ALLIANCE MARXIST-LENINIST

OCCASIONAL REPRINT SERIES
On web: December 2002;

Article From COMPASS Theoretical Journal of the Communist League UK; No.1. February/March 1975. (First published in HAMMER OR ANVIL, April/May, 1966).

                CLASSES IN MODERN BRITAIN
                        (originally unsigned; by W.B.Bland)

    Those sociologists who serve ideologically the interests of the capitalist class have long been engaged in "refuting" Marx by arguing that the British proletariat has become and is becoming relatively smaller, while the non-proletarian strata of the British working people have become and are becoming relatively larger.
[mim3 replies for MIM: Perhaps they are referring snidely to Engels who said the capitalists would take the whole English working class and make it bourgeois.]     Revisionism is a system of ideas which serves the interests of the capitalist class while claiming to be "Marxism-Leninism brought up-to-date". Revisionism in Britain is not confined to the Communist Party, but shows itself in the thinking of some of the groups which-claim to be "Marxist-Leninist" and opposed to the revisionism of the CPGB. It is clearly discernible, for example, in a pamphlet on class relations in Britain published by the "Finsbury Communist Association" in 1966 and entitled: "CLASS AND PARTY IN BRITAIN". This pamphlet puts forward the above conception of bourgeois sociology, clothed in "Marxist-Leninist" phraseology: that the proletariat in Britain has become and is becoming relatively smaller, while the non-proletarian strata of the working people have become and are becoming relatively larger.
    The FCA pamphlet goes so far in the direction of bourgeois-sociology as to use, without inverted commas the fashionable description of Britain as an "affluent society" (p. 9) and to state that the British proletariat is "not sufficiently large to form a solid base for a Marxist-Leninist Party". (p. 15).
 
[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: As internationalists and scientists, it is no big deal for Marxists that there is a shortage of proletarians to generate real communists in England. The imperialists buy off workers at the expense of others in another place, which is why there needs to be a joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations over imperialism. The Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans, Haitians, Koreans etc. will one day become tired of allowing imperialism to rampage and will correct it at its source the same way Hitler had to be corrected on German territory. The armed struggle against imperialism by the oppressed nations just mentioned is already much more advanced than any struggle occurring within U.$. or English borders. ]

    It is because a correct analysis of classes in modern Britain is so vitally important for mapping the road to socialism in Britain that it is necessary to criticise the revisionist concepts that appear in this pamphlet.

Classes

Classes are large groups of people which differ from each other:

1) By their relation (of ownership or non-ownership) to the means of production;
2) by the method in which they obtain their income (i.e., by means of their own work or by means of the exploitation of others); and
3) by their role in the social organisation of work.

"Classes are large groups of people which differ from each other by the place they occupy in a historically definite system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated by laws) .to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labour, by the dimensions and method of acquiring the share of' social wealth which they obtain".
(V. I. Lenin, "A Great Beginning", in: "Selected Works",. Volume 9; London; 1946.; p: 432-3).

            The Classes in Modern Britain

    On the basis of the above definition, Marxist-Leninists recognise three classes in a developed-capitalist country, such as Britain:

1) the capitalist class or bourgeoisie;
2) the petty bourgeoisie; and
3) the working class or proletariat.

"Every capitalist country is fundamentally divided into three main forces: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat".
(V. I. Lenin: "Constitutional Illusions", in: "Selected Works", Volume 61 London; 1946; p. 183).

    The "Finsbury Communist Association" lists the three classes recognised by Marxist-Leninists, but denies that the term "working class" is synonymous with the term "proletariat". [mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: It's not just the FCA who "denies." It's in black-and -white in the Comintern documents of Lenin's era that "working-class" and "proletariat" are not synonymous.] Thus, the three classes listed by the FCA as existing in modern Britain are:

1) the capitalist class (p. 4);
2) the petty-bourgeoisie (p. 8); and
3) the working class (p. 3), made up of two sections:
a) the "proletariat" (p. 5), which forms a minority of the working class; and
b) the "labour aristocracy" (p.5), which forms a "majority" 'of the working class.

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: Why did the Hoxhaites fail to point out in the above that Lenin said the super-profits convert proletarians into petty-bourgeoisie? Again, they let exploiters off the hook.]

The Capitalist Class

    The capitalist class or bourgeoisie is that class whose members own or rent means of production and obtain their remuneration by means of the exploitation of employed workers:

"By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage-labour".
(F. Engels: Note to 1888 English edition of "Manifesto of the Communist Party", in: K.Marx & F.Engels: "Selected Works"; Volume 1; Moscow;1951; p. 33).

    The capitalist class includes persons whose remuneration may come nominally in the form of a salary, but, in fact as a result of their position in the employing class (e.g. company directors).
   It includes persons who may or may not be employers, but who serve the capitalist class in high administrative positions in the capitalist state:

"The latter group undoubtedly contains sections of the population who belong to the big bourgeoisie: all the rentiers (who live on the interest from capita1 and real estate also a section of the intelligentsia, high military and civil officials, etc."
(V. I.Lenin: "The Development of Capitalism in Russia", in: "Selected Works", Volume 1; London; 1944; p. 310).

    It includes the dependents of these persons.

[mim3@mim.org for MIM: Up to now, the Hoxhaites have focussed on definitions. We note above that they left out what Lenin said on a number of points. The correct approach starts here, where one sets out what is happening from the facts, not from some subjective wish about what is dogmatically always true. It is a weakness among those calling themselves "communists" that very few since the 1960s have attempted the question. That is, we can say there are many who learn the Marxist concepts and few who apply them to imperialist country conditions.]

    On the basis of the above definitions, it is possible to calculate from the 1961 Census statistics that the capitalist class in modern Britain comprises about 1 million persons, out of a total population of 52.millions,. i.e., about 2%.

The Petty Bourgeoisie

    The petty bourgeoisie is that class whose members own or rent small means of production, but whose remuneration comes primarily from their own work (often assisted by that of their families):

"A petty bourgeois is the owner of small property".
(V. I. Lenin: "To the Rural Poor!" in; "Selected Works". Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 254).

    As a worker, the petty bourgeois has interests in common with the working class; as an owner of means of production he has interests in common with the capitalist class. In other words, the petty bourgeoisie has a divided allegiance towards the two decisive classes in capitalist society:

"Vacillations among these strata are inevitable. As a toiler, the peasant gravitates towards socialism, and prefers the dictatorship of the workers to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. As a seller of grain, the peasant gravitates towards the bourgeoisie".
Lenin: "Greetings to the Hungarian Workers". in: "Against Revisionism"; Moscow; 1959; p.501).

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: Including peasants in a disappearing semi-feudal society is a trick in this discussion. It's also conciliation with the petty-bourgeoisie which Lenin warned against for England time and time again. England in 1966 had no vast agrarian areas with peasants as Lenin was referring to. The peasants in feudal or semi-feudal situations ARE potential allies, because their whole mode of production is disappearing and because they face super-exploitation from foreign imperialists in most countries today. The Comintern spelled out explicitly that peasants are better allies than office workers in the imperialist countries. Why don't the Hoxhaites make the same distinction? Why do they take us backward on subjects already explicitly handled by Lenin when he was trying to decide which Europeans to admit to the Comintern?]

    This divided allegiance towards the two decisive classes of capitalist society applies also to a section of employed workers: those involved in superintendence and the lower levels of management, eg. foremen, charge-hands, departmental managers, etc. On the one hand these persons are exploited workers, with interests in common with the working class (from which class they largely spring). On the other hand their position as agents of management in supervising the efficient exploitation of their fellow-workers gives them interests in common with the capitalist class:

"The 1abour of supervision and management, arising as it does out of an antithesis, out of the supremacy of capital over labour, and being therefore common to all modes of production based on class contradictions like the capitalist mode, is directly and inseparably connected with productive functions which all combined social-labour assigns to individuals as their special tasks".
(K. Marx: "Capital", Volume 3; Moscow; 1959; p. 379).

"The labour of supervision and management. . . . has a double nature. On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily, requires a commanding will to coordinate and unify the process. . . . This is, a productive job. . . . On the other hand, . . this supervision work necessarily arises in all modes of production based on the antithesis between the labourer, as the direct producer, and the owner of the means of production. The greater this antagonism, the greater the role played by supervision".
(K. Marx: ibid.)

"An industrial army of workmen, under the command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers) and sergeants (foremen, overlookers), who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist".
(K. Marx:."Capital", Volume 1; Moscow; 1954; p. 332).

    Hence, those employees involved in this role of supervision and management have a dual role, as worker and as slave-driver. This divided allegiance towards the two decisive classes of capitalist society places them objectively in the class of the petty-bourgeoisie, in which this divided allegiance is a basic factor determining its social behaviour.

    For the same reasons, the petty-bourgeoisie also includes persons in the middle and lower ranks of the coercive forces of the capitalist state (e.g. Members of the police and armed forces). It also includes the dependents of these persons.

    On the basis of the above definitions, it is possible to calculate from the 1961 Census statistics that the petty-bourgeoisie in modern Britain comprises about 7 million persons out of a total population of 52 millions, i.e., about 14%.

The Working Class

    The working class is that class whose members do not own or rent means of production, but whose remuneration comes from the sale of their labour-power. It is:

"The class of modern wage-labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour-power in order to live."
(F. Engels: Note to the 1888 English edition of 'Manifesto of the Communist Party’, in: K. Marx & F. Engels: "Selected Works", Volume 1; London; 1950; p.33.)

    According to the FCA however, the "proletariat" is not the same thing as the working class, the class of wage-workers as a whole:

"Emile Burns persistently translates the correct word "proletariat" into the incorrect-word 'working-class"'.
(p.3).

    But Marxist-Leninists have always used the terms "proletariat" and "working class" as synonymous:

". . . of the proletariat, i.e., of the, working class".
(K. Marx: "Wage-Labour. and Capital", in: "Selected Works"; Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 267).

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: They are only synonymous in given historical contexts as Marx himself explained. Marx started by looking for a proletariat and found it in the industrial workers of his day.]

"By proletariat (is meant) the class of modern wage-labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live".
(F. Engels: Note to the 1888 English edition of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party", in: K. Marx & F. Engels: "Selected Works", Volume 1; London; 1950; P. 33).

"I have continually used the expressions working-men . . . . and proletarians, working-class, propertyless class and proletariat as equivalents".
(F..Engels: Preface to the 1845 German edition of  "The Condition of the Working Class in England", in: K. Marx & F. Engels: "On Britain"; Moscow; 1962; p. 5).

"a class struggle, struggle between the working-class, the proletariat, and the capitalist class, the bourgeoisie".
(V. I. Lenin: "Draft and Explanation of the Programme of the 'Social-Democratic Party", in: "Selected Works", Volume 1; London; 1944; p. 477).

    What is the purpose, of the "Finsbury Communist Association" in revising Marxism-Leninism to deny that the term "proletarian" is synonymous with the term "working class"?

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: There is no revision as we showed in the Comintern quote above. It is Alliance revising the original meaning of "proletariat." When Marx and Engels wrote about Europe in the 1840s, colonialism had yet to take hold to such an extent in the bribery to workers. It is only the Trotskyists who talk like there was no increased bribery of Western workers as colonialism expanded.]

    Its purpose is to argue that the proletariat is only a minority of the working class, that minority which receives wages at or below subsistence level:

"The proletariat consists of the workers on subsistence wages, or below".
(p.5).

    The FCA defines "subsistence wages" as the level of remuneration paid, by the Social Security Department (then the National Assistance Board):

"The National Assistance Board undertakes to pay subsistence wages to anyone positively unable to find work".
(p. 4).

    But the majority of British workers receive more than this level of "subsistence wages". Thus, according to the FCA, the overwhelming majority of the British working glass belongs not to the proletariat, but to the "labour aristocracy":

"The overwhelming majority, of Britain's workers belong to the labour aristocracy".
(p. 5).

    It is implicit in the argument, of the FCA that "subsistence wages" represent the value of the average worker's labour-power. It follows, therefore, that the overwhelming majority of the British working class receive more in wages than the value of their labour-power.

    From where does this excess come?
    From the super-profits of colonial exploitation, says the FCA:

"The British workers involved, whether productive or non-productive, receive a good deal more than their subsistence wages. In effect, they receive their subsistence wages out of the values produced in Britain, and the extra bit out of the surplus value created by the colonial or neo-colonial worker.
    This extra chunk, of surplus value is given by the capitalist class to the working class for a very reasonable purpose, namely, to, keep the workers sweet, and ensure that. They continue to support imperialism. This tactic of British imperialism affects nearly all workers".
(p.4).

    Thus, the "Finsbury.Communist Association" finds itself in agreement on this question with such a Labour imperialist as the late Ernest Bevin:

"If the British Empire fell it would mean that the standard of life of our constituents would fall considerably".
(E. Bevin: Speech in House of Commons February 21st, 1946).

"British interests in the Middle East contributed substantially not only to the interests of the people there, but to the wage packets of.. the work-people in this country".
(E. Bevin: Speech in House of Commons, May 16th., 1947).

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: If Bland had read Lenin's "Imperialism," he would know that Lenin quoted just such people all the time. Lenin specifically told the comrades from the imperialist countries to tell the workers exactly the above--that their conditions will worsen and it's worth it to be done with imperialism. It is the Hoxhaite Bland revising Lenin again, and for what? Is there anything factual this far in the essay worth noting in particular? Worth overturning Lenin's definitions themselves? Did Bland really give us anything novel and exciting yet?]

    It is necessary to examine the argument of the FCA in some detail.

The Value of Labour Power

     In the first place, the FCA implies that "subsistence wages" (i.e., the bare cost of keeping the worker and his family alive) represent the value of the average worker's labour-power. This is quite false. On the contrary, Marx stressed that a worker who was receiving mere "subsistence wages" was being paid below the value of his labour-power:

"The minimum limit of the value of labour-power is determined by the value of the commodities, without the daily supply of which the labourer cannot renew his vital energy, consequently by the value of those means of subsistence that are physically indispensable. If the price of labour-power falls to this minimum, it falls below its value, since under such circumstances it can be maintained and developed only in a crippled state".
(K. 'Marx: "Capital", Volume 1; Moscow; 1954; p.173).

    The value of labour-power, in fact, varies from country to country, and from year to year in the same country, in accordance with the prevailing "degree of civilisation" a concept which bears some relation to the volume of production of consumer goods in a country at a particular time:

"The value of labour-power is determined by the value of the necessaries habitually required by the average labourer".
(K. Marx: "Capital", Volume 1; Moscow; 1954; p. 519).

"The number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them, are themselves the product of historical development, and depend therefore to a great extent on the degree of civilisation of a country, more particularly on the conditions under which, and consequently on the habits and degree of comfort I in which, the class of wage-labourers has been formed. In contradistinction therefore to the case of other commodities, there enters into the determination of the value of labour-power a historical and moral element".
(K. Marx: Ibid.; p. 171).

    In recent decades there has been a significant increase in the value of labour-power in Britain, as a result of many items previously regarded as "luxuries" coming to be regarded as "necessities". Television has come to be accepted as a "necessity" for most working-class families, to whom it carries nightly the ideological propaganda of the capitalist class. In 1965 more than 80% of British families had a licensed television set. The fact that more women are now in employment (about 50%) has transformed many household appliances previously regarded as "luxuries" – vacuum cleaners, washing machines, refrigerators -- into "necessities". More than 75% of households now have a vacuum-cleaner, 40% a refrigerator, 50% a washing machine. The increasing distance required for travel to work as a result of housing developments, the increase in shift work, the decline in public transport facilities, have combined to transform for many working class families a car from a "luxury" into a "necessity". At the end of 1964 there were about 8 million cars (an increase of 5 million in ten-years).

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: The above is chauvinist ideology of the exploiters, plain-and-simple. When Marx said the necessities are culturally and historically determined he did not mean that they include TVs for British workers while the Third World has a calories shortage. It's not customary for one proletariat to get fat watching TV while most of the world faces real conditions of need. "Custom" for Marx means that many Asians eat rice while Europeans eat wheat. "Historically determined" in this case means that thousands of years ago, people grew neither rice nor wheat--so yes, things change. The necessities vary that way according to Marx. He was not trying to introduce a backdoor by which to defend imperialist country exploiters, in which they say it is necessary to own a yacht, walkman and a satellite dish. Those people are in a different class than the proletariat.]

    Thus, the fact that the majority of British workers receive wages above bare-subsistence level, the fact that they receive a significantly higher level of real wages than a few decades ago, by no means, indicates that they are receiving wages in excess of the value of their-labour-power.

    On the contrary, the fact that hire purchase debt increased from Pounds Sterling 450 million in 1958 to Pounds Sterling 91,205 million in 1965 (an average in this last year of more than Pounds Sterling 75 per family) strongly suggests that average wages lag behind the higher value of labour-power. This view is endorsed by the statement of the 1959 Report of the committee of "independent experts" set up by the Organisation of European Economic Cooperation, referring to Britain:

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: This proves that for almost 40 years, the representatives of the exploiters have complained about debt. Yet, one of the most indebted men in the world is Donald Trump. Face it: under capitalism, being able to take out debt is in fact an indication of one's capacity to pay. The bankers don't loan out money to people who can't pay--or they do but they always pick those best able to bear the burden. Any entrepreneur knows that's how capitalism works. It's only the stable labor aristocracy seeking a steady and permanent job that fears debt to such an extent that it claims some kind of oppression relative to those who do not have it. The fact that credit cards are not handed out in Ethiopian famines indicates that those people in Ethiopia are poor--not privileged.]

"These studies suggest that, other things being equal., the unions are not able to get full compensation for price increases".
(Cited in: "Marxism Today", Volume 8, No. 12; December 1964; p. 373).

    In fact, the share, which the average British worker receives of the value he produces is less than it was a hundred years ago. Since 1850 industrial output per head has increased by 357%, real wages by only 235%.

"(ECA Mission to the United Kingdom: "Economic Development in the United Kingdom, 1850-1950").

Let us now look at the question from another angle: that of super-profits.

 

Super-Profits

     Super-profits are profits obtained by the capitalist class of a particular country by means of the exploitation of workers in other countries, principally in colonial-type countries.
    Lenin speaks of:

"super-profits - since they are obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their 'home' country",
(V. I. Lenin: Preface to the French and German Editions of 'Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism", in, "Selected Works", Volume 5; London; nd; p. 12)

and of:

 

"super-profits which the bourgeoisie of the oppressing nations obtain by the extra exploitation of the workers of the oppressed nations."
(V. I. Lenin,: "A Caricature of Marxism and 'Imperialist Economism'", in: ".Selected Works', Volume 5; London; n.d.; p. 291).

The Amount of Super-Profits

     Although the importance of super-profits to British imperialism is stressed in the FCA pamphlet, no figure is given of the amount of super-profits obtained by the British capitalist class.

    In 1964 -- the last year for which official statistics, are, at present, available -- the total of interest, profits, dividends and income from "other services" (royalties, etc.) coming to Britain from abroad was Pounds Sterling1,507 million after payment of foreign taxes.
    (This figure is taken from the "UK Balance of Payments", 1965", p.1. Since the item "other services" includes payments for certain exports, the actual figure of super-profit is somewhat lower than the figure given).
 
    But a considerable part of these gross super-profits are re-invested abroad and are not available for "bribery" at home. In 1964 net investment abroad (i.e., the excess of investments made abroad by British investors over those made by foreign investors in Britain) was Pounds Sterling 228 million.

(This figure is taken from "National Income and Expenditure, 1965"; p.14).

    Furthermore a considerable sum of super-profit was extracted from British-workers by foreign capitalists. These super-profits represent surplus value produced by British workers but lost to the British capitalist class. In 1964 the total of interest, profits, dividends and debits on "other services" paid from Britain to foreign capitalists was Pounds Sterling 760 million.
    (This figure is taken from "UK Balance of Payments, 1965"; p.1).

    Subtracting these two debit items from the total of gross British super-profits gives a net figure of Pounds Sterling 519 million.

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: First, on the plus side, few writers other than Bland and Victor Perlo venture even this far into the subject. Bland came earlier than Perlo and Perlo's treatment starts but abandons subjects that Bland did not attempt. Nonetheless, the point is that we can judge a whole generation of imperialist country communists based on this fact. While the feminists were saying that generation did not pay enough attention to the womyn question, in fact, the alleged Marxists of the imperialist countries did not even pay attention to the question of exploitation. It's sad but true. So we have to judge Bland in 1966 relative to what was happening at the time--not much. Nonetheless, the FCA got the better of him.

Since that time, the scientific sparks produced have generated Sakai's history of the mythology of the white proletariat, H.W. Edward's look at the labor aristocracy, and MIM's own painstaking calculations and return to the labor theory of value.

On the substance of what Bland just said, it is something that Marx would refer to as vulgar political economy. In truth, we did not need Marx to know that imperialists make profits abroad. Without Marx, someone would have noticed that. Yet numerous critics of MIM leave the super-profits question at that level.

Readers can check on this themselves. Why did Marx need to write so many thousands of pages on the labor theory of value, if in the end, the application to questions of super-exploitation was just going to be finding out how much profit the imperialists make abroad? Do people really think Marx was that shallow? How did Marx get such a fearsome reputation then?

The whole reason that Marx wrote on the labor theory of value is that he thought it was incorrect for the class struggle just to focus on profits. Marx said, "All economists share the error of examining surplus-value not as such, in its pure form, but in the particular forms of profit and rent."

According to Marx, furthermore, we do not understand capitalism itself unless we understand what produces surplus-value and what does not: ""Productive labour is only a concise term for the whole relationship and the form and manner in which labour-power figures in the capitalist production process. The distinction from other kinds of labour is however of the greatest importance, since this distinction expresses precisely the specific form of the labour on which the whole capitalist mode of production and capital itself is based."

What Bland leaves out is the bulk of surplus-value flows from the oppressed nations to imperialism. In Marx's terminology one such flow is the "transfer of surplus-value from the productive sector to the unproductive sector." By itself, as MIM has pointed out in a book on the subject, this flow of surplus-value is large enough to prove that the imperialist country "workers" are now an elite, which is why they are now generally in the top 10% of the world by income.]

The Amount of "Bribery"

     What proportion of these net super profits is passed to the British working class as "bribes" Lenin speaks variously of:

"crumbs",
(V. I. Lenin: "A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism", in: "Selected Works'"; Volume 5; London; n.d.; p.291).

"a part (and not a small one at that!)".
(V. I . Lenin: Imperialism and the Split in Socialism." in: "Selected Works". Volume 11; London; 1943; P. 757);

and of a figure of 10% or so:

"The bourgeoisie of an imperialist 'Great' Power can economically bribe the upper strata of ‘its' workers by devoting a hundred million francs or so to this purpose, for its super-profits most likely amount to about a billion".
(V. I. Lenin: ibid; p. 758).

    So that we may be sure not to under-estimate the amount of the "bribe", let us assume that the British imperialists now devote five times as much of their super-profits as Lenin estimated -- namely, 50% to "bribery".

[mim3@mim.org replies: OK, Bland went further than most, but there is no reason to assume such a thing. We can do a better job at pinpointing the total surplus-value sucked out of the Third World and MIM has.]

    This gives a figure for 1964 of Pounds Sterling 260 million.

    But the imperialists are able to obtain their super-profits from abroad only at the expense of large sums for military purposes overseas. In 1964 overseas military expenditure amounted to Pounds Sterling 334 million. (This figure is taken from "Labour Research", Volume 54, No. 5; May, 1965; p.69).

    But approximately two-thirds of the revenue required to meet this overseas military expenditure was raised from the working class. (This figure is obtained from an analysis of taxation statistics. in "Britain: An Official Handbook, 1966" p. 405).

    Thus, in order to receive a maximum possible "bribe" of Pounds Sterling 260 million, the British working class in 1964 had to pay extra taxation of Pounds Sterling 223 million.

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: This is a social-democratic argument, not a Marxist one. Who does Bland think is the beneficiary of the military contracts and salaries, the Indian proletariat? No, of course not, the English imperialists are converting some British workers into petty-bourgeoisie (even by Bland's own definitions used above) by taxing "workers" to pay for the military.

We see it today with all the contractors running to Iraq. Even truck-drivers there make six digit salaries in u.$. dollars. In case anyone did not notice, the Bush plan was to take Iraqi oil and pay for Iraqi construction hiring Amerikans making six digits as truckers and the like. The military struggle of the Iraqis is interdicting the oil and preventing contractors from doing even one tenth of what Bush's original plan was. That's just proof again that the MIM line on class struggle is right. No such comparable struggle happened in England or the united $tates; even though according to Bland, that's where all the military taxes are being paid. It's not Iraqis being taxed, but it is Iraqis fighting the war. Bland's line does nothing to explain that.

The struggle for imperialist country wages in the majority-exploiter countries is PROFOUNDLY reactionary in such a context, which just so happens to be all the time in this day-and-age. We are not about encouraging imperialist country people to raise their wages. That only encourages them to fight wars for oil and take jobs in Iraq.

And the fact that British "workers" are taxed does not prove that the money the "workers" paid that tax with is the concrete form of value that those "workers" produced. On the contrary, those workers sucked surplus-value out of the Third World and used it to convert some of their own into military contractor imperialists and petty-bourgeoisie. If Bush loses, it might very well be because he failed to competently implement the usual imperialist plan in Iraq. If his war had gone well, contractors would be lining up to support him.]

    It follows that the maximum possible "bribe" to the British working class from imperialist super-profits amounted in 1964 to Pounds Sterling 37 million.

    Divided among the 44 million members of the working class, this gives a maximum net "bribe" from super-profits of 0.84 pence per head per year, or per head per week..

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: Bland did not break down the British "workers" to see how many produce surplus-value and whether it is possible for his calculation to be true. MIM has. There is no way that unproductive sector workers can outnumber productive sector workers in Britain 3 and 4 to 1 unless what MIM is saying is true.

The imperialist relations of production include super-exploitation globally and an alliance of imperialists and labor aristocracy--a business partnership affecting the ownership of the means of production. In point of fact, Bush controls Iraqi oil with labor aristocracy help and he knows it. Those Amerikan contractors are not proletarians; they are petty-bourgeoisie.]

 
How Big is the Labour Aristocracy

     Since it is clearly impossible for the working class as a whole to gain materially from imperialist super-profits, how big is the "labour aristocracy" which could gain materially from distribution of this "bribe" of Pounds Sterling 37 million?

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: Bland continues onward talking about profits abroad and leaving out flows of surplus-value. This is not what Marx wanted and he made it clear from the first sentence of one of his books in 1861.]

    If we assume that the minimum possible "bribe" likely to affect significantly the social and political outlook of a member of the working class is Pounds Sterling 50 a year, or just under Pounds Sterling l a week, it  is clear that the maximum size of the British labour aristocracy which could benefit from imperialist super-profits is 740,000 out of a working class of 44 million.

    Far from constituting, as the FCA hold:

"the overwhelming majority of Britain's workers";
(p. 5),

    The labour aristocracy represents at most less than 1.7% of the British working class.
 
[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: This is pathetic. Lenin referred to Germany-- a country without colonies like England's--as being a majority bourgeois.]     In fact, Marxist-Leninists have invariably talked of a minority of the working class of a developed capitalist country as benefiting from imperialist super-profits. Lenin speaks of:

"an insignificant minority";
(V. I. Lenin: "Under a False Flag", in: "On Britain"; Moscow; n.d.; p. 211-12).

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: They are insignificant on the global scale. The entire legal U.$., English, French, German etc. "working class" of the imperialist West is less than 10% of the global population.

What is more, Lenin had seen that during World War I, the labor aristocracies of Europe could ruin each other through direct warfare. That was not the situation when Bland wrote in 1966.]

"certain strata of the working class";
(V. I. Lenin: "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism", in: "Selected Works" Volume 11; London; 1943; p. 758).

"the upper strata of 'its' workers";
(V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 758).

"labour leaders and the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy";
(V. I. Lenin: "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London; n.d.; p. 12).

And:

"a stratum of the "labour aristocracy".
(V. I. Lenin: "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London; n.d.; p. 12).

---- as gaining materially from imperialist super-profits.

Furthermore, Lenin emphasised that the size of this "bribed" stratum was becoming smaller:

"Every imperialist 'Great' Power can and does bribe smaller (compared with l848-8 in England) strata of the "labour aristocracy"'.
(V. I.Lenin: "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism", in: "Selected Works", Volume 11; London; 1943; p. 758).

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: This is exactly upside-down. That very quote is explaining how it used to be a bourgeoisified working-class in only England and now it was spreading to the other imperialist countries as they caught up. Far from gettting smaller, the extent of the bourgeoisified working class was enlarging. Countries that used to have zero labor aristocracy now started to have one, "smaller" only compared with how England was.

It is only social-democrats who say that class struggle reduces super-exploitation and hence the labor aristocracy gets smaller. Marx and Lenin both believed it took a socialist revolution to end exploitation. In normal capitalist times, the extent and percentage of parasites increases under capitalism, according to Marx right in Capital. Lenin made it clear it was an "insignificant" "handful" of NATIONS bought off. ]

The Working Class - Summary

     The working class or proletariat -- the terms are synonymous -- includes all wage workers except those who -- for objective reasons already stated - must be included in the petty bourgeoisie. It includes the dependents of these persons.

    On the basis of the above definition, it is possible to estimate from the 1961 Census statistics that the working class in modern Britain comprises about 44 million persons, out of a total population of 52 millions, i.e., about 84%.

Summary

The classes in modern Britain are as follows:

1) The capitalist class, or bourgeoisie, comprising about 1 million persons, or about 2% of the population;
2) the petty-bourgeoisie, comprising about 7 million-persons, or about 14% of the population; and
3) the working class or proletariat, comprising about 44 million persons, or about 84% of the population.

     This is the broad objective position. It takes no account of strata within these classes - for example, of the distinction, of vital importance, between monopoly capitalists and non-monopoly capitalists, or that between industrial and non-industrial workers.

    Above all, it is an objective picture. It takes no account of the subjective class consciousness of members of these classes, for example, of the, fact that many members of the working-class have been persuaded to regard themselves as members of a "'middle class".

    However. Marxist-Leninists understand that in the long run it is objective reality which. determines ideas, that in the long run. it is objective class position which determines class consciousness. It is the task of the Marxist-Leninist vanguard to lead the British working-class in its day-to-day struggles in such a way that its members learn, from their own experience, that they belong to the working class, to that class which is destined to rule the Socialist Britain of the future.
(First published in HAMMER OR ANVIL, April/May, 1966).

POSTSCRIPT

 

    The September 1966 issue of the "The Communist", organ of the "Marxist Forum, carries a review of the "Finsbury Communist Association" pamphlet "Class and Party in Britain" by "F.E.S.", who criticises the concepts dealt with in the article "CLASSES IN MODERN BRITAIN".

    However, the "Marxist Forum Group" is careful to make it clear that their criticism of the pamphlet is not one of principle but merely of "terms" (p. 30). They find the pamphlet "a very courageous attempt" (p.34), with "good intentions" (p. 14), "one of the most serious pieces of work done by the anti-revisionist movement in Britain" (p. 30), one which makes "valuable contributions" (p. 12), the service of which "cannot be overestimated" (p. 34).

    On the other hand, Mr. Brendan Clifford - writing in the same issue of "The Communist" - finds our criticism of the FCA pamphlet "confused" and "harmful", putting forward views which "distort the nature of imperialism and seriously underestimate its exploiting role in the present" (p. 34).

    Mr. Clifford gives two reasons for alleging that our article underestimates the exploiting role of British imperialism in the present:

Firstly, that it relies on "bourgeois figures";
Secondly, that it "ignores entirely a major source of imperialist exploitation, unequal exchange (p.33).

"'Bourgeois Figures"

    Certainly the statistics cited in our article are "bourgeois figures", in that they are issued by the capitalist state; "bourgeois figures" – are the only statistics available in a capitalist country. Mr. Clifford errs grossly, however, when he assumes that the masses of statistics which every capitalist state pours out are issued for the purpose of misleading the working class with falsified figures (perhaps Mr. Clifford is out of touch with the breakfast reading of the workers!).They are issued for the purpose of enabling capitalists and their economic advisers to operate as profitably as possible -- and this can hardly be done on the basis of falsified figures.

    In fact, Lenin analysed imperialism solely on the basis of  "bourgeois figures". Since, as will be shown, Mr. Clifford's picture of imperialism -- produced, it would appear, by inspired contemplation of his navel --- differs fundamentally from that drawn by Lenin, he may perhaps argue that Lenin was "misled" by "bourgeois figures". However to Marxist-Leninists Lenin’s analysis of imperialism remains the incontrovertibly correct basis for all study of imperialism. Mr. Clifford's rejection as "falsified" of all statistics which do not fit in with his mental picture of imperialism reminds one only of a shipwrecked navigating officer arguing that his vessel could not possibly have run aground since his calculations proved conclusively that it was in the middle of the Atlantic!

 Profits from Foreign Trade

     Mr. Clifford alleges, secondly, that our article unjustifiably omitted from the fund available for "bribery" of the British working class part of the profit which the British capitalist class obtains from foreign trade, namely, that part which comes from "unequal exchange" with underdeveloped territories.

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: The "unequal exchange" theorists were more correct than their opponents, by a long-shot. On the other hand, this refers to an academic dispute, a dispute with profound implications for the international proletariat, but one which nonetheless did not take deep root among the communists. It is a sad statement again about our scientific communist movement that it was better to refer to such disputes than to count on the Marxists to look at their own labor theory of value and apply it. For all that it mattered to the allegedly Marxist activists, we did not need a labor theory of value at all, just some figures on profits.

The "unequal exchange" theorists took what was visible even to bourgeois economists and made hay. It was the Marxists' job to dig deeper into the surplus-value and make that visible. The Marxist job was more difficult--and the "unequal exchange" argument is not that easy either--but we are the underdog in the struggle. The exploiters are the status quo, so it is incumbent on us that we must improve.]

    However, our article was a critique of the FCA pamphlet, which is quite explicit as to the source from which, in its view, this "bribery" fund comes. It comes, they say,

"out of the surplus value created by the colonial or neocolonial workers".
(p. 4).

    But it is an elementary principle of Marxist economics that trade, i.e., the buying and selling of commodities, creates, neither value nor surplus value:

"No value is produced in the process of circulation, and, therefore no surplus-value.. . . . . . . If surplus-value is realised by the sale of produced commodities, it is only because that surplus-value already existed in them. . .
Seeing that merchant’s capital itself does not produce any surplus value, it is evident that surplus-value appropriated by it in the shape of average profit must be a portion of the surplus-value produced by the total productive capital".
(K. Marx: "Capital", Volume 1; New York; 1906; p. 329, 331-2).

    Thus, when a British capitalist sells a commodity in an underdeveloped territory, the surplus value he realises is not created by the customer and thus has no relevance to "surplus value created by the colonial or neocolonial workers".

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: Such is all true in what Marx described in certain conditions in Capital, which he said did not always apply, but which applied in the best-case scenario for workers exchanging with capitalists. Referring to "unequal exchange" does not mean surplus-value originates in circulation, but that when one is all said and done calculating, (and this by using the trade figures made available by the bourgeoisie much the same way we use their profit figures) there is an unequal exchange occurring.

Bland and the like do not know much about economic reality if they do not know for instance that multinational corporations use "transfer prices" or outright corporate "funny money" to pay for the products of its branches abroad. Marx in no way meant to say that such figures can be taken literally when he said that surplus-value originates at the workplace and not in circulation. It's two separate questions. The unequal exchange theorists only pointed out something that we can see just by looking at the profit and trade figures that are available. It does not relieve us of understanding surplus-value flows--something the bourgeoisie keeps no overall figures on.]

    Similarly, when a British capitalist buys a commodity from an underdeveloped territory, the act of buying does not create any surplus-value. If the commodity concerned has been produced by a non-employed producer, no surplus value is created. If the commodity is produced by a worker in the underdeveloped territory who is employed by a native capitalist, then surplus value is created; but this is retained by the native capitalist and is not remitted to British capitalists as buyers.

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: Right here is a fundamental error that abandons Marx's theory of surplus-value. The surplus-value is extracted at the point of production, possibly by a native capitalist, possibly by a combination with imperialists. The fact that it is extracted in the Third World does NOT mean it stays in the Third World. As Marx explained, the capitalists divide up surplus-value according to their shares of capital, and in fact, a transfer of surplus-value from the manufacturing sector to the unproductive sector HAS TO OCCUR or there'd be no capitalists in the unproductive sector. This is not accounted for by any of MIM's critics. They simply have not read and applied Marx on surplus-value flows. The manufacturing capitalist DOES NOT obtain all the surplus-value from his/her factory-workers, unless that same capitalist owns all the transportation and retail outlets necessary to sell the product of his/her factory-workers. Ordinarily, in the real world, most factory capitalists share their surplus-value with other capitalists from the unproductive sector--retail, office, insurance, legal, guarding etc.

It is also a common error to believe that merchandise sold in the imperialist countries from a Third World factory contains no surplus-value extracted from Third World workers, if that merchandise is paid for in a free market exchange before it reaches the retail outlet. Here the labor bureaucrat exploiter representatives of the labor aristocracy confuse two separate issues. Surplus-value does not ORIGINATE in exchange, but that does not mean that once an exchange has occurred there is no post-exchange distribution of surplus-value. When we say the capitalists do not augment their wealth through exchange, that is true in an overall class sense. It does not mean that the Walmarts etc. can make a profit without doing exchange with productive sector capitalists! It means that EVEN the origin of Walmart's profits is in the extraction of surplus-value from workers in the factory/farm/mine. The origin of profits is NOT in sales or circulation, which is why Walmart workers are not the source of surplus-value. Cull all the best Walmart workers, put them in a store and then conduct no exchanges with the suppliers and there will be no profits from that Walmart store. It is not the case that Walmart workers are so much better at sales and that is how Walmart capitalists are now among the world's richest billionaires. Walmart capitalists are billionaires because they invested capital in the retail sector where they obtain a share of surplus-value extracted in the Third World. They share the surplus-value with the factory-owners of the Third World.]

    If, however, the commodity is produced by a worker in the underdeveloped territory who is employed by a branch or subsidiary of a British company, then surplus value is produced and part of it is remitted to the parent company in Britain. This is super-profit, and it is included in the figures cited in our article -- Pounds Sterling 1,507 million for 1964.

    Thus, in terms of the source of the, "bribery" fund as defined by the FCA, it would have been, quite incorrect to have included profit from foreign trade in this fund.

"Unequal Exchange"

     However, if the capitalist class of a developed country is able to make extra profit by "unequal exchange" with underdeveloped countries -- by selling its commodities there at an artificially high price and/or by buying commodities from there at an artificially low price -- then the capitalist class of the developed country certainly gains at the expense of the people of the underdeveloped territory. This extra profit may legitimately be included in the proceeds of "imperialist exploitation" -- in the broad, non-technical sense in which Mr. Clifford uses this term.
    Mr. Clifford, however regards "unequal exchange" as:

"a major source of imperialist exploitation".
(p. 33).

    and it is desirable to determine if this is, in fact, so.
   It is certainly true that Marx drew attention to such unequal exchange:

"Capitals invested in foreign trade are in a position to yield a higher rate of profit, because, in the first place, they come in competition with commodities produced in other countries with lesser facilities of production, so that an advanced country is enabled to sell its goods above their value even when it sells them cheaper than the competing countries".
(K. Marx: "Capital" Volume 3; Chicago; 1909; p. 278).

    But Marx wrote this passage a hundred years ago, before capitalism had developed to its imperialist stage, and when Britain was the only developed capitalist country in the world. Today British goods come into competition on the world market with goods produced in other developed capitalist countries, the technical level of production of which is in many cases significantly higher than that of Britain.

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: What is this but saying the Amerikans are getting super-profits and not the British anymore. Ugh. The imperialists invest in each other to prevent that from happening and such imperialist cross-investment occurs more now than ever before.]

    Lenin, who made the classical Marxist analysis of capitalism in its imperialist stage of development, pointed out that one of the distinctive features of this stage was that profits from foreign trade generally had become a minor factor compared with profits from the foreign investment of capital:

"Under the old type of capitalism,''. . . the export of goods was the the most typical feature. Under modern capitalism . . . the export of capital has become the typical feature".
(V. I. Lenin: "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", in: "Selected Works", Volume.5; London; nd.; p,56).

    Lenin defined one of the five essential features of imperialism as that:

"the export of capital has become extremely important, as distinguished from the export of commodities",
(V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 81).

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: That's right and that's also why Britain shares in U.$.-instigated super-profits.]

    and noted that in Britain by 1915

"the revenue of the bondholders is five times greater than the revenue obtained from the foreign trade of the greatest trading country in the world".
(V. Lenin: ibid; p. 92)

    Lenin also emphasised that, in the imperialist stage of capitalism, the predominant tendency in the foreign trade of a developed capitalist country is not, as it had been in Marx's day when Britain was the unchallenged "workshop of the world", to sell dear abroad, but on the contrary to sell dear on the home market and cheap on the foreign market where, even in dependent territories, greater competition has to be faced from imperialist rivals:

"The cartels and finance capital have a system peculiar to themselves, that of . . 'dumping', as the English call it: within a given country the cartel sells its goods at a high price fixed by the monopoly; abroad it sells them at a much lower price to undercut the'-competitor".
(V. I..Lenin: ibid.; p. 105).

    The recent trend towards neo-colonialism where direct political control of underdeveloped  countries has given way to more subtle forms of domination, has reinforced this predominant tendency.
   This tendency is revealed in the figures for Britain's terms of trade over the last three-quarters of a century; the terms of trade are favourable to Britain when the average prices of its exports are high relative to the average prices of its imports, and are unfavourable when the average prices of its exports are low relative to the average prices of its imports. In the first instance the index is high, in the second instance the index is low:

          1802: 228

1880: 100
1947:  94
(B. R..Mitchell: "Abstract of British Historical Statistics"; Cambridge; 1962; P. 331-32).

    It is clear, therefore, that in speaking of  "unequal exchange" as "a major source of imperialist exploitation" (p. 33), Mr. Clifford is a hundred years behind the times!

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: This is a sideshow for MIM. The "unequal exchange" theorists were much closer to the mark than Bland, but ultimately the level of understanding of both was too low. The "unequal exchange" theorists had a much better grip on theory than our other "Marxists." If Bland were so correct about selling dear on the home market, it would not be more expensive to live in Third World cities. It is a great exploiter myth that it is actually cheaper to live in the Third World. It's how the exploiters get comfortable with their exploiter status. It's cheaper in the Third World because they have fewer luxuries there! To live the same luxurious lifestyle as in the West is still more expensive in the Third World.

As we reported in MIM Notes in 1995: ""The latest data shows that the cost of living in Seoul--the largest city of southern Korea with 10 million people --is 24 percent higher than that in New York City. The difference is not affected by the dollar's exchange rate, because the Korean currency is more or less fixed by the government in proportion to the U.S. dollar. Other cities that are more expensive than New York to live in but with lower wages include Brazzaville, Congo; Taipei,China; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Singapore, Malaysia; Douala, Cameroon; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Abidjan, Ivory Coast; Sao Paulo, Brazil; Nairobi, Kenya; Dakar, Senegal; Dar Es Salaam, Amman, Jordan; Jakarta, Indonesia; Cairo, Egypt and Montevideo, Uruguay. Tied with New York in cost of living are Bangkok, Thailand and Lima, Peru. Only 12 cities out of 125 surveyed have costs of living less than 80 percent of that in New York. Bombay and New Delhi, India are the most important of these, ranking in at 76 percent of New York City costs. Another three cities in that category are from Canada, which is an indication that the difference in costs of living internationally is not radical."

We can also be sure that if that were not true, we'd see the imperialists all move to Mexico City or Lima. The immigration flows would start to reverse. In any case, this is not a major point, just an interesting ideological sidelight on the nature of the exploiter argument.]

    However, some "unequal exchange" still occurs in Britain's trade with certain underdeveloped countries, and it would be of interest to estimate the-maximum conceivable gain to the British capitalist class which could accrue from this.
   In 1964 British exports to and imports from under-developed territories together totalled Pounds Sterling 2,092 million. (This figure is taken from "Annual Sbstract of Statistics, 1965", p. 219-220).
 
    Lenin estimated 2.5  % on turnover as the average rate of profit from foreign trade, taking this figure as a constant over the years. (V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 92).

    But we are concerned with the extra profit resulting from unequal trade with underdeveloped countries. Let us assume that the rate of profit resulting from such "unequal exchange" is at the maximum conceivable figure of 50% above the average rate of profit on foreign trade generally, i.e., at 3.75% on turnover. This would give a maximum conceivable extra profit from "unequal exchange" of 1.25% on turnover, i.e., Pounds Sterling 26 million in 1964.

    Assuming, in an effort to avoid underestimation, that the British imperialists now devote five times as high a proportion of this to "bribery" as Lenin estimated (see original article [ie see above before the postscript]), this gives a figure for "bribery" from this source of Pounds Sterling 13 million for 1964.

    Divided among the 44 million members of the working class in Britain, this gives a maximum conceivable extra "bribe" from "unequal exchange", of 30 pence per head per year, or a half-pence per head per week.

    Added to the proportion of super-profit proper which is available for "bribery", this gives a maximum possible total "bribe" of Pounds Sterling 1.14 per head per year, or 2 pence per head per week.

    If we assume, as in the original article, that the minimum possible "bribe" likely to affect the social and political outlook of a member of the working class is Pounds Sterling 50 per year, or just under Pounds Sterling 1 a week, it is clear that the maximum size of the British labour aristocracy which could materially benefit from imperialist "bribery" is 1 million out of a working class of 44 million, or at the most 2.3% of the British working class.

    It is clear, then, that the addition of the maximum conceivable profit from "unequal exchange" does not materially alter the conclusion of our original article: that the overwhelming majority of the British working class receive no material benefit from imperialist super-profits.

    It is unfortunate that Mr. Clifford's distaste for this conclusion leads him to distort it into the shape of a pink herring:

"The conclusion that suggests itself is that it is more trouble to Britain to remain an imperialist power than it is worth it to her in economic gains. . . that Britain would lose nothing . . . if she gave up the imperialist game; . . . that Britain gains only marginal benefits from overseas exploitation".
(p. 31).

    But even the most elementary student of Marxism-Leninism does not speak of "Britain" in such a connection. Britain is a class-divided society and what is in the interests of one class is usually contrary to the interests of the other class. The British monopoly capitalists receive, as was stated in the original article, some Pounds Sterling1,500 million a year in super-profits as such, in addition to the surplus value they receive from the exploitation of the British working class. The latter pays the greater part of the cost of securing this imperialist super-profit; a tiny percentage receive some small economic gain.

A New Situation

     Since it is this "bribery" which forms the principal objective basis for opportunism among the British working class, it is clear that the objective basis for opportunism -- except among a tiny minority of the working class -- does not now exist.

    If, therefore opportunism is still widespread among British workers, this is not because the objective basis for it still exists, but because there is always a lag between a change in material conditions and the ideas reflected by those material conditions:

"Economic conditions change first and the consciousness of men undergoes a corresponding change later".
(J. V. Stalin;" Anarchism or Socialism?", in: "Works", Volume 1; Moscow; 1952; p. 322).

    Marxist-Leninists, understand, even if Mr. Clifford does not, that we face in Britain a qualitatively new situation where widespread opportunism among the British working class is in process of being swept away by a change in the material conditions of British imperialism. The strategy of Marxist-Leninists can only be correct when it is based on a correct understanding of this new situation.

    The viewpoints of the "Finsbury Communist Association" and of the "Marxist Forum Group" are, despite their superficial differences, two sides of the same counterfeit coin. The FCA reduces the British "proletariat" to a mere handful of, mainly immigrant, workers living on subsistence level, a "proletariat" not even large enough to form a Solid base for a Marxist-Leninist Party. The MFG is concerned to exaggerate the strength of the most immediate enemy of the British working class -- British imperialism.

(First published in "HAMMER OR ANVIL", November/December 1966).

[Postscript from anonymous writer: (We cut the part asking for systematic data on the share of value-added in manufacturing/mining/farming retained in the Third World. We invite others to submit more up-to-date articles on that subject. In countries like China today, MIM has answered that the reason there is economic growth there is that the national bourgeoisie in China is able to retain a large enough portion of value produced by Chinese workers to sustain historically incredible 25% to 45% investment rates over decades. It means there is also a Chinese economy in its own right and not just a Chinese economy serving the imperialists. How long such a growth phase and an improving position of independence lasts in China's case is speculative. Other Third World exporters show no such waxing independence economically-speaking. The imperialists have ruined some countries to such an extent that they mainly serve as part of the "reserve army of the unemployed" that Marx referred to, at this time.)

mim3@mim.org says that "surplus-value is extracted at the point of [immediate?] production." I think it might be more accurate to say that the extraction of surplus value begins at the point of production, or that surplus value is extracted at the location of production. Surplus value can be most accurately measured only after the worker receives their paycheck, the money then representing access to commodities with a certain total social value, the magnitude of which is determined at the time they get their pay. Of course, we can predict with some amount of confidence how large a worker's paycheck will be in terms of value before they get it. We don't have to wait until payday this week or month to say that the majority of Euro-Amerikan workers are exploiters economically, or that the majority of oppressed nationalities are super-exploited.

mim3@mim.org replies: That's right: we know in advance what the capitalists are going to do--take the factory output and get surplus-value for it "realized" in the marketplace. At the factory, what the capitalist does is extract "surplus-labor." We know the "surplus-labor" is going to become "surplus-value" in ordinary circumstances or at least the circumstances that we want to talk about. Though the capitalist has to go to the market-place to buy, sell, etc., the marketplace is secondary, as the example of an empty Walmart with all the sales clerks in place and working would prove.

Because the theory "unequal exchange" has the word "exchange" in there, critics wrongly assume that it's about denying that a Walmart without suppliers is broke and that it's about denying that an economy does not go forward by having capitalists buy and sell to each other in a circle. (Capitalist 1: "Here, you take the 1000 tons of coal." Capitalist 2: "OK." Time elapses. Capitalist 2: "Now you take it back, capitalist one." Capitalist 1: "OK, I'll buy it back from you.")

It just so happens that the way governments and multinational corporations intervene in production, something happens that the academics measure in exchange. It does not mean that the origin of what they see is not the production process instead of the exchange process. The argument gets to be a lot like the "states' rights" argument about the Civil War. The petty whites try to justify the South's fight by saying it was about states' rights, a historically false argument, but also not really a different argument either. The reason they wanted states' rights was to be able to continue with slavery, and this also caused them to want the Western states to have slavery too. So at the root of why they wanted states rights or even a different tariff policy is something else. Even saying the South wanted to preserve an agrarian way of life does not really change anything, because that agrarian way of life has happened with slavery and the industrial North did not have generalized slavery. Likewise, the reason we can see "unequal exchange" is something else at the root-- even in the best circumstances of a free market, not to mention where trade does occur more or less by force.

By pointing out that surplus value is not extracted at the point of the immediate direct production process (as soon as the worker lets go of the material that they are working up), I don't mean that value or surplus value is determined after exchange or in the market, which would be the wrong "value-form" interpretation of Marx's theory put forth by such authors as I. I. Rubin (1972, Essays on Marx's Theory of Value, http ://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/rubin/ ; Fred Moseley, 1997 May, "Abstract labor: susbtance or form? A critique of the value-form interpretation of Marx's theory," http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/VALUEFRM.htm).

mim3@mim.org replies: This would be a wrong way to go: to say that surplus-value is not "extracted" at the point of the immediate direct production process. Surplus-labor and surplus-value are considered equivalents by Marxists, because we uphold a labor theory of value. That's the principal thing here, especially in the context of the papers you point to that want to debate whether we should just turn to the subjectivist utility school and say the marketplace is what really chooses "value."

This question is also closely tied to why there is a distinction between productive sector labor and unproductive sector labor. It stands to reason that if a Walmart sales clerk can add value and be the source of value, then capitalists can also "work" as sales clerks on Wall Street.

Even where there is no real free market exchange but negotiation by cannonball, this is something about the production process. Typically it means that the native capitalist and/or native worker or trade union do not control the production process. Very often it means that we Marxists have to argue against the blockheads in our circles who do not realize that means something about ownership. The invasion of Iraq is about ownership and the citizens of the country invading and partnering with that country are getting an ownership stake.

So even when a capitalist shows up to steal something, artillery in hand, this is not how the class as a whole advances. We would have to average the sufferings of the Iraqi bourgeoisie with the gains of the Amerikan bourgeoisie. In fact, such intra-bourgeois strife tends to set back the capitalist class as a whole via supply disruptions etc. These market disruptions are not what interested us in the labor theory of value. We want to talk about how it is that capital does manage to expand itself. In previous modes of production they also had wars and disruptions, sometimes to the complete ruin of the classes concerned.

Anonymous continues: The value-form "interpretation" has been implicitly, at least, used by some so-called Marxists to cover up imperialist parasitism and hide unequal exchange benefiting oppressor nations by saying that the market somehow equalizes skilled imperialist-country labor with so many units of presumably unskilled Third World labor. Of course, what these people forget is that we are living under a world capitalism dominated by imperialism, and under the conditions of a monopoly-dominated world market, which includes the export sectors of the Third World at the very least. A microprocessor manufactured in Massachusetts has the same social labor-value as the same microprocessor manufactured in Texas -- and the same social value as the same microprocessor made in Korea. The net transfer of value to oppressed nations in part consists of the activity of relatively large imperialist-country importers, but also different nations trading the same commodity in the same world market. With positive exploitation removed, different workers who each do one labor-hour to make aluminum castings in Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, and Chihuahua, Mexico, would be paid the same amount of money -- regardless of how advanced or labor-saving each of their production techniques is. The fact that they are not (and costs of living are ridiculously insufficient to account for the difference) means that something big is going on.

Various "socialists" talk about the "wages" in their own imperialist countries as if the Third World was on the planet Pluto and raising pay rates for the majority of workers in imperialist countries had absolutely no adverse effect on the wages of oppressed nationalities. Related to this incorrect view is the potentially racist belief that the "Third World" has always been undeveloped in comparison to countries that are currently imperialist, and that European workers have always been more productive in terms of output per hour; supposedly, European workers deserve exploiter incomes because international productivity disparities allegedly cannot be helped. The assumption of long-existing international income disparity has been countered by recent research (M. Shahid Alam, 2000, "How Advanced Was Europe in 1760 After All?," Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 32, pp. 610-630).

[mim3@mim.org replies for MIM: The comrade is agreeing with us up and down the line. We are just having a little difficulty with that word "extract." I would also add the following. The concrete situation we find ourselves in today is that if hypothetically we took all the imperialists' wealth and re-distributed it to the Third World workers with no regard for future saving or accumulation--just as a handout so as to avoid discussing whether a new capitalist class appropriated the re-distributed means of production-- the Third World workers would still be exploited. The reason is that the wealth of the capitalists is not large enough to undo the structure of exploitation we have. The bulk of surplus-value in the world--on an annual basis--goes to the imperialist country petty-bourgeoisie, not the imperialists; even though, on a per capita basis, of course the imperialists take in much more than the petty-bourgeoisie.

Another way to put this is that after the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations comes to power, we will find ourselves overjoyed in every situation where the existing economic relations are putting at least some capital into the local Third World economy. Under socialism, it will be easier to turn such situations to proletarian advantage and there will be no need to refer to that local accumulation as surplus-value/exploitation. That local accumulation will not only stay the same in many regards but also expand. We have to recall that in much of the world, the local capitalist puppets do not really succeed in realizing surplus-value. Their economies are shrinking, so the commodities put into production are larger than what the capitalists take out--or just break-even-- thanks to imperialism sucking them dry.

This is also why the original question is interesting. Not many places in the world are growing economically like social-fascist China. The national bourgeoisie is growing in some places, but in many other places it is not, because the surplus-value is being sucked out too fast by the imperialist countries--to the point of ruin.]