A Critique Of "Under-Consumption Theories"
7. The Stalinists' Concept of Crisis-Mendelison's "Theory and History of Crisis"
If we look back at the history of the theoretical debates, Engels' expression of the contradiction between "the social character of production and the private character of appropriation" has frequently been cited to explain crisis (especially among Stalinists). The convincing argument has been spread that crisis should not be explained solely through a theory of "under-consumption" or "disequilibrium", but rather must be defined through an explanation of the fundamental contradictions of the capitalistic mode of production. It is not a question, then, of denying the theory of under-consumption or disequilibrium, but of correctly positing it within an overall theory of crisis. According to this logic, if this is not done, a correct understanding of crisis cannot be reached. Now is the time to completely break with this vulgar theory. As a result of the spread of this "Stalinist" dogma the "Marxist" theory of crisis has grown stale and become a boring and obscure heap of redundancy. Today there is nothing as dried up and unappealing as the "Marxist" theory of crisis, and it is no exaggeration to say that the responsibility for this lies with the Stalinists (Communist Party) and their dogma.
Of course, it is absolutely correct to say that a theory of under-consumption or disequilibrium by itself is mistaken since it superficially explains the contradictions of the capitalistic mode of production, and is thus misused by reformists and revisionists to serve their own opportunism. Moreover, it is a correct formulation of the problem to say that crisis must also be explained from the fundamental contradictions in the capitalistic mode of production (as Marx said, crisis is the "concentrated expression of the contradictions of capitalism"). Nevertheless, we certainly cannot say that the Stalinists' conception is justified. Conversely, this theory became a source of confusion.
A criticism of Stalin has already been carried out, but there has yet to be a complete discussion of works that were written under the influence of Stalinism such as Mendelison's representative crisis theory in his "The Theory and History of Crisis". In this work, "modeled after" Engels and Lenin, the "fundamental cause" of crisis is found in the contradiction between "the social nature of production and the private (capitalistic) form of acquisition". But this Stalinist concept has as many twists and turns and it is not easy to find the way out.
"The total sphere of the relations which condition the inevitability of crisis develop together with the capitalistic mode of production. Further, they stem from the fundamental contradiction of capitalism, i.e. the contradiction between the social character of production and the private, capitalistic form of appropriation. The social nature of production appears in the fact that any product of labor is created through the collected efforts of many people, and satisfies some social need." ("The Theory and History of Crisis"-translated from Japanese)
This is the king of cliches that forms the basis of the Stalinist theory of crisis and governs everything else. This cliche leads to another and another.
Is this concept just a different way of expressing the contradiction between the relations of production and the productive power? If this is so, this conception could understand the basis of crisis. If, however, this is something different than the concept of the contradiction between the relations of production and productive power it would a "Stalinistic" dogma which cannot fundamentally explain crisis clearly or correctly. In this conception, the "private, capitalistic form of appropriation" corresponds to the relations of production, and the "social character of production" corresponds to the productive power. However, it cannot be said that this correspondence is justifiable. For example, "the social character of production" and productive power are different things. Even though both of them have a close relationship, this does not mean that the two are equivalent concepts. The same thing can be said of the concept of the "private, capitalistic form of appropriation" and the capitalistic production relations. It is clear that the two concepts are not immediately the same thing. The latter concept forms the basis of the relationship between capital and wage labor, while this is not directly true in the case of the former. Of course, in a sense the former could be said to be the same since it is inseparable from the concept of capital and wage labor.
Moreover, the relations of production exist prior to the relations of "appropriation" which is subordinate to them. The relations of "appropriation" do not precede the relations of capitalistic production as a "condition". Could it be said then that the "relations of appropriation" is just another way of expressing the relations of private property? If this is the case, we would have to question the necessity or importance of introducing the term "appropriation" instead of "private property". Furthermore, the laws of private property are not directly the relation between capital and wage labor. Certainly private property fundamentally determines these class relations, but there are several "mediating factors" that are necessary-in reality, and thus in theory-between private property and the class relation between capital and wage labor.
"The socialization of labor is inseparably linked to the increase in labor productivity, and the introduction of improved methods and means of production, transportation, and communication." (Ibid)
Of course, this proposition is unquestionable. However, this statement if not simply repetitive, is nothing but an hollow truth.
The Stalinists say that this "socialization of labor" is not unrelated to the development of productive power, but "connected" to it. However, we should not be fooled by the vague expression "connected" because this is related to the decisively important question of the basis of capitalist contradictions. Of course, to say that it "is connected" could be saying anything. Certainly the "socialization of labor" is in fact inseparable from, and "connected" to the development of productive power. As the socialization of labor develops the productive power of labor also reaches a higher level. We recognize that the two progress in parallel. Nevertheless, they are two separate things; the concept of the "socialization of labor" cannot be equated with productive power.
Of course, the Stalinists don't declare that these two things are the same, they merely say that they are "connected". However, using this expression, they create the impression that the socialization of labor and productive power are the same concept. This vague concept is hence perfectly appropriate for the Stalinists who can use this truthful sounding expression to conceal the reality of capitalism.
Moreover, this "fundamental contradiction" is also not unrelated to class struggle.
"The fundamental contradiction in capitalism is the contradiction between the social character of production and the private form of acquisition. This is because this contradiction expresses the fundamental characteristics of the capitalistic mode of production, and the split of bourgeois society into confrontational classes, i.e. the split between the bourgeoisie who monopolize the social means of production, and the proletariat who are exploited by the bourgeoisie and only possess their own labor power.
The contradiction between the social character of production and the private form of appropriation is expressed in the collision between the character of large-scale capitalistic production relations and the capitalistic property form including all the other production relations (?-Hayashi ). At times, bourgeois economists recognize this or that contradiction in the capitalist economy, but they always deny or conceal the contradiction between the social character of production and private appropriation. If they were to admit this contradiction, it would mean recognizing that the capitalistic property form of the means of production no longer corresponds to, collides more and more profoundly and violently with, the character of the productive power, and for this reason historically its fate is sealed, and will be replaced by the socialistic form of property.
Since the contradiction between the social character of production and the private, capitalistic appropriation is the fundamental contradiction within the capitalistic system of production, and expresses the fundamental characteristics of this system, all of the contradictions of bourgeois society are encompassed within this contradiction. In other words, the contradiction between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation is revealed and expressed in each of the other contradictions of capitalism. The reciprocal, dialectical relation between the fundamental contradiction of capitalism and the other various contradictions is extremely important. Starting from this reciprocal relation, the fundamental problems of the theory of crisis could be correctly solved for the first time." (Ibid)
What Engels, when characterizing capitalistic production, referred to as the private form of acquisition, was the fact that even though the capitalistic commodity becomes a thoroughly social product in the sense that it is already the product of the workers collaborative labor, the capitalist appears as an individual property owner and as such brings the product to market and sells it. In other words, the relations of private property. Engels emphasized that in capitalism the relations of small commodity production had already been superceded, and that individual production had ended, but even though production was carried out socially, possession, as before, is still private and individualistic-it was here that Engels saw a contradiction. Of course this is clearly a contradiction, but it cannot be simply (or directly) said that this is "the fundamental contradiction of capitalism" and that crisis can be explained from this contradiction. We can't understand why one would deny!
!
the simple but fundamental and comprehensive concept of the contradiction between the capitalistic relations of production and productive power. What is gained by taking this or that word of Engels-and only the words-and turning them into a dogma? Only the Stalinists stand to gain from such a practice. The Japanese Communist Party and others employ such means, and do nothing but scatter around their dogma. It should be clear to anyone who has read even a little Marx, that when he explained crisis he emphasized the contradiction and conflict between the limits of capitalistic production (the limits of "capital itself"), and the expanding productive power which crashes into these limits.
As petty bourgeois private property is transformed into capitalistic private property (capitalistic property relations), the class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat develops. This is unquestionable proposition. However, to call this "the contradiction between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation" and to say that "within this contradiction" the capitalistic class relations "are revealed" (!?) only serves to render vague the essential relations of capitalistic production, and cause confusion among the workers by drawing them into a chaotic storm of meaningless jargon. This is one of the "systematic" ideologies of the Stalinists which was born out of the system of state capitalist society (the systems, mistakenly called socialist, of the USSR and China), in other words, a reactionary "doctrine".
What the bourgeoisie refuses to "accept" is not the dogma of the "the contradictions between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation", but rather the contradiction and conflict between capitalistic production relations and productive power, which is a truly revolutionary theory. Of course, under capitalism "contradictions between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation" do exist, but there is no reason to call this the "fundamental contradiction". Moreover, if one says that this is a "fundamental contradiction" in a sense, but only a different, not necessarily superior, way of expressing the contradiction and conflict between the relations of production and productive power, then all of the reasons that the Stalinists use appear as nonsensical repetition which mean nothing more than a difference of expression. In other words, "the contradictions between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation" manifest the contradiction between the relations of production and the productive power, and has the same meaning, etc. However, even though this is too simplistic, the Stalinists say that the former includes or expresses the later, and dress up their arguments in convincing garb which only serves to reinforce the confused and ambiguous nature of their theory.
"The contradiction between production and consumption and between the potential of production and the low consumption ability of the masses, is an expression of the contradiction between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation". (Ibid-translated from Japanese)
"The contradiction between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation" is also an expression of the anarchy of the capitalist economy" (Ibid)
"Even societies of simple commodity production were characterized by a 'lack of planning' , but under conditions of capitalism, based on the contradiction between the social character of production and the capitalistic form of appropriation, the anarchy of production begins to take a destructive form in the entire course of reproduction." (Ibid)
Furthermore, this is "conditioned by a series of factors", but these "conditions" are first of all, "the enormous socialization of labor"; secondly, "constant imbalance"; thirdly, "the conflict between classes and the contradiction between production and consumption which is one of its manifestations"; and finally, increasingly severe, and destructive "competition".
It is extremely difficult to understand clearly what the author is trying to say here, but it is immediately clear to us that this is nothing but a bunch of jargon. He continues in the following way:
"The contradictions between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation appears clearly in the "antagonism between the organization of production in the individual workshop and the anarchy of production in society in general.'"
"The contradictions between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation is also revealed in the form of the contradiction between the conditions for the production of surplus value and the conditions of its realization."
"Among the many forms in which the contradiction between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation is revealed, we have only discussed those which are particularly essential for explaining the inevitability of crisis. Of these, the most important are the confrontation between the proletariat and the bourgoeisie and the anarchy in production."
"The contradiction between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation is the basis, and inescapable cause of crisis. This is because this contradiction is the synthesis of all the contradictions of bourgeois society, and manifests itself in each particular contradiction. Each contradiction (i.e. the anarchy of production, the contradiction between production and consumption, the contradiction between the conditions for the production of surplus value and the conditions for realizing this surplus value, etc.) as the manifestation of this fundamental contradiction of capitalism can become the cause of crisis."
This view seems to be saying that the contradiction between the social character of production and capitalistic appropriation is the basis of crisis, but on the other hand, when it appears as the contradiction between production and consumption it becomes the cause of crisis. However, this is simply the repetition of the same thing, and is like saying nothing. This is the argument that the fundamental contradiction is the cause of crisis, but is only the cause of crisis when it appears as the contradiction between production and consumption, and would not be the cause if it didn't appear as such. They say that the fundamental contradiction between production and consumption is not inevitable, but rather that sometimes it manifests itself and sometimes it does not. In place of the contradictions of capitalistic production they substitute some arbitrary or random relations. This line of reason is nothing more than sophistry and nonsense.
Enough is enough! We can already confirm that Stalinism has done nothing but bring confusion and chaos to the workers through its flood of confusing expressions and the trickery of its theory. The theory of the Stalinists is generally dogma and the distortion and revision of Marxism, and their theory of crisis is certainly no exception. Since the theory of crisis deals with the most fundamental contradictions of capitalism, it is probably inevitable that the Stalinist's theory of crisis is total nonsense and has degenerated to become thoroughly reactionary dead phrases. Based on this theory of capitalism and crisis it is impossible to organize the rebellion of the working class against capitalism. It was certainly not accidental that the Stalinists sat idly by and let the best moment for world revolution slip away during the Second World War-as well as the best opportunity for revolution in Japan. They were lacking the theory of rebellion and insurrection against capitalism.
The expression "the contradiction between the social character of production and the private character of appropriation" which was used by Engels and then Lenin as a concept to fundamentally explain crisis has assumed a life of its own-as an expression only-in the Stalinist movement.
In an essay criticizing the Narodnik economists, Lenin exposed Sismondi's theory of crisis in the following way:
"Sismondi says: crises are possible, because the manufacturer does not know the demand; they are inevitable, because under capitalist production there can be no balance between production and consumption (i.e., the product cannot be realised). Engels says: crises are possible, because the manufacturer does not know the demand; they are inevitable, but certainly not because the product cannot be realised at all. For it is not true: the product can be realised. Crises are inevitable because the collective character of production comes into conflict with the individual character of appropriation." (A Characterization of Economic Romanticism, p. 171)
In this way the Stalinists use the concept of the "the contradiction between the social (collective) character of production and the private (individual) character of appropriation" to explain crisis and gloatingly "apply" this everywhere to "crush" their rivals. It is as if this were a magical charm which only required the Stalinists to declare: "all enemies be gone!".
/Return to the Contents/