionaire fortunes, while his policies are set to fan the flames of inequality further. In its most recent report on poverty, the World Bank calculates that if current growth rates continue and inequality does not decrease, it will take more than a century to end poverty. Conversely, the report shows that if we reduce inequality, poverty could be ended three times faster. While overall poverty rates have fallen across the world, the number of people living under the World Bank poverty line of US$6.85 (PPP) today is the same as it was in 1990: almost 3.6 billion people… Today this represents 44% of humanity. Meanwhile, in perverse symmetry, the richest 1% own almost an identical proportion – 45% of all wealth.18 One in ten women in the world lives in extreme poverty (below US$2.15 a day PPP); 24.3 million more women than men live in extreme poverty. Research by the World Bank also shows that only 8% of humanity lives in countries that have low inequality. Oxfam and Development Finance International’s findings in The Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index 2024 reveal negative trends in the vast majority of countries since 2022. Four in five have cut the share of their budgets going to education, health and/or social protection; four in five have cut progressive taxation; and nine in ten have regressed on labour rights and minimum wages. Without urgent policy actions to reverse this worrying trend, economic inequality will almost certainly continue to rise in 90% of countries.23 Countries are facing bankruptcy and being crippled by debt; they do not have the money to fund the fight against inequality. On average, low- and middle-income countries spend 48% of their budgets on debt repayments, often to rich private creditors based in New York and London. This is far more than their spending on education and health combined.’

Oxfam gives an example of colonialism exploitation using the UK and India: ‘Oxfam calculates that between 1765 and 1900, the richest 10% in the UK extracted wealth from India alone worth US$33.8 trillion in today’s money.’

Chapter five of the report offers Oxfam’s ‘solutions’ to eradicating poverty. Oxfam’s long list of ‘solutions’ include ensuring that ‘the incomes of the richest 10% are no higher than the poorest 40% globally. Tax the super-rich. Pay reparations for colonialism. Perpetrators of the crime of colonialism must pay compensation to the victims to ensure restitution, provide satisfaction, compensate for damages incurred, ensure rehabilitation and prevent future abuses.’

https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/Takers_Not_Makers_CbN1QBy.pdf

The report is worth reading for the statistics regarding billionaires wealth. Its demands as to how to achieve the reduction of the global poverty it highlights are pie in the sky however. The reader can judge for themselves the likelihood of any of these measures ever being implemented. The only rational and effective solution is obvious to followers of this blog.

The piece below from the December 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard details methods used by colonial states used their power to cement their hegemony.

‘The festering of tribalist, nationalist and racist sentiment are nurtured and sustained by the capitalist system

Within the context of neo-colonial statehood, tribalism is a colonial derivative based on matriarchal or patriarchal relations forged in the distant past and used by an ethnic group as a defensive and an offensive weapon against other groups. The position of some of those who see tribalism as the main cause of Africa’s present social and economic predicament follows a familiar pattern of thinking. The colonialists, according to them, tried to make a nation-state out of a hotch-potch of antagonistic and uncivilised African peoples but failed in their pious mission. The various tribes had age-long hatred for one another and as soon as the colonial power went the natives descended into barbarism maiming and killing each other.

Nationalists in Africa see the matter differently, painting idyllic pictures of the African past and blaming all the tribal conflicts that have erupted after independence solely on colonialism. This viewpoint is as historically incorrect as it is undialectical. Facts abound on how the internal evolution of some African communities before colonialism and mercantile capitalism had provided groups of people the opportunity to appropriate the labour of others, accumulate economic surplus and consequently subjugate other communities. This is a scenario that must have generated a certain level of tribal animosity and discrimination based on economic exploitation and wealth, even if this was on a minor scale compared with the situation in colonial times and the post-independence era. It was these differences that were deliberately and carefully nurtured by the colonialists, and later exploited by the neo-colonial bourgeoisie after independence to keep the people manacled to the capitalist system.

In colonial times

Colonialism whether it was of the British, Belgian, French or German variety was not meant to be a benign enterprise. The motive behind its establishment was one: the exploitation of labour and the accumulation of economic surplus. Consequently, the driving force behind it, capitalism, did not spare the exploitation of labour in both the metropolis and other lands even if it meant spilling blood to fulfil this sordid agenda.

This mercenary impulse had implied increased production, technological expansion, the growth of the external and domestic market and ultimately the annexation and political control of other territories. Tribal groups which stood in the way were, in colonial parlance, pacified. But if, as suggested in some quarters, the colonial enterprise had meant to pacify and carve out viable nation-states capable of competing with metropolitan capitalism, the monopolistic tendency and vampire essence of the profit system would have been still-born. Far from creating problems for itself, its policy towards the people of the colonies was guided by the trinitarian doctrine—atomisation, exploitation and domination. This unfolded in its pattern of social and economic investment in what came to be known as Ghana and before that as the Gold Coast.

British colonial policy encouraged investments in only those areas of the colony which were endowed with mineral and forest resources. This pattern of investment engendered considerable regional variations in terms of the provision of roads, railway lines and social services. Thus the Southern Sector which by virtue of its location abounded in timber, gold and fertile soil benefited far more in terms of infrastructural development than the Northern territories which did not have any known mineral resources. But even in the Southern part of the colony there was discrimination in the provision of amenities on the basis of the contribution to the exportable surplus. The pattern of investment that characterised British economic policy was not born out of any preference for the Asante over the Dagarti, but based on cold capitalist reasoning. After all, some minimum maintenance of workers’ health and education was a reasonable investment since it ensured the maximisation of the extraction of surplus from the worker; and the greedy capitalists by their calculations knew this too well.

How did this promote tribalism? By annexing the Gold Coast and putting the people in a subordinate status, the British colonial power froze any further evolution and consolidation of a national identity. For example, it destroyed the principal catalyst for achieving the unity of fragmented loyalties. Not only did colonialism deprive states like Benin, Oyo and Asante of all their principal vassals and tributary states, but it followed up the process of fragmentation by smashing the basis of the hegemonic power of these states thus giving full rein to all manner of divisive tendencies.

While pretending to be carrying out a mission of uniting the incorrigibly warring tribes British colonial policy consciously and systematically separated the various people, creating conflict and ill-will among them. The colonial government sometimes saw the value of stimulating tribal jealousies so as to keep the colonised from dealing with their principal opposition—the colonial and the emergent African bourgeoisie who together were milking the people.

By categorising the various linguistic subgroups in the Gold Coast—Frafra, Dagarti, Ninkarsi Kusaasi, Dagomba, Akyim, Asante and Fanti—as tribes the colonial regime began to nurture parochial and exclusivist consciousness among people who previously had regarded themselves as one. All official documents in colonial times, for example, required information on the place of origin and ethnic background of the individual. Names were thus suffixed with one’s tribal background and area of origin. Feeling regarded as a member of an ethnic group by others and that they would behave towards you accordingly, individuals began to feel the need to identify more closely with their “kith and kin” and to promote its interest relative to others.

Racist colonial ideology ignored the fact that the people of the Gold Coast shared a common heritage of colonial oppression and colonially-induced capitalist exploitation with its concomitant ills: poverty, ignorance, disease and malnutrition. As a result, its philosophy of determining the inferiority or superiority of a people in terms of the extent to which they had culturally imbibed all what the colonial establishment represented came to dominate the worldview of some Africans.

Colonial ideology and culture operated on the basis of a hierarchy of cultures in which that of the metropolitan bourgeoisie was supposed to be supreme. The culture of the country of origin of the metropolitan bourgeoisie therefore became the standard by which a people’s level of primitiveness or barbarism was determined. The more your thinking, values and mannerisms were close to the colonialists’ the more human you were; and by implication the further your behaviour and outlook were from the masters’ the less human you were. This explained why the rich and educated elite who were products of the colonial educational system did not answer questions in their African dialect but in English. They talked about the opera which they had never seen except from a distance, referred to winter and Buckingham Palace and, above all, adopted a critical attitude towards other Africans who they derogatively referred to as “bush people”.

But the idea of trying to approximate to the coloniser was not only to be found in the relations between the African and the European coloniser. Sometimes Africans tried to approximate their status to other Africans if they thought those individuals enjoyed a higher status. African ethnic groups which had a high number of educated and rich people within them as a result of their long contact with the coloniser tended to feel superior to others. Even if they were poor and illiterate they identified psychologically with those in their tribal group who were rich and educated. It did not matter to the poor Asante, Frafra or Ewe person if all of them were victims of crude exploitation by colonialism and the African bourgeoisie. In their minds, the identification with the tribal big boss and the fact that they came from the same ethnic background was enough, even if it did not ensure the enjoyment of a spoon of marmalade from the master’s table. These exclusivist and warped thinking explained why a poor Asante for example could feel deeply offended if he was mistaken for a Busanga or any other tribe. This not only lead to more barriers between the ethnic groups but effectively undermined their capacity to confront capitalist exploitation. The inter-ethnic struggle for superiority or at least to avoid the stigma of inferiority dissipated the energies of the people.

Tribalism today

The African bourgeoisie which assumed the mantle of power after colonial rule also did not fail to realise the usefulness of tribalism in the struggle against the African masses. Like racial violence in Europe, tribalism was a means to an end: deflecting the anger of the masses from the neo-colonial bourgeoisie and directing it at other members of the working class. In another sense it was the most convenient cover for the capitalist robbers who stole economic surplus from the working class and poor peasants. The attitude of the African bourgeoisie towards the colonial state that it inherited, therefore, was not that of dismantling and radically transforming the exploitative relations of production. It was guided by the desire to inherit the colonial state-machine and seek accommodation with international capital in the extraction of economic surplus from the working people. Consequently, post-independence politics in Africa has witnessed the arousal and manipulation of tribal passions and petty differences among ethnic groups, for the same sordid reasons that the bourgeoisie in Europe sometimes find convenient it to use racism.

The predatory character of capitalism coupled with the hollowness and hypocrisy of the African bourgeoisie created fertile conditions for the festering of this cancerous disposition. Slogans, values and the moral high ground postured by the bourgeoisie as events unfolded long after independence have been blatantly self-serving. As for their masters abroad, the state machinery has now become an important instrument in their quest for capital accumulation at the expense of the masses, whom they claim in political party campaigns to be liberating from poverty, disease, etc. However, given the peculiar historical and economic circumstances in which it has had to evolve it is not an exact carbon copy of its masters abroad.

The African bourgeoisie is more desirous of imbibing the lifestyles and privileges of its overlords in Europe and America than showing the creative and strong interest in production that marked the genesis of the bourgeoisie in Europe. Its extravagance and neo-colonial conditions have been at the core of the steep declines of production levels in recent times, leading to shocking levels of destitution and poverty. But it is precisely these conditions of want that the bourgeoisie has shamelessly manipulated to scuttle the unity of the dispossessed in the towns using tribalism as a tool.

Cruel economic conditions have forced many residents in poverty-stricken suburbs to seek help and protection by means of a network of social obligations, transferring some of their traditional feudal loyalties and institutions to the urban environment. Most ethnic groups in Accra, Kumasi and Sekondi-Takordi have installed chiefs to whom they pay allegiance and seek protection. Tribal associations have also been formed to advance the cause of particular ethnic groups and used as sources of benefit: help in finding a job, accommodation, money and credit. People also stick together to make common cause against other tribal groups in the struggle for economic survival in the dog-eat-dog environment that has been created by capitalism.

It is these tribal associations that provide arenas for the various factions of the bourgeoisie to launch offensives and counter-offensives against each other in their struggle for political and economic power. Events in the run-up to this month’s presidential election in Ghana provide ample testimony of this, as many of such groups with the backing of the bourgeoisie have sprung up, all seeking to advance the interest of the bourgeoisie in the various ethnic groups. They have organised and whipped up the sentiments of the lower strata of their tribespeople against rivals belonging to different ethnic groups. They have created the impression that it is only when one of your tribesmen is at the helm of affairs that you can have a fair share of national development and individual personal advancement. Consequently, where a presidential or vice-presidential candidate comes from has become extremely important.

But as it has always been the case after every election, and will surely be the case after this month’s elections, that those factions that win the election will easily forget about the ethnic support base they so subtly manipulated to propel themselves to power. They will shun the company of their poor tribespeople who supported them and will fraternise closely with their allies in other ethnic groups. The rancour and bitterness that characterised their relations will soon be forgotten, except on political party platforms. They will play tennis, billiards and golf together and discuss lucrative business contracts in posh hotels. As for their indigent brethren who had worked tirelessly to put them in power, they will have to start thinking seriously about how to pay school fees, feed the family, and get good accommodation.

The festering of tribalist, nationalist and racist sentiment are nurtured and sustained by the capitalist system of production which produces only for profits and not for needs. The abolition of the profit system and its replacement with socialism based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for production and distribution would put an end to discrimination and bigotry. But this cannot happen unless people understand and see the need for this kind of change. More than ever before, the formation of socialist parties in Africa to take up the task of spreading the socialist message has become urgent.’

Adongo Aidan Avugma

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2022/09/tribalism-colonialism-and-capitalism.html

 As Davos 2025 begins and before we see what the elites are discussing this year we repost from SOYMB January 2024

https://soymb.com/2024/01/davos-shame-ruling-elite-being-taken.html 

Davos: Shame! Ruling elite being taken advantage of.

The Internet is had pressed to find treaties or pacts that were initiated for a period of time lasting one hundred years.

The Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was signed in 1939. It lasted for two years. In 1941 Operation Barbarossa happened, Germany invaded Russia.

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer! Adolf Hitler’s ‘Thousand year Reich’ (empire) had a lifespan of just twelve years.

Is Keir Starmer, and his UK government, developing delusions of grandeur? Are they trying to emulate the Ex German Chancellor and leader of the NSDAP? If so, history teaches a hard lesson.

The 1976 book ‘The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival’ by Sir John Bagot Glubb showed that the life span of empires is round about two hundred and fifty years.

What are we to make of the one hundred year partnership agreement between the UK and Ukraine? The only response to this can be summarised in the words of American General  Anthony McAuliffe to a German demand for surrender at the Battle of the Bulge, ‘Nuts.’

In the trenchant words of a Socialist, “What a joke. A treaty that supposed to apply for a 100 years. I wonder who thought that one up. One hundred years years is a long time during which conditions change a lot. Imagine if Britain had signed a 100-year treaty with some country in 1925 how long would it have lasted? And then think what might happen in the next 100 years up to 2125.”

As it is the fervent hope that the global working class will have collectively taken the decision to replace capitalism with socialism by the time that period has expired then Starmer’s Treaty will be as redundant as the claim that the German Reich would last for a thousand years. The latter claim is the more ridiculous, but this ‘partnership’ agreement is pretty high on the historical list of nonsensical statements and actions.

‘The UK and Ukraine will sign a 100-year partnership agreement during British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s first trip to Kiev since taking office, London has said.

The British government announced the planned deal shortly before Starmer arrived in the Ukrainian capital.

The touted agreement will formalize “the unbreakable bonds” between the two countries, “further expanding bilateral ties in defence” and other areas, the government statement read.

The pact would “deter ongoing Russian aggression” against Ukraine and commit London and Kiev to increasing defence cooperation, including on maritime security in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Sea of Azov, it stated.

At a joint press conference with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, Starmer announced that his government would provide Kiev with a new mobile air defence system, stating that it would be specifically “developed to meet Ukraine’s needs.”’

‘The UK has been one of Ukraine’s prime backers since the escalation of conflict between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022. It has committed 12.8 billion pounds ($16 billion) in military and civilian aid to Ukraine and reportedly trained 50,000 Ukrainian troops on British soil.’

‘Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova previously said that Britain’s continued support for Ukraine is a sign that the UK government “clearly  does not seek to resolve the conflict [between Moscow and Kiev]. They are doing everything possible to make it drag on, thus prolonging the suffering of the Ukrainian people.”’

According to The Guardian, ‘Keir Starmer has announced a “historic” 100-year partnership with Ukraine, saying the UK would support the country “beyond this terrible war” and into a future where it is “free and thriving again”.

Speaking during his first trip to Kyiv as prime minister, Starmer said the unprecedented agreement reflected the “huge affection between our two nations.” Starmer did not comment directly on how the UK may respond if the new White House abandons military support to Ukraine or forces it into a Moscow-friendly deal. Instead, he paid tribute to Washington’s “vital” assistance to Kyiv. “We will continue to work with the US on this today, tomorrow and into the future,” he said.

The UK-Ukraine agreement includes £3bn of British support a year, to be continued indefinitely. Starmer said the UK would increase training for Ukrainian soldiers, provide mobile air defence systems and send 150 artillery barrels made by Sheffield Forgemasters – the first to be produced in 20 years.

Keir Starmer has urged world leaders to “double down” in their efforts to support Ukraine during a visit to Poland, days before Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency risks jeopardising international solidarity on the issue.

“As two of Europe’s biggest military powers and with our troops serving together, guarding the eastern flank, we share an unbreakable commitment to Nato, and an unbreakable commitment to Ukraine,” he said.

“We’re clear together that the route to a just and lasting peace comes through strength, the strength to secure that peace on Ukraine’s terms, to have a strength to maintain it. We will work with allies to that end, to step up our efforts to put Ukraine in the strongest position now, and guarantee that Ukraine will be able to defend herself and deter Russia in the future. As two of Europe’s biggest military powers and with our troops serving together, guarding the eastern flank, we share an unbreakable commitment to Nato, and an unbreakable commitment to Ukraine” he said. “We’re clear together that the route to a just and lasting peace comes through strength, the strength to secure that peace on Ukraine’s terms, to have a strength to maintain it.

We will work with allies to that end, to step up our efforts to put Ukraine in the strongest position now, and guarantee that Ukraine will be able to defend herself and deter Russia in the future.”

So, apart from more profits for arms manufacturers, what is the purpose of the agreement? There is also a promise to spend £3 billion a year on aid to Ukraine. Over a hundred years that would be £300 billion. As ending the winter fuel allowance will save £1.5 billion a year, more cuts to benefits will be needed.

Under capitalism there is no such thing as a ‘free lunch.’ The reasons for this action on the part of the UK- under orders from a more powerful capitalist state? – will perhaps lead to much future speculation on the part of ‘conspiracy theorists’? Is the Occam’s Razor explanation that it is part of capitalism’s tendency to grab competitive advantage and acquisition of resources whenever it can an accurate one?

The UK is already considered a ‘belligerent’ in the Russia Ukraine conflict. This agreement, and the ‘doubling down’ of support for the capitalists controlling Ukraine will only exacerbate Russia’s willingness to put the UK top of its list for retaliation of the worse kind.

The World Socialist Party will continue to condemn the callous disregard for working class lives wherever in the world it may occur. Marx and Engels message in the Communist Manifesto remains even more pertinent, the working class have no country. No war but class war.

SIXTY YEARS A SOCIALIST AND BEFORE (ZOOM)

‘Absolute surplus-value: produced by prolongation ODF the working-day.’

Marx and Engels: A Conceptual Concordance

‘The CEO of one of India’s largest conglomerates, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), has come under fire after advocating for a 90-hour work week. During an interaction with employees, S N Subrahmanyan, chairman of L&T, which has interests from infrastructure to IT and defence, said he “regrets” he is “not able to make you work on Sundays.”  

“If I can make you work on Sundays, I will be more happy, because I work on Sundays,” Subrahmanyan was heard telling employees in an undated video that has emerged on Reddit. “What do you do sitting at home? How long can you stare at your wife? How long can the wife stare at husband?” he asked. 

Subrahmanyan gave the example of the Chinese, who work 90 hours a week, suggesting that “if you have got to be on top of the world.. You have to work 90 hours a week.” 

His statement went viral on social media and drew sharp criticism from all sections of society. Harsh Goenka, the chairman of RPG Enterprises, in a post on X wrote: “90 hours a week? Why not rename Sunday to ‘Sun-duty’ and make ‘day off’ a mythical concept!” “Work-life balance isn’t optional, it’s essential,” he added.   

The billionaire founder and chairman of Marico Ltd., a consumer goods company, suggested “undeniably, hard work is the backbone of success, but it is not about the hours clocked in.”  

Thousands of social media users also targeted Subrahmanyan, pointing out his significantly higher earnings compared to the average employee of the conglomerate. Subrahmanyan took home a total salary of around $6 million (510 million Indian rupees) in 2023-2), according to company filings. This is 500 times more than the average salary at L&T.  

Celebrities, including top Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone, slammed the L&T chief’s 90-hour work week remark, highlighting the fact that such an approach would be bound to create mental health issues.  

However, some users felt that the L&T chairman had a point and responded with memes. Others questioned the context of his remarks and also pointed out that L&T is building massive infrastructure projects both in the country and abroad, and these are assets that people criticizing Subrahmanyan are proud of.’ 

The statements added fuel to the existing debate on working hours versus productivity sparked by Narayana Murthy, the founder of the India-based tech giant Infosys, who in 2023 suggested that young workers in India should log at least 70 hours per week, suggesting that this is “what Germans and Japanese did” after World War II.  

Some industry watchers opined that assessing the number of hours is a poor way of calculating work efficiency. “The quality of work put in matters. If the right teams are chosen, what can be done in 90 hours can be done in 60 also,” Mohan Lavi, former CFO and now a partner at K.P. Rao & Co told RT. He added, “With an increasing importance being given to health and work-life balance, a mandate of 90 hours would be an unnecessary target.”

From the Winter 1985-6 issue of the World Socialist

In any form of society wealth is created by the application of human labour-power to nature-given materials. In capitalist society, whether ‘private’ or state varieties, this fact is concealed by the need to procure capital to furnish machinery and equipment and to pay wages — thus the capitalist apologia that capital and labour are complementary. The relationship is one created by capitalism and, whereas the skills and energies of workers can, if allowed access to natural resources, produce all the goods and services required by human beings, a train-load of money, left over an area where seismographic tests have indicated, say, the presence of oil, will not succeed even in breaking the soil.

Capital, in the form of money, is simply congealed labour, an exchange equivalent of commodities already produced by wage labour. In its constant form (raw materials, buildings, machinery, etc.) it is, similarly, a representation of accumulated labour. It is labour-power that produces all wealth and it is in our role as wealth-producers obliged to sell ourselves on the labour market for a wage or salary that the working class is exploited. We are not, as a class, exploited as consumers or as taxpayers but as producers.

Capitalism’s exploitive mechanism is the wages system. We live in a society where the means of life such as food, clothing and shelter have to be purchased with money. For the great majority of people, that money is derived from a wage packet or a salary cheque which they receive from their employer for the sale of their labour-power, their mental or physical ability to contribute to the production of wealth. It is this necessity to sell its labour-power that divides the working class from the minority of capitalists who — whether they choose to work or not — are able to live by profit or by rent or interest. Thus capitalism divides the human family into two distinct and conflicting classes: the capitalist class, which buys labour-power, and the working class, which sells labour-power. Inevitably, as in all transactions between buyer and seller, there is a conflict of interest between these two classes with one trying to sell its labour-power for as much as possible and the other trying to buy it as cheaply as possible.

The source of all wealth, as we have observed, is human labour-power applied to nature-given materials. But the wealth produced, which, under capitalism takes the form of a great aggregation of commodities, does not belong to the class that produces it but, instead, to the class whose claim to ownership of the natural resources and the means of production (themselves the product of past expenditure of labour-power) are enshrined in law and enforced, if necessary, by the coercive power of the state.

The unassailable fact that all wealth is produced by the working class demonstrates that the source of capital accumulation and of the profit, rent and interest that underwrites the affluence, power and privilege of the capitalist class is the surplus of wealth produced over and above what the working class is paid for its labours. This is in accordance with the economic laws of a market economy for though the workers do receive the value of the commodity they sell, their labour-power, nevertheless their exploitation is through the wages system.

What we get for the sale of our labour-power to our employers is a wage or salary that equates to the price currently being paid for our particular type of labour-power. Our ability to work, in capitalist society, is a commodity the price of which is determined by the same factors as govern the price of other commodities. When a particular commodity is in short supply its price tends to rise and, when it is plentiful, its price tends to fall. To say this, however, begs the question: above what does it rise and fall? The answer is its value and that value is determined by its labour cost of production or, in other words, by the amount of socially-necessary labour time required under average conditions of production to produce it from start to finish. It is value that determines the point above and below which prices fluctuate in line with supply and demand.

Since our labour-power is sold on the labour market as a commodity, its value is determined in the same way as any other commodity. In other words, the value of labour-power is determined by the amount of socially-necessary labour required to maintain us as useful, functioning units of production and enable us to provide for the next generation of wage slaves. The value of particular types of labour-power varies, then, in accordance with the amount of training or education that is required to equip workers with certain skills and these greater values are reflected in the inequality of wages.

But labour-power has a unique property: it can create value of greater quantity than the value required in its own production. It is this capacity to create surplus value that lies at the heart of the workers’ exploitation and the capitalists’ profit. In any given period labour-power can produce wealth greater than the equivalent of the socially-necessary labour required in its own production. Let us say that workers in a particular industry produce a value amounting to double that of the value of their own labour-power. In half of each day they would produce a value equal to the value represented by their wages for a full day. For the second half of each day they would produce a surplus over and above the value they received in the form of wages or salary. This surplus value belongs to their employer and represents his profit, after payment of rent or Interest if the employer has such obligations.

The ratio of labour-power paid for by an employer to that spent by the worker in creating surplus value determines the rate of exploitation of the worker or, as Marx called it, the rate of surplus value. “The rate of surplus value, all other circumstances remaining the same, will depend in the proportion between that part of the working day necessary to reproduce the value of the labouring power and the surplus time performed for the capitalists” (Value, Price and Profit).

This, then, is the seat of capitalist exploitation of the working class. Other conditions, such as the state of the market, the degree of working class organisation in trade unions and, even, the form of capitalist organisation, may affect or influence the rate of exploitation of the worker at particular times but such influences can themselves be cancelled out by market forces. It is the tyranny of the wages system that itself imposes on the working class their slave status. Where the wages-system exists, irrespective of what party holds political power or whether ownership of the wealth-producing machinery is vested in the state or is in private hands, capitalism exists. That is why Marx refused to support the nonsensical slogan of “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” and urged workers to inscribe instead on their banner “ABOLITION OF THE WAGES SYSTEM”.

That is why the World Socialist Movement defines Socialism as a wageless, moneyless and classless society of common ownership and production for use.

Richard Montague

(Ireland)

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-tyranny-of-wages-system-1985-6.html

From the Socialist Standard



‘The popular lie, often put forward by champions of Britain’s welfare state, that “no one starves to death here any more” has currently been exposed as such by the recent high-lighting in the media of the condition known as hypothermia.



But hypothermia (or “low heat”) is nothing new. Old people have died by the thousand from lack of food, fuel and clothing for years under the welfare state. But only lately has there been significant publicity about it. From the Sunday Express we learn, “Soaring fuel costs which lead to thousands of old people economising on home heating were blamed yesterday for a massive rise in the number of elderly patients being taken to hospital suffering from effects of cold… One theory being put forward for the higher than ever toll is that pensioners, many living alone on small incomes, are frightened of using heating and lighting appliances because of the cost. So they sit at home without heating… Pensions, with the present price of electricity and food, don’t go very far”



From the Daily Mirror : “The tragedy spotlights the problem of hypothermia which claims an average of 45,000 lives in Britain each year… Ninety thousand old people have been given a twin death sentence—by the coldest weather for four years and rocketing fuel prices… The Department of Health and Social Security recommends a minimum temperature of 21C for homes. Yet a survey shows that 89 per cent of pensioners’ living-room temperatures were below the Government standard. And that was before the increased fuel prices.”



To the Socialist the answer to the problem would seem obvious. Food, fuel and clothing, like all other needs should be freely available (not only to the elderly) to all human beings.



But what are the capitalist solutions to the problem? Call in on elderly neighbours to find out if anyone is actually dying. (Milkmen are regarded as being useful here.)



Doctors can obtain special wide range thermometers so that if they find a cold, collapsed old patient in a cold house, lacking food, fuel and clothing they’ll be able to pinpoint the diagnosis.



And, so public-spirited is the Daily Mirror that they devoted a front page to the problem. Indeed, the way they launched their “campaign” one almost got the impression they were offering to finance food, fuel and clothing themselves. But, in fact, what they came up with was a free “cut-out” sos sign for those dying of hypothermia to put in their windows for the milkman etc. to see. And listen to the further contributions of these philanthropic crusaders:- “If you know old people who live on their own, make sure they have a copy of the warning poster” (and the Daily Mirror supplied it free remember.) “If you see the Daily Mirror’s SOS sign in a window, see what help you can give. Knock on the door and give all the help you can”.



But the altruistic Mirror also gives a good capitalistic reason for donating SOS signs to the dying. It quotes Mr. Hugh Faulkner, director of Help the Aged who “welcomes the Mirror’s campaign.” “The plight of the old is frightening this winter. The winter weather has really hit us now. Food and fuel bills are higher than ever before and pensions have just not kept pace with inflation. Someone, sometime will eventually realise it is cheaper for the nation to keep old people warm and well fed in their own home than have them go to hospital.” (our italics). So please help “the nation” to do it cheaper, chaps!



Still the Mirror:- “Everyone can help to alleviate the suffering and misery which is piled on old people year by year”, (they don’t say by whom). Then, in thick type:- “Today, the Daily Mirror appeals to everyone to help the old to survive winter. Be a busybody and you could save a life.” Then a broad hint that the neighbours should come up with the necessary funds: – “Check that the old man or woman living down the road is all right. Make sure they are warm and have enough food. If not, get in touch with the local welfare services and run a few errands to stock up their food larder.” Other advice the beneficent Mirror gives free is:- “make sure there is an efficient heater. . . . and they need at least one hot meal a day and frequent snacks and hot drinks.”



Actually, another newspaper takes the prize. The Stoke-on-Trent Evening Sentinel comes up with this:- “A cheap thermometer to alert old people to the dangers of cold and hypothermia went on sale at Stafford today. The thermometer at 20p, is being marketed by an Essex firm as a non-profit making venture.”



Four chemists in the Stafford area have agreed to sell the thermometers which are blue and white. When the temperature falls to the blue zone—below 15.5 Centigrade —it indicates danger to the old people from cold. “This may not save lives but could alert people who may not realise they are in danger”, said Mrs. Jane York, the firm’s social representative. “The see-at-glance thermometer could also warn social workers and visitors of old people at risk,” explains Mrs. York.



What useful gifts—stick one of these on their wall and the pensioner dying of cold will be able to see exactly why.



It makes one marvel at the bitter irony and cynicism which can unconsciously be spewed out by people not wanting to face the obvious. Were it not so tragic it would be hilarious.’

R. B. Gill

The above piece is from the Standard of March 1976. It was edited to disguise when it was published. Almost fifty years on its content is as relevant today as it was then. Arguably, many older people are even worse off given the cost increases in utility bills. The removal of the Winter Fuel Payments, upon which many relied, were removed by Labour as soon as they got into government. Parts of the legacy media are talking of the Labour Party taking us all back to the 1970’s at a rate of knots. Whilst they are demonstrating incompetence at running capitalism on its behalf we don’t want to see capitalism better run. We want to see it replaced. It is ridiculous to think that another fifty years should go by without capitalism being abolished and replaced with socialism.

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2020/02/capitalist-solutions-to-hypothermia-1976.html

‘The deployment of artificial intelligence could deal a heavy blow to the worldwide labour market and result in massive layoffs in global companies, the World Economic Forum (WEF) Future of Jobs report warns.

The study, which surveyed hundreds of large businesses worldwide, found that 41% of companies plan to slash their workforce by 2030 in response to the increasing capabilities of AI. Further, 77% of companies are preparing to reskill and upskill their existing staff from 2025 to 2030 for better human-machine collaboration. 

The report predicted that 170 million new jobs will be created by the end of the decade, while 92 million jobs will be displaced. The WEF noted that skills in AI, big data, and cybersecurity are expected to be in high demand.

“Trends such as generative AI and rapid technological shifts are upending industries and labour markets, creating both unprecedented opportunities and profound risks,” Till Leopold, the head of Work, Wages and Job Creation at the WEF, said.

The WEF said that advances in AI, robotics, and energy systems, particularly in renewable energy and environmental engineering, are expected to boost demand for specialist roles in these fields.

The report also identified job categories that will face the largest decline in numbers due to AI and other technological trends. They include service clerks, executive secretaries, payroll clerks, and graphic designers.

“The presence of both graphic designers and legal secretaries just outside the top 10 fastest-declining job roles, a first-time prediction not seen in previous editions of the Future of Jobs Report, may illustrate GenAI’s increasing capacity to perform knowledge work,” the report said.

The report stressed that the impact of AI extends beyond job displacement, highlighting the potential of the technology to augment human output, rather than replace it outright.

The WEF concluded that “human-centered skills” such as creative thinking, resilience, flexibility, and agility will continue to be critical.

Meanwhile, high-profile figures and scientists have raised concerns in recent years over the potential dangers posed by AI. Last year, computer scientist and author Paul Graham warned that the use of AI for writing will result in the majority of people losing the skill in a few decades.

The labour market will change significantly because of the adoption of advanced technology, according to Daniil Gavrilov, the head of the Artificial Intelligence Research Laboratory at T-Bank AI Research. Everything a human is capable of doing can be done by AI, and machines can do it well, he said in an interview with RIA Novosti last year.

Gavrilov noted that in the short and medium term, employees will have to master AI skills in order to remain competitive.’

The below is from the Socialist Standard June 2022

‘In this issue we spotlight the rise and rise of Artificial Intelligence, a hot topic that raises fundamental questions about how it should be used, and what happens if it develops in ways we don’t expect and don’t want.

Currently AI is strictly horses for courses, confined within rule-based parameters and master of just one thing at a time, rather than becoming a super-jack of all trades. So, like numerical engines before the era of programmable general-purpose computing, it has been of limited use. But artificial general intelligence (AGI) is without doubt the ultimate goal, and the race is on to achieve it.

With this in mind, and with a chequered history of failed AI winters behind them, developers are concentrating on the ‘can we do it?’ question rather than the bigger ‘should we do it?’ question. Even less ethically distracted are investors whose only question is ‘can we make money out of it?’ This is not encouraging, given capitalism’s track record.

One problem with AI is that the more advanced it gets, the less we understand it. AI is increasingly a ‘black-box’ phenomenon, whose inner workings are a mystery to us and whose results are often inexplicable and unverifiable by other means. We can’t just treat it like a Delphic oracle, because it’s already clocked up embarrassing gaffes such as building racism and sexism into its staff-hiring rationales, or factorising income instead of health conditions into its medical outcomes estimates. And there have been several public relations disasters, with AIs answering enquiries with profanities after reading the online Urban Dictionary, Facebook chatbots creepily inventing their own language that no human can understand, and Amazon’s Alexa laughing demonically at its own joke: ‘Why did the chicken cross the road? Answer – because humans are a fragile species who have no idea what’s coming next’ (bit.ly/3wd4vh6).

Then there is the lack of internationally agreed definitions, paradigms and developmental standards, in the absence of which each developer is left to make up their own rules. Can we expect global agreement when we can’t get states to agree on climate change? In the absence of such a framework, it’s no wonder that people fear the worst.

Frankenstein-anxiety is nothing new in the history of technology, of course, and if we banned every advance that might go wrong we would never have stopped wearing animal skins and woad. It’s uncontroversial to say that the possible advantages to capitalism are huge, and indeed we’re already seeing AI in everything from YouTube preference algorithms to self-drive tractors and military drone swarms. And that’s small potatoes next to the quest for the holy grail of AGI. But while all this promises big profits for capitalists, what are the pros and cons in human terms? What is the long-term effect of the automation of work, for example? Tech pundits including Tesla boss Elon Musk take it for granted that most of us will have no jobs and that the only solution is a Universal Basic Income, a solution we argue is unworkable.

That’s not the worst of it. In 1950 Alan Turing wrote, ‘[T]he machine thinking method […] would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers. At some stage therefore we should have to expect the machines to take control’. IJ Good, Turing’s colleague at Bletchley Park, helpfully added, ‘The first ultra-intelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control’ (bit.ly/3FNCekb). The last thing we ever need, or the last thing we ever do, this side of a Singularity that wipes humans from the Earth?

It’s not so much a question of a Terminator-style Armageddon with machines bent on our annihilation. Even in capitalism it’s hard to imagine anyone investing in developing such a capability, at least not on purpose. But the fear is that it could happen by accident, as in the proposed ‘paperclip apocalypse’, in which a poorly considered instruction to make as many paperclips as possible results in the AI dutifully embarking on the destruction of the entire globe in order to turn everything into paperclips. Musk has similarly argued that AI does not have to be evil to destroy humanity: ‘It’s just like, if we’re building a road and an anthill just happens to be in the way, we don’t hate ants, we’re just building a road, and so, goodbye anthill’ (cnb.cx/3yJ7pMl).

Stuart Russell, in his excellent 2021 Reith lectures on AI (see our summary here), makes a telling observation about capitalist corporations like the fossil fuel industry, arguing that they operate as uncontrolled superintelligent AIs with fixed objectives which ignore externalities. But why only certain industries? We would go one further and argue that capitalism as a whole works like this. It doesn’t hate humans or the planet, but is currently destroying both in the blind and disinterested quest to build ever greater profits, so goodbye world, to paraphrase its richest beneficiary, one Elon Musk.

Musk is right about one thing, saying ‘the least scary future I can think of is one where we have at least democratized AI because if one company or small group of people manages to develop godlike digital superintelligence, they could take over the world’. It’s rather ironic that, once again, Musk sees himself as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

To democratise AI you would first need to democratise social production, because in capitalism science and tech are sequestered behind barriers of ownership by private investors anxious to avoid any uncontrolled release of potentially profitable knowledge into the environment. AI needs to belong to all humanity, just like all other forms of wealth, which is why socialists advocate post-capitalist common ownership. In such circumstances, a global standardisation of AI development rules becomes genuinely feasible, and as Russell argues, it wouldn’t be that difficult to program AIs not to kill us all in the quest for more paperclips: you simply build in an uncertainty principle, so that the AI understands that the solution it has devised may not be the one humans really want or need. It’s a sensible approach. If only humans used a bit of natural intelligence and adopted it, they’d get rid of capitalism tomorrow.’

Paddy Shannon