544

p The trolls proposed to Ibsen’s Peer Gynt that they would knock his left eye a little out of shape. "True, you’ll have a slight squint after that,” their chieftain added soothingly, "but then everything that presents itself to your eye will seem beautiful and gratifying.” Our critic has undergone a similar operation at the hands of the Brentano school, which cherishes the Carey-Bastiat tradition like the apple of their eye. We do not know exactly which eye of his has been knocked a little out of shape by that estimable school but, to say the least, it has been done in such a way that the capitalist order now seems to him, if not most beautiful and gratifying, then at least incomparably more attractive than it would were his vision unimpaired. One of the many possible proofs of this is provided by his arguments of the capitalist exploitation of women and children.

p In a polemic with Bernstein, Kautsky expressed the idea that the growing number of working women and children testified to the impoverishment of the working class. This idea seems to have 545 been most displeasing to Mr. P. Struve. "When I was reading Kautsky,” he remarks caustically, "it seemed to me that I was listening to a speech by the esteemed Decurtins at the Zurich Congress...."^^274^^ "If I shared Kautsky’s view on women’s labour, I would also accept the practical proposals on that labour advanced by the Catholic social-politicians."  [545•*  Excellent. But how does Mr. P. Struve himself look upon the matter? You will now learn.

p He acknowledges that the use of women’s and children’s labour in Germany rose considerably during the years 1882–95, but goes on to say that such an increase was especially to be seen in the field of trade, and in general in such branches of the economy in which members of proprietors’ own families often work. Hence, he has drawn the comforting conclusion that Kautsky’s opinion on this kind of labour should be taken cum grano salis. "The course of development in general is not as uniform, and its meaning not the same to such a degree,” he says, "as is shown in the scheme of the theory of impoverishment."  [545•**  He continues with a most comforting reference to the United States of America, where the utilisation of women’s labour decreased relatively, and children’s labour also absolutely, in the period between 1840 and 1890.

p It follows that capitalism is that very spear which heals the wounds it inflicts: in the "initial stage”, it was indeed somewhat playful, sparing neither grown-up men, women, nor children, in its striving to bring under its rule everything living and capable of producing surplus value. But that was only a passing fancy and error of youth. On reaching the age of maturity, capitalism grows milder and gradually slackens the tight reins; then the degree of its exploitation of the proletariat falls, and the women and children it has driven so hard are at last able to enjoy leisure at their own homes, in conditions which in their turn are improving, not only absolutely but also relatively, i.e., in comparison with the home conditions of the capitalists. All this is so gratifying, admirable, comforting and inevitable that we are unable to understand why Mr. P. Struve has come out against the “monotony”.  Of course, monotony produces a grievous impression when we come up against it in the "scheme of the theory of impoverishment"., but in the scheme of the enrichment of the workers and the impoverishment of the capitalist it is quite pleasant and even in no way fatiguing, to prove which we shall make reference to Mr. P. Struve himself: all his present economic arguments are very flat and monotonous, but one has to be a gloomy “epigone” of Marx to fail to be moved by their ennobling influence.

546

p The only trouble is that stark reality has so sharply contradicted these ennobling arguments. Let us consider, at least, the’ exploitation of women and children by capital. Mr. P. Struve has forgotten that the number of women engaged in industrial work— the number of women wage-earners—went up by 82 per cent in Germany between the years 1883 and 1895, the corresponding increase of male workers being only 39 per cent. If we are not deceived by our one-sided “epigonism”, then such figures are indicative of both an absolute and a relative increase in the number of women exploited by capital. But what is it that drives women under the heavy yoke of capital? Of course, it is not the alleged " enrichment" of the proletariat.

p True, Carroll D. Wright has said that the number of women engaged in factory work in the United States was relatively greater in 1850 than it was in 1890, but he himself goes on to remark that exact figures on women’s labour have existed only since 1870.  [546•*  But what do we see, beginning with that year? We see a constant increase—both absolute and relative—in the extent of women’s labour. In his Eleventh Annual Report, the selfsame Carroll D. Wright cited figures from which it follows, in his own words, that "the proportion of females 10 years of age or over employed in all occupations in the United States rose"... (italics ours—G.P.) "from 14.68 per cent" (of the overall figure of the female population—G.P.) "in 1870, to 17.22 per cent in 1890, while the males decreased in proportion" (italics again ours—G.P.) "from 85.32 per cent in 1870 to 82.78 per cent in 1890, fully corroborating the facts obtained in the present investigation" (i.e., in the Eleventh Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labour— G.P.) "that the females are to some extent entering into places at the expense of the males."  [546•** 

p In 1870, women comprised 14.14 per cent of the work force in the manufacturing and mechanical industries;  [546•***  in 1890 the percentage went up to 20.18.  [546•**** 

p “The fact is absolutely demonstrated, therefore, that the proportion of females...” (working for wages—G.P.) "is gradually increasing."  [546•***** 

p Mr. P. Struve will come up against the same conclusion in thewell-known book by Sartorius, Die nordamerikanischen Gewerkschaften unter dem Einfluss der fortschreitenden Productionstechnik, Berlin, 1886. On page 109, we find the following table showing 547 the relative and absolute growth of female labour in a number of States in the country:

Women workers at factories
Population

1850 1880 1850 1880

p 22.078 8,762 493 51,612 4,437 14,103
73,046 27,099 15,233 137,455 18,563 29,356
2,311,786 489,555 815,470 3,097,394 1,980,329 317,976
4,282,891 1,131,116 3,077,871 5,082,871 3,198,062 346,991
Ohio ...........

p These figures show whose words should be taken cum grano salis—Kautsky’s or Mr. P. Struve’s.

p And what about child labour?

p In the period between 1870 and 1880, the number of working children between 10 and 15 rose in the United States from 13.9 per cent of all children in this age bracket, to 16.82 per cent. On the contrary, the number fell to 10.34 per cent in the years between 1880 and 1890. This was the outcome of factory legislation, which restricted the use of child labour. The number of children employed in industry fell, in the main, in the New England states, where the operation of the law was particularly efficacious. Where it was less efficacious, child labour assumed even more extensive proportion than in the previous decade.  [547•* 

p The self-justifying dodges resorted to by the “critics” of Marx are no more capable of concealing the truth from the careful researcher than are the apologetic exercises of the vulgar economists. Anyone with eyes to see will realise that the development of capitalism leads to those very results that Marx spoke of: not content with the exploitation of adult male workers, capital is striving more and more to subordinate women and children to itself. The growing subordination of women and children to it undoubtedly means a deterioration in the working class’s social position.

p But Mr. Struve will tell us that the growth in the number of children employed at factories was checked by factory legislation, at least in some States.  [547•** 

It did, we shall reply, but that in no way denies or even modifies the overall meaning of the Marxist theory of social development. That factory legislation can protect some of the interests of the working class was admitted already in the Manifesto of the 548 Communist Party.  [548•*  However, the question is not whether factory legislation has or has not protected some of the workers’ interests; it is a question of what is the algebraical sum of those consequences of factory legislation that are advantageous to the proletariat and present a positive magnitude, and of the trend towards a worsening in the working class’s social condition, a trend inherent in capitalism and presenting a negative magnitude. According to Marx, that algebraical sum cannot be a positive magnitude, i. e., the worker’s social condition grows -worse despite the advantages he gets from factory legislation. It is this—and only this—that is still being insisted on by Marx’s “orthodox” followers. His so-called critics say the reverse.  They are out to prove that the notorious "social reform" has already improved the worker’s social condition, and will improve it even more with the passage of time, so that in due course, probably in the next geological period, the capitalist mode of production will imperceptibly develop into the socialist. Who is right? Everything we have till now learnt, and all the facts and phenomena we have dealt with emphatically testify in favour of Marx and the “orthodox”: in economic terms the distance between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has grown; the working class has become relatively poorer because its share of the national product has decreased relatively. However important factory legislation and other palliatives of "social reform" are, to the working class, they have far from outweighed developing capitalism’s tendencies to disparage the working class. The proletariat has been in the position of a man swimming against a powerful current: were he to yield to the force of the current without offering it any resistance, he would be carried very far back; however, he offered resistance and has tried to make headway, which is why the current cannot carry him as far back as it might; nevertheless, the man is carried back because the current is far stronger than his efforts are.  [548•**