Eric Toussaint Aporrea The following appointments discover that what Adam Smith wrote in the 1770s is not so far from what who wrote Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels seventy years later, the famous Communist Manifesto.
According to Adam Smith:
'In general, the manufacturing worker adds to the value of the materials on which it works, of his own maintenance and the benefit of his employer. "2 Translated
in Marxist terms, this means that the worker plays in the course of their work the value of a portion of constant capital (ie, the means of production-the amount of raw materials, energy, the fraction of the equipment value technique, etc .- entering the production of a particular commodity) at which to add the variable capital for his salary and the benefit of his employer, which Marx called surplus value. Karl Marx and Adam Smith, at different times, felt that the employer does not value, when, by contrast, is the labor that produces it.
According to Adam Smith, the worker creates value ... no cost to the capitalist in Marxist terms, this means that the worker plays in the course of their work the value of a portion of constant capital (ie, the means of production-the amount of raw materials, energy, the fraction of the equipment value technique, etc .- entering the production of a particular commodity) at which to add the variable capital for his salary and the benefit of his employer, which Marx called surplus value. Karl Marx and Adam Smith, at different times, felt that the employer does not value, when, by contrast, is the labor that produces it.
"Although the employer later wages to workers, in fact they do not cost anything, since the value of such wages is restored along with profit in the most value in working order." 3
In the following passage, Adam Smith discussed the conflicts of interest and the class struggle between capitalists and workers
'salaries depend on current labor contract between two parties whose interests are not in any way identical. Workers want to get as much as possible, giving employers a minimum. The first team up to raise them, the latter to lower them.
"It is not difficult, however, predict which party will win the dispute and force the other to accept its conditions. Employers, being fewer in number, can easily join, and also authorized by law, or at least not forbidden, while prohibiting workers unions. We do not have statutes against the association to lower wages, but unions have a lot against aiming to increase them. Moreover, in such disputes the masters can hold much longer. A landowner, a farmer, a merchant or a manufacturer can normally live a year or two with the capital they have acquired, and without employ any worker. In contrast, many workers could not subsist a week, a few could do it for a month and a small number of them could live for a year without employment. In the long run, the worker is so necessary for the employer as it is for him, but the employer's need is not immediate.
"It is said that the union of employers is very rare and that of labor is widespread. But, according to these sayings, think that employers rarely come together, are so ignorant of what is happening in the world as in this case. Employers are always and everywhere a kind of tacit but constant and uniform not to raise wages above their current level. The violation of the Agreement is, everywhere, unpopular, and who thus must be subjected to the reproach of your neighbors and peers. In fact, we hear little of these connections because it is normal, you can even say that it is the natural state of things we never hear about. Employers are sometimes even specific unions to reduce wages below that level. These agreements are carried out always with the utmost silence and secrecy until they are run, and never made public when workers are subjected, as sometimes occurs, without resistance. However, such unions are often against defensive union workers who sometimes, without there even a provocation of this kind, combine to raise wages. Their arguments lie sometimes on the high price of subsistence goods, and sometimes, in the great benefits that employers take their work. However, their unions are defensive or offensive, we would talk much about them. To precipitate a solution always resort to large disturbances and sometimes to violence and abuses more surprising. They are desperate and come with their own flurry of man in this state, the alternative is to starve or force their employers to, for fear, to meet their demands. In these cases the employers as much as they claim and require the assistance of judges and civil enforcement of the laws laid down so harshly against the association of servants, workers and laborers. "4
What motivates capitalism as Adam Smith
" The only reason that moves the holder of any to employ capital in agriculture, manufacturing, or in some branch of wholesaler or retailer, is considering his own benefit. The different quantities of productive work that can set in motion and the different values \u200b\u200bthat can be added to the annual produce of the land and labor in society, as is used in one form or another, never enter into his thoughts. "5
Adam Smith believes that there are three basic classes: 1. The class of landowners who live in income, 2 º. The lives of wages and 3. The capitalist class that lives off the profits. Adam Smith identifies the way the conscience and the interests of these three social classes.
"The whole annual produce of the land and labor of any country or, what comes to be the same, the price of the whole annual produce is divided in a natural way, as already mentioned, in three parts: the rent of land, labor wages and capital gains, constituting, therefore, the income of three classes of society: living on income, living of living wages and benefits. These are the three main classes originating and civilized society, from whose income is derived, ultimately, that of any other class.
[...]»
Speaking of the class of rentiers, ie, landowners, Adam Smith said:
"It is the only one of three classes, which receives its income without costing jobs or sleeplessness but perceived in a somewhat spontaneous, independent of any plan or project of their own to acquire it. That indolence, a natural consequence of a situation as comfortable and safe, not only makes [the members of this class] often ignorant if not incapable of meditation needed to anticipate and understand the effects of any public regulation.
"The interest of the second class, living wages, is so connected with the general interest of society as the first. [...] However, even if the interests of workers is closely related to society, is incapable of comprehending that interest or to relate their own. His condition does not leave enough time to receive the necessary information, and education and habits are such as to incapacitate him to think, even in the case of being fully informed. Therefore, public opinion matters not heard nor seen, except in cases where employers encourage, support or promote their claims, not to defend workers' interests but their own.
"The third class was composed of employers, or those who live off benefits. The capital employed with intent to obtain benefits set in motion most of the useful work in any society. Plans and projects of those who use the capital regulate and direct major operations of work being pursued to benefit all those plans and projects. [...] Within this class, merchants and manufacturers are the two categories of people who regularly use the largest capital and with its wealth attracted the bulk of the consideration of the government to itself. As for life are busy making plans and projects, often have more wit and talent that most of the landowners. [...] The interests of the merchants who traffic in certain branches of commerce and manufactures are always different from the generals, and often outright opposition. The interest of the merchant is always to expand the market and reduce competition. The expansion of the market tends to coincide with the public interest, but the reduction of competition is always against that interest, and serves only to enable the dealers, by raising benefits above its natural level, to impose their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of the citizens. Any proposal for a new law or regulation of trade that comes from this kind ought always with great caution and should never be taken only after a long and careful examination, carried out not only with the most scrupulous attention, but with total confidence, as it comes of a class of people whose interests rarely coincide exactly with the community and tend to defraud and oppress, as experience has shown on many occasions. "6
Adam Smith also found in other trials that produce urticaria rulers and ideologues who claim their inheritance:
"Our merchants frequently complain of high labor wages as British because their articles are not sold as cheap in foreign markets, but they say nothing of the high capital gains . They complain about the generous profits from other people, but say nothing of their own. However, the high profits of the British capital can help to raise the price of British manufactures, therefore, and in some cases maybe more, that high wages of labor. "7
This statement is a true heresy for employers which attribute to wage costs, provided too high for his taste, the responsibility for inflation and lack of competitiveness.
These elements, so essential in the thinking of Adam Smith (or even more) than the famous invisible hand (which is only mentioned three times in his work), are systematically ignored by economic thinking dominante.8
One of the fundamental differences between Adam Smith and Karl Marx is that the former, while it was aware of the exploitation of workers by the employer, supported employers while the second was for the emancipation of the workers.
The preamble to the statutes of the International Workers Association (IWA) 9 written by Karl Marx expresses the essence of his position:
"Considering
" That the emancipation of workers must be the work of the workers themselves;
that the struggle for emancipation should not aim to establish new privileges and monopolies, but to establish for all the same rights and same duties, and the abolition of all systems of class;
"That the submission of the worker to monopolize the means of labor-that is, the source life-is the root cause of bondage in all its forms: social misery, degradation, intellectual and political dependence;
"That by the same economic emancipation of labor is the great object to which every political movement must be subordinated;
" That all the efforts made so far have failed for lack of solidarity among workers of different professions in each country, and the absence of a fraternal bond between workers from different regions;
"That the emancipation of the workers is not a local or national problem, but on the contrary, it is a social problem that affects all countries where there is a modern society, being necessarily subordinate their solution to competition theory and practice of the countries advanced;
"That the resurgent movement among the workers most industrious countries of Europe, to engender new hope, solemnly warned not incurred again old errors, and calls for coordination of all movements so far isolated
"For these reasons,
underlying the Workers' International Association.
It states:
"That all societies and all individuals to adhere to recognize it as the basis of their conduct towards all men, without distinction of color, creed or nationality, Truth, Justice and Morals.
And therefore, no rights without duties, no duties without rights. "
social networking
0 comments:
Post a Comment