538

p Having seen the truth of the above, we can now turn our attention to Mr. P. Struve.

p How does this most estimable “critic” regard the Carey-Bastiat doctrine?

p The article he has published in Braun’s Archiv contains passages which provide definite grounds to at least give a reply to the question of what he thinks of the latest variety of the doctrine, i.e., that "diffusion of wealth" which Goschen, Schultze– Gavernitz and Co. have clutched out of thin air. Here is one of those passages.

p As is common knowledge, Marx affirmed that, with the development of capitalism and the higher productivity of labour, the rate of surplus value, and consequently the degree of the exploitation of the workers’ labour by the capitalist, rises.  Mr. P. Struve has the following to say on that thought:

p “But it is this proposition that is so hard to bring into accord with the facts. It was probably true, on the whole, in respect of the initial stage of the development of large-scale capitalism (the initial triumph of machine production). But it cannot be stated that a higher degree of exploitation was to be seen at the later stages and will continue into the indefinite future. The thing is that the rate of surplus value can rise only when, for some reason, wages fall or surplus value grows. However, lower wages cannot be called a characteristic feature of the most recent economic development in the capitalist countries. Besides lower wages, surplus value can be increased either by longer working hours or greater intensity of labour. However, we cannot speak of longer working hours in the capitalist countries__ The reverse is rather to be seen. A greater intensity of labour indeed exists, but, in the first place, that increase is often linked, for physiological causes, with higher wages, and, in the second place, it often comes up against an impassable boundary. That is why the doctrine of a constant rise in the rate of surplus value or in the degree of the exploitation of labour in developing capitalist society seems groundless to me. One can, with considerable success, defend the reverse thesis, which does not in fact contradict the general character of recent economic development."  [538•* 

539

p That "reverse thesis" is that very “thesis” which has been brought forward by the present renovators of the Carey-Bastiat doctrine. We have already seen how totally bankrupt that thesis is. By showing the growing inequality in the distribution of national income, we have thereby proved that the share of that income going to the working class decreases.  Having coped with the “originals”, we could very well dispense with the "copi/”, and limit ourselves to simply establishing the more or less consoling and admirable circumstance that it is a very faithful replica which reveals a strong resemblance to the originals. But since we must, at least in part, follow in the steps of our “critic”, we must also examine his arguments. Besides, we have to admit that, till now, Marx’s idea of the greater degree of the capitalist’s exploitation of the worker has been confirmed by us only indirectly, and only through mention of the growing inequality in the distribution of social wealth. Let us now see whether any direct arguments in favour of that idea can be advanced.

p As we have seen, that is impossible, in Mr. P. Struve’s opinion. He claims that Marx’s idea can be considered correct only in respect of the initial stage of the development of capitalism. That, however, is quite untrue.

p Let us take the United States of America where, for very many reasons, the terms on which the proletariat sell their labour power are far more favourable to them than in any European country. How has the share of that country’s working class changed in respect of the value created by its labour?

p In 1840, that share was 51 per cent, which fell to 45 per cent in 1890, consequently, the working class’s smaller share was accompanied by a rise in the degree of its exploitation by the capitalists.

p These figures are taken from Carol D. Wright, who, despite all his conscientiousness, markedly prefers the roseate to the sombre.  [539•* 

p Carol D. Wright also speaks of the cause for the fall in the working class’s share. He sees it in the development of machine production, or, as Marx would have said, in the change in the organic composition of capital.  [539•** 

p What has our “critic” to say on this matter? Does he think that the United States of America has not yet emerged from the initial stage of capitalism?

p Mr. P. Struve cites from Carol D. Wright’s book, so he should have a knowledge of it. However, he seems to have failed to 540 see what the American statistician has had to say about the lower share of the working class. Such near-sightedness is most awkward.^^271^^

p Between the years 1861 and 1891, Britain’s national income rose from £832,000 thousand to £1,600,000 thousand, while wages went up from & 388,000 thousand to £ 693,000 thousand. That means that the rate of surplus value, which stood at 114.43 per cent in 1861, rose to 130.8 per cent in 1891.  [540•* 

p I would like to know what Mr. P. Struve thinks of the “stage” reached by British capitalism during that period.

p Or perhaps our “critic” would like to repeat the arguments with the aid of which Mr. Bowley tries to play down the impression created by the figures we have quoted, and convince the reader that the British working class’s share of the national product has nevertheless not declined. Let him try to do that. We shall have no difficulty in proving to him how feeble such arguments are. However, we shall now draw his attention to the following fact.

p British statisticians also include under the heading of wages payments made to domestic servants, which actually come from surplus value. Domestic servants are very numerous in Britain. According to L. Levi, they numbered 2,400,000 in 1884, while the total for agricultural workers did not exceed 900,000. In the same year, according to the same source, British domestic servants were paid a total of £86,000 thousand, while agricultural workers got no more than £67,000 thousand. If we assume that the aggregate wages paid to domestic servants in 1891 did not exceed the total for 1884, and if, after subtracting £86,000 thousand from the total wages received by the British working class in 1891, we add these millions to the overall sum of surplus value for the same year, then the rate of surplus value will rise even more. In general, the British working class hardly gets over one-third of the national income.

p According to calculations made by Andreas Costa for 1899, France’s national income was distributed as follows:

p million francs
Agricultural workers............... 2,000
Industrial workers................ 3,600
Salaried workers of various kinds......... 1,000
Domestic servants................ 1,400
Artisans, small farmers, retailers, carriers and forwarding agents, soldiers, sailors, gendarmes, petty officials, clergymen, monks and nuns, men and women teachers, etc............. 4,000

541

p million francs Capitalists
1) in agriculture...............from 3,500 to 4,500
2) in industry, trade and the hotel and catering
business..................from 3,500 to 4,500
3) rentiers, state pensioners and members of
the liberal professions...........from 2,500 to 3,000  [541•* 

p By adding up these figures we get about 22,000,000 thousand francs, of which total not more than one-third went to workers, artisans and small farmers, just as was the case in Britain.

So high a degree of exploitation is possible only given highly developed labour productivity. It was physically impossible 30 to 35 years ago when, according to expert calculations, France’s national income barely reached 15,000,000 thousand francs. That is why Mr. P. Struve is greatly in error when he links the greater exploitation of the working class to the initial stage of capitalism.