Economics and the working class

This is, we believe, the first time that a work as important as the one we are briefly analyzing today has been published by an anti-authoritarian and anti-statist economist. [[General Treatise on Economic Science, by Christian Cornelissen; Volume III: Theory of Capital and Profit. 2 volumes of 466 and 662 pages (International Library of Political Economy). Paris 1926. Marcel Giard, publisher, 16, rue Soufflot. Price: 120 francs for 2 volumes. Our comrade Cornelissen, whose work En marche vers la société nouvelle (Towards a New Society), published in 1900, is well known in our movement, has attempted to uncover, analyze, and bring to light all the external and internal developments—the ins and outs—of modern capitalism. It is infinitely regrettable that the price of the book is prohibitive even for workers' libraries, because today, when the problems of social reconstruction and, first and foremost, economic reorganization, are so closely affecting the labor movement, it is of paramount importance that the working class, called upon to take charge of this reconstruction, is already in a position to study the financial—and political—system of capitalism and to deduce the necessary consequences for the development of a system of production and distribution that would obviate the necessity, or rather demonstrate the futility, of the exploitation of man, the current basis of capitalism, both private and state.

Comrade Cornelissen's work is a continuation of the two volumes published before the war. The first—The Theory of Value, published in 1903—laid the foundations, so to speak, for the general theory that the author discusses in the two volumes that have just been published. The second – The Theory of Wages and Wage Labor, published in 1908 – highlights the relationship between value and human labor.

In the work before us, the author reveals the very mechanism of production. It would be impossible for us to dwell on all the countless and complicated cogs in this mechanism. We will only give a very general overview, preferring to focus on one or two specific issues that are of more concrete interest to the working class in its down-to-earth struggle against capitalist exploitation.

The author first shows us the lines along which the technical organization of capitalist production developed, focusing in particular on the various capitalist agreements and combinations that subsequently crystallized into cartels, trusts, and concerns. He then shows us the sources of profit, the first of which is, of course, the exploitation of human labor, and the second the monopolization of natural resources. From the technical organization of capitalism, we move on to examine the role of the state as protector of capital and as a capitalist itself. Finally, the author reviews the political influences in the world of finance and economic organization and points out the disruptions caused by the World War of 1914–1918. A special chapter is devoted to economic crises, the relationship between strikes and periods of economic depression, the influence of these crises on emigration and immigration, etc., and the periodicity of these crises.

As we have said, we do not have enough space here to dwell on the author's very interesting considerations on each of these points, which shed new light on the role incumbent on those who see capitalism as a " profile hunt, making the accumulation of social capital ever more intense and widespread," will remain "a continuing threat to modern society" (vol. ii; pp. 388–389). We will focus only on two issues to which Cornelissen has devoted a few pages, too few in our opinion, of his two large volumes.

The first problem is that of Taylorism or what is now commonly referred to as the scientific rationalization of work. The author does not appear to be a declared enemy of the Taylor system. According to him, this system "is not reprehensible in itself, simply because it can, under the current regime, cause workers to overwork" (vol. i, p. 101). The author would be right if we understood the Taylor system to mean modern industry and mechanization as opposed to craftsmanship, as he himself implies. But this is not entirely accurate, given that the global labor movement—regardless of political leanings—does not link the fight against Taylorism with the defense of craftsmanship. The struggle is rather against the deviation—inevitable, we believe—of "rationalization" in the direction of the excessive exploitation of the muscular and nervous systems of the human machine. The author himself has no illusions on this subject, and he clearly states that technical progress is not necessarily social progress, and if the benefits of the Taylor system were to be bought, in the end, by the degeneration of the workers and the decline of an entire generation, then its condemnation would be necessary in the name of civilization as a whole, and instead of human progress, it would represent a step backward toward slavery (vol. i, p. 143). The author finds a remedy for this dilemma: "a system that treats human labor on the same footing as the functioning of mechanical means of production has no possibility of be freely and definitively introduced in a modern civilized country, unless those who supervise the application of this system are the very people who must suffer its consequences, that is, the workers" (p. 144). But the author himself is torn between his objective, theoretical and abstract approval of the Taylor system and his so-called psychological, practical, and subjective inconsistency, rejects the remedy he has just proposed when he first declares that the application of this system "necessarily leads to a significant increase in the number of non-working officials" (p. 145), and that where the ratio of officials to workers in non-Taylorized factories is 1 to 8 or even 1 to 12, it is 1 to 3 in Taylorized factories. Then, in a clearer and more categorical manner, the author finally concludes that "the system attaches too little value to the human element in the organization of industries; and that is why it is bound to fail, despite all its technical advantages" (p. 147). The author prefers—and we completely agree with him—“that the perfected processes of the Taylor system be abandoned in favor of less refined processes, but better suited to the intellectual and moral development of civilized workers" (vol. ii, p. 621). It should be noted here that in Russia, where Taylorism is very much in vogue in the ruling circles of the socialist state — that is, no longer capitalist by definition, although it is becoming increasingly so in practice – the introduction of this system was made in view of the production crisis triggered by the revolution, with the aim of increasing production, but taking only secondary and purely incidental account of effect of this system on the human machine, already significantly deteriorated by the war and the economic crisis of the early years of the revolution, which often took the form of collective famine. Taking into consideration, on the other hand, that the equipment in Russian factories had, in the vast majority of cases, not been renewed for many years, it is easy to imagine the extreme exhaustion of Russian workers and the degeneration of the new generation, visible to the naked eye. In the case of revolutionary Russia, the introduction, even partial and embryonic, of the Taylor system proved to be an agent of moral and physical disintegration, thus acting against the vital interests of producers and workers in general and, consequently, of production itself [[In a recent issue of Moscow's Pravda (December 5), a feature article dealing with the problem of rationalization, examined it only from the point of view of the technical improvement of production, and concluded as follows: "We must always remember that solving the problem of rationalization means promoting the development of our industry, accelerating the pace of socialist accumulation, and achieving great successes on the front of socialist construction."

Not a word about the influence of this "rationalization" on humans, who now seem to be considered not as conscious workers but as mechanized "labor."

[|– O – |]

The second point we wish to raise concerns the solutions envisaged to resolve the social problem. Cornelissen shows us how the organization of the working class was forced to keep pace with the development of industry, and his observations are very instructive today when, in reaction to this or that union leader or chief, an entire movement attempts to isolate itself in a narrow corporatism, carrying within it the seeds of the dislocation of the workers' forces. Let us quote the author:

From the beginning of large-scale industry, workers began to unite and develop their organizations, in one industry after another, first in the major centers, then in even the smallest industrial towns and villages.

When capitalist enterprises began to transform themselves into joint-stock companies, workers were forming regional and national unions. When employers in many industries put an end to free and unbridled competition, successively concluding agreements and combinations of all kinds, the workers, for their part, laid the foundations for their confederations between factories in various industries. And now that the big capitalists are joining hands across national borders and their cartels and trusts are increasingly evolving into international monopolistic coalitions, workers have entered this era known as the reign of the International Working Class" (vol. ii, pp. 598–599).

But what should be the goal of this workers' organization, which is constantly expanding and growing stronger? Is its role limited to the palliative gains we call improvements in working conditions, or will it one day replace capitalism? All workers' movements, whatever political or philosophical school they belong to, are aware of the role they will have to play in the future as organizers of social life, and Cornelissen draws attention to a significant gap in the organizational plan of this workers' International: "The working classes will be able," he says, "take over the management of factories, workshops, shops, and the main means of transport in the future, but only if they are able to train, from within their own ranks, a sufficiently large core of competent men to replace the capitalist elite in all spheres of production and distribution, where the social struggle is currently being waged." nbsp;"This problem of the technical forces of the working class is precisely the order of the day; Trade unionism is aware of this shortcoming, which may tomorrow cost it its emancipation, and it already knows that for a period of time that it cannot yet determine, it will have to make use of the technicians "of the past." A new course of action is therefore necessary: to draw these privileged employees—but employees nonetheless—into the orbit of the workers and the revolution, and to make them understand the grandiose work that joint action by manual workers, intellectual workers, and technicians will achieve for the benefit and well-being of all humanity, not just a handful of profiteers and exploiters. Cornelissen was right to point out this weakness in the workers' organization and to ask for it to be remedied.

The author ends his work on a pessimistic note. Developing the idea that workers' pay should be proportional to the work they do, he expresses fears about the possibility of ever being able to satisfy the entire population with what that population will need (excluding, however, the basic necessities which, according to the author, can always be produced in sufficient quantities for everyone to enjoy at will). He believes that the theory of communism: " to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" is only a distant ideal "which humanity will increasingly approach, but never fully and perfectly attain." Nothing is perfect on earth, and the absolute will forever remain unattainable. But there can be no doubt that within humanly achievable limits, production according to ability and not, as is often understood, according to whims, can easily balance consumption according to needs; that not only will advances in machinery and technology contribute their share of intensified production, but that the very desire for greater well-being—a desire that will continue to grow and become increasingly conscious—will encourage more diligent work in a system where constraints have disappeared, just as it gives rise today, in an authoritarian regime, on the one hand to sabotage (the right to laziness) and, on the other, to revolution—a symptom of impatience to achieve this greater well-being. This, moreover, in no way invalidates Cornelissen's considerations on the practical difficulties that will be encountered on the road to such a social organization. The mentality of producers and consumers will have to change profoundly before the communist principle is fully understood. But just as revolutions overturn entire regimes, they also overturn relationships between people. Deep down, people become different. There is therefore no reason to despair of humanity on the day when it takes great strides toward its definitive emancipation.

A. Shapiro/]