I have been embroiled in an interesting facebook debate on this question, initiated by a thoughtful trouble-maker, henceforth referred to as AC. His argument was that in many sports (though he conceded not all), the women’s game is far inferior, therefore it attracts less audience and subsequently less revenue and sponsorship opportunities. Ergo, the female players in, for example, football, ought to be paid less.
Part of our debate hinged on this notion of ‘ought’. Just because there is less revenue attached, does that justify the situation of gender inequality in sport where England’s top player Steph Houghton earns around £65,000 a year whilst Wayne Rooney earns £300,000 a week? AC thought it did, because the revenue streams are so much greater around Rooney, unlike Houghton who many people could not identify if shown a picture of her. A battle ensued concerning if both players put in an equal amount of work, shouldn’t that imply equal wages? A snipe from BL asserted this notion does not work because if a blind cripple also put in the same amount of labour time, then this would not justify equal wages because they would be hopeless. So, merit also has to be a consideration. Obviously, there’s no point in only paying sportspeople according to labour time expended because that trivialises the spectacle of winning and succeeding and putting on a good show, the essential life-blood of any sport, or indeed much of entertainment, as a whole. But is merit and achievement the only consideration? Why then, has tennis ace Serena Williams attracted less total revenue than Maria Sharapova, given she has won far more tournaments?
Whatever the case, it remains somewhat troublesome that there is such a stark gap between the top women and top men in sport. Furthermore, it seems that even when women do attract a greater revenue stream than the men, they still don’t get paid as much! Revenue from the USA’s women’s soccer team amounts to £14m more than the men’s game, yet a female player only gets £30,000 whereas a man would get £48,000. Five US female players are going to court against US Soccer to try and sort out this anomaly.
So what of the argument that the women’s game is inferior to the men’s? It could be argued this is for historical reasons. The women’s game has been chronically underfunded for centuries with less coaching opportunities and little financial incentive that can reward talent. So, the argument about superior quality may be a ‘chicken and egg’ thing. What came first – women’s exclusion from sport that creates a poorer performance when they do play, or an ‘inherent’ poor performance that might justify less investment?
An article in ‘The New Statesman’ argues, “Victorian society viewed sport as “inseparable from the philosophy of Muscular Christianity, which defined itself against femininity and ‘softness’,” says Tony Collins, the author of Sport in Capitalist Society. It did not think much of the notion of women playing. Nor did Pierre de Coubertin, who founded the modern Olympic Games, in 1896. He described women’s sport as “the most unaesthetic sight human eyes could contemplate” and advocated that the games be reserved for men, though a few females were allowed to compete from 1900. In 1921, the Football Association in England deemed the sport “quite unsuitable for females” and banned its clubs from loaning pitches to women.”
So perhaps what is happening now is a redress to sport’s shameful past that systematically excluded women. However, this is not without naysayers. AC thought the promotion of women’s sport that is happening today, most recently with the Women’s European Football, is actually ‘social engineering’ and therefore distasteful if the women’s game is inferior. But if the women’s game is not inherently inferior, but appears so only as a product of history and society, then the notion of ‘social engineering’ needs to be stripped of its negative connotations. The promotion of women’s football need not incur negative feelings among men unless they have a problem with equality in general. (And besides which, lots of people do think the women’s game is just as good as the men’s albeit with different qualities).
Regarding the huge sums of money thrown at men’s football where someone like Neymar can earn a quarter of a billion pounds compared to Steph Houghton’s £65,000 a year, this is merely money from the surplus product of society as-a-whole that cannot find a profitable investment in industry. It is leisure-capital that doesn’t even seek much of a return on its investment, it is luxury consumption, and thus these top male footballers have become playthings of the rich. It is a popular perception that football stars are overpaid, but we need to ask why? It is because some people literally have tonnes of money to burn where investing in healthcare or education isn’t as sexy. Nevertheless, the indication is that there is such a thing as a gigantic surplus product in society that needs to be better used, and perhaps some of that could go to paying sportswomen equally. It is only a capitalist class that is desperate to cling on to what little remains of its traditions that is throwing massive money at the male footballers as a last show of chauvinist defiance in an era when women’s equality has become a popular prejudice.
But all things considered, what is really needed is for sport to be brought down to earth. Rather than have everything decided by elites and their committees, more social democracy is required over sport. In that way, people could collectively discuss how much a sportsperson should be paid – to choose whether we have equality based on equal labour time expended, how much merit should be extra-valued, the degree of corporate sponsorship permissible (or intrusive government advertising as well). Perhaps the banning of ‘offensive’ chants at football matches, the increasingly sterile atmosphere, the policing of football fans, goes hand in hand with the overpayment of the stars, because both are symptoms of an underlying problem, the private appropriation of a social event. We need our ball back, and properly investing in the women’s game will make it seem more natural to introduce equal pay between men and women with an eye on the balance between effort and achievement, as decided democratically. What’s clear at the moment, is that leaving everything to blind market forces is creating chaos.
I have taken to nude swimming in my local leisure centre and think that others, if they want to, shouldn’t be shy. It creates a sense of freedom both bodily and mentally, and is an exhilarating experience. Writing in the Daily Mail, Quentin Letts, who has a private pool, said, “There’s no greater joy than skinny dipping.”
There is no law in the lands of England of Wales that prohibit public nudity, although one can experience harassment from ignorant authorities who are unaware the law acknowledges that the human body, in and of itself, is not indecent or obscene, and they might try to ‘ASBO’ you, though it rarely stands up in court. But when ‘the naked Rambler’ Stephen Gough travelled to Scotland to pursue his chosen lifestyle, he ended up spending 10 years in jail. So too in Northern Ireland, where the winning of peace hasn’t meant the winning of liberty, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) has threatened skinny dippers with 2 years in jail.
At least however, the PSNI use the argument that “children might be present.” This is a valid argument not because children have inalienable natural rights never to see an adult nude, but because their parents may not wish it. Parents who wish to steer their child in a certain direction – e.g. away from nudity – should be respected for their will and others should be sensitive to this aspect of parental autonomy. But this blog is about challenging a climate of fear – not necessarily a legal enforcement, but a moralistic one – that prohibits the free expression of nudity in a situation where no child is allowed to be present, i.e. swimming sessions that are billed as ‘adults only.’
With butterflies in my stomach to the verge of feeling sick, the first time I tried this, I slipped my trunks off on the 32nd of 40 lengths and placed them under my towel by the side whilst still being in the water. I swam the remaining 8 lengths totally naked. I was highly nervous because of the social climate of repression nowadays, but perhaps I need not have been. The pool’s policy has no section about nudity, no-one complained, although I did receive a look of disdain from a lifeguard accompanied by a knowing smile. The truth is there was little they could do about it in an ‘adults-only’ session where everyone there has previously seen a naked body. Furthermore, just doing breast stroke, only my buttocks could have been visibly exposed, and even then, only to the lifeguard sitting up high, not to the other swimmers whose eye level isn’t much higher than the water level. Nevertheless, I was breaching a serious modern taboo, and for everyone to experience liberation which is just as much bodily as mental, the assumptions need to be questioned.
Firstly, it is not about sex. Public masturbation can rightfully get you 14 days in jail in England because that really is an obscene act to present to others. But simply being nude in a public place can just be seen as an act of free expression without the intention to shock or offend. If you think the sight of a naked human body is inherently offensive, indecent, or obscene, then you might as well accept an alien invasion that would ban us for it. To see things in this way, you are saying human beings should find the human body offensive, indecent, or obscene, a notion that expresses the height of alienation and repression. It is also clearly not about sex because it is very difficult for a man to get an erection in chlorinated water and similarly for women: vaginal lubrication decreases in these circumstances.
Secondly, it is also not abnormal to desire the freedom to swim nude. For most of history, including most of the 20th century, it was the norm, although sadly mostly only for men, not both sexes. Swimming pools up to the 1970s often demanded it because swim-suit material was often woollen and unhygienic – threats to the pool itself. But as clothing tech progressed, the arguments over hygiene and security of the pool waned. What was left was a pretty paltry notion that ‘swimming nude is character building.’ The notion here was that the heavily militarised society required this as a kind of ‘team-building’ exercise right from the Army down to the Boy Scouts: kinship and bondsman ship was to be served by swimming nude together. If only ‘character-building’ had meant ‘expressing freedom,’ ‘right to enjoy life,’ ‘to combat repression,’ then we might be in a better situation today. Furthermore, even in Western countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Canada, nude swimming is acceptable if not obligatory. So, the current situation of fear in England is certainly not ‘natural.’
Adults should be able to swim nude in adults-only sessions at a local swimming pool rather than have to face cold dirty rivers, lakes, or seas, as an article in The Guardian compromised. If we have social tolerance over this issue, we will find that many other liberties and the dignity of mankind, partly based on the dignity of the human body, will fall into place.
Thirdly, it is worth stressing that contemporary taboos over public nudity co-exist with increasingly sexualised TV and internet porn. This can mislead people into thinking we are freer today. But observing something through the remoteness of an electronic medium is far from experiencing it in actual life. The two trends – sexual TV in for example, ‘The Game of Thrones’, can co-exist with an increasing repression in society. It is the latter trend that really is harmful to people. If you consider the exponential rise of eating disorders and general dissatisfaction with one’s own body, you will see that modern body-shaming which is intensely expressed in the taboo over swimming nude has a lot to answer for causing real harm to individuals.
Finally, there may be a broadside against my position from a minority of some feminists. They might say “we just don’t want to see men’s wibbly bits.” However, we don’t normally expect to go through life not seeing things we might not like, be it homelessness or an immigration-enforcement riot van. Moreover, the struggle against alienation ought to involve women just as much as men, if not more so, given their historically higher level of repression. Women have fought tooth and nail to dress how they want without certain stereotype-ideas being applied by men, including the infamous ‘burning the bra’ protests. This battle persists to this day. An Ontario woman recently won the right to bare breasts in a swimming pool – Canadian law was already lax, but there were attempts to upset it. Men and women should be able to admire each other’s bodies without that ever being necessarily a sexual thing, as it isn’t usually in a swimming pool, as discussed earlier. Men or women who lack clothing in a swimming pool are not ‘asking for it’ just as much as a woman who dresses provocatively in the town isn’t ‘asking for it’ – that pathetic apology went out in the ‘80’s. It is about human beauty and freedom, rather than a sexual fetish. The real existent fetishes are on TV and on the internet, and perhaps to undermine those things, we need naked-equality in circumstances where no child is present.
Addendum: the empire strikes back 😦 Tonight after doing 16 lengths in the buff in an ‘adults-only’ session, an angry female pool manager came out and said “We don’t allow naked swimming”. As far as I am aware none of the other pool users had complained – she’d probably spotted it on the CCTV as the lifeguard didn’t give much of a shit either. I said, “I wasn’t aware there was a policy – I’ve checked the internet.” She said “All the councils have agreed on this – NO NAKED SWIMMING!” I was about to say, “Isn’t that a bit Kafka-esque to not even tell us the policy exists and rely on social taboo for enforcement?” but I thought I’d better cool things down rather than be barred from my local pool. So I said, “Oh sorry – I’ve lived in Germany the past 2 years where it’s perfectly normal. OK, I won’t do it again, it’s not a problem.”
There we go, another little avenue of pleasure closes down. But the war has just begun.
Nothing expresses more the dangers of superficiality than the new terrorism. The picture that is emerging from terrorism in modern European cities is that the perpetrators really hate people enjoying themselves, be it at a music concert or interacting in shopping districts. What seems to unite the manifold forms of the new terror – be it ‘Islamic’ or ‘right-wing and white’ – is a massive hatred of Western-style consumerism. The hatred of consumerism however is not confined to reacting terrorists. It permeates society in forms such as environmentalism and left-wing redistributionism. It is there in conservative-traditionalist railings against mass society, particularly when the working class are told they are irresponsible for wanting bigger televisions. The obsession with ‘consumer choice’ is also there in libertarian critiques of the reactionaries – all they do is endorse as ‘free’ what the reactionaries ‘hate.’ Hence, the only debate in society we seem to be seeing is about ‘celebrating our way of life’ versus ‘hating our way of life,’ where our ‘way of life’ is only defined in relation to consumption. This narrow debate is likely to prolong the existence of the new terror despite obviously the majority feeling rightly angered about it.
In order to transcend the parameters of the narrow debate, and hopefully unite humanity in a more progressive positive direction rather than this all-round barbarism, it is necessary to understand that consumption is relatively unproblematic. It is true that the law of value holds sway over all consumer transactions – to that extent, commodity exchange is not *entirely* free, i.e. volition doesn’t rule. Nevertheless, consumption is pretty much the only civilising aspect of market society. Through consumption, points of contact are made between otherwise atomised individuals. The mediation of the commodity is simply the way in which society is glued together – and it is just about the only way society is glued together nowadays. So, it is wrong to hate consumption – it is the best thing about capitalism, and the only way in which society prevents itself from deteriorating into a kind of ‘Mad Max’ scenario. At the same time, it is wrong to celebrate consumption as the only mark of ‘freedom,’ because it is essentially a passive rather than active thing: it doesn’t concern the way we act, just the way we enjoy society’s bounty after we have acted.
So, the focus of concern really needs to shift onto the realm of production. If all the reactionaries railing against consumption (or celebrating it) would only look at the realm of production, it would shake things up immensely, and cure the malaise that is now giving rise to the horror of the new terror. It is in the sphere of production that people truly aren’t free – from the negative experience of the alarm clock in the morning to the iron discipline deployed by managers at work, doing things you hate for a boss you despise, the sheer lack of creativity, initiative and ingenuity in the office or factory – it is really these things that cause people to loathe the society in which they live. But because of the dogma of ‘there is no alternative,’ the sphere of production remains relatively uncontested, and thus disappears from view. Consequently, the alienation in society which has its root in the estranged and unfree sphere of production reappears as a criticism (or celebration, depending which side of the fence one is on) of consumption. It is thoroughly misguided and becoming downright dangerous, yet it can be understood as what happens when everyone agrees that the capitalist mode of production is not itself up for discussion. The law of value should belong only to the sphere of consumption (for the time being), not the sphere of production. When value relations determine the way we produce, i.e. the way we live, then it becomes far too coercive to enjoy life. Workers have to fight for the option of being in full control of the workplace so they govern what gets done, how it is done, and according to whatever timescale. This self-emancipation of labour will make humanity far happier and thus erode the basis for irrationalism in all its forms, including the terrorist form.
Star Trek’s ‘The Borg’ are a good metaphor for understanding some fundamental aspects of social relations under capitalism. This does not mean people are like drones, quite the reverse. Breakdowns in the metaphor occur because our limited existences created by the capitalist mode of production are distortions upon human nature rather than its total annulment. And people’s massive discomfort with this state of affairs means they seek liberation from the Borg Collective which doesn’t happen with the Trek drones unless they are temporarily disconnected from the Hive Mind. In reading this blog, you are temporarily disconnected from the Hive Mind (chiefly the opinion of authorities), and I will set out arguments through which you may come to achieve full humanity.
The Borg expand through assimilating humanoid life-forms in the galaxy and beyond, rather like the expansion of the world market gobbling everything up. In the assimilation process, your individuality is crushed and you are made to serve the Collective (society). The Borg are incredibly successful because they are efficient and constantly perfecting technology to further their programme of expanse. What the Borg fail to assimilate, they physically destroy. The Borg represent the ideal dream of how capitalism attempts to remould society, yet the ways in which the Borg are successful come at a terrible cost: the crushing of individuality and the end of the liberty of the individual.
In contrast, the humans in Star Trek are free, their internal conflicts are resolved usually through discussion rather than force. The Borg on the other hand suffer no internal conflict, they are already ‘as one.’ But how do the humans in Trek become free? Why do they volunteer to do things rather than nothing at all? Because labour has become life’s prime want.
Under capitalism, labour is coerced out of the individual, disguised as a ‘free exchange.’ Yet the worker quickly comes to understand the selling of their labour power was anything but free. They had nothing else to sell, nothing else to live from. In work, there is an obsession with ‘increasing productivity,’ work is experienced as uncreative doldrums, it is unrewarding, undertaken under tight supervision (including by CCTV), the products of labour are owned by someone else (the capitalist), there are poor bonds with other workers, and there is no rational set of ideas why we are all doing this in the first place. Work is reduced to the means to the end of survival in a dog-eat-dog world. It is not something desired by the individual, no-one goes to work looking forward to it and with a whistle in their heart.
Labour becomes life’s prime want by removing all these inhibitions to its unleashing. We shouldn’t have to ‘sell’ our capacity to work – means of production should be free to utilise by all. The obsession with being ‘productive’ needs to be cancelled out – how productive you are ought to depend on your own will. Rather than production seemingly for production’s own sake, the worker now chooses when and what to produce according to personal will, hence it becomes creative and rewarding, and there is no-one to take the product from you without your consent (e.g. as a part of consciously determined human relations). There is no supervision, except perhaps in an advisory capacity. The free worker now enjoys good quality bonds with his fellows, giving rise to coherent ideas why we do what we do.
With labour now as life’s prime want, capitalist society now looks shameful and embarrassing. It was Borg-like because it prioritised efficiency and productivity over individual liberty and choice. What’s worse the fake left-wing politicians of capitalist society must now feel incredibly embarrassed – all they did was to take capitalist slogans and suggest their programmes could do it better, as opposed to operating on the terrain of critique, thus developing a superior notion of human moral value.
Capitalism is Borg-like, but the individual worker even under this system is never quite like a drone. Rather in a society where all sides have accepted ‘there is no alternative to the Borg,’ the individual worker’s aspirations become expressed through religious or fetishistic forms. Thus 75% of Americans are still religious in the 21st century. 25% are also on some form of psychiatric medication or another. These aspects are not the main problem, they are symptoms of the problem, like flowers growing on the chains. They would be superseded with genuine humanised spirituality and a deeper sense of our social interconnections after we take action to remove the chains. By contrast, the Borg regarded in this way are a poor metaphor for the human condition under capitalism because they have no delusions. Ironically it seems it is the capacity to be delusional that is a big thing currently separating us from a race of advanced machines. It is better to be a human with delusions than a robot without them. Furthermore, unlike the Borg, we have strong interpersonal contacts such as a family life and enriching down-time. It is only when considered in the sphere of work which takes up most of our waking lives that the human condition under capitalism can be considered Borg-like. So, let’s widen the distinction between humanity and the Borg further in the interests of full liberation by changing the way we work. We shouldn’t have to live as a poor advertisement of ourselves.
Nb. Since writing this blog, my views have changed. A revised review of the book now appears at http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/reviews-and-culture/monsters-vs-zombies-review-of-phil-mullans-creative-destruction.html Nevertheless I have chosen not to delete this older version since it is still useful in stirring debate and more importantly, was a ‘stage’ in my theoretical development, albeit a negative one dominated by emotion and ‘clearing out.’ That isn’t anything to be ashamed of. Revolutions in practice often contain reactionary and untrue elements – even the widely acclaimed French Revolution saw many participants believing libels against Marie Antoinette that she was having sex with her sons. The challenge then is to overcome the first negativity with a more promising and reasoned ‘second negativity.’
Phil Mullan, business manager and chief economist at the magazine spiked-online is, by his own admission, ‘obsessed with economic growth.’ This goal, alongside others, is also precious to Marxism, and Mullan lifts some of Marx’s arguments to make his case that we are currently living through a ‘Long Depression’ that began with the economic downturn in the 1970s. He makes a convincing case that GDP in Western nations has shrunk in relation to the levels of the post-war boom. Consequently, rises in living standards, which Mullan the humanist cares about, are held back. Appearances of dynamism in things like the stock market are essentially parasitic upon the real, productive economy where value is created. If that is seizing up, then finance is just another bubble like the dot.com bubble waiting to burst. Another Crash like 2008 is imminent in the context of the persisting Long Depression. The escape from the protracted depression, says Mullan, lies in increasing productivity for which it is essential to demolish zombification trends.
This review is divided into three parts. Firstly, I look at Mullan’s take on Marxist crisis theory to preliminarily clarify the issues at stake. Secondly, I probe Mullan’s proposed solution of a new industrial revolution from within capitalism. Finally, I sketch an alternative model of economic growth that I hope salvages what I see as positive in the book, whilst criticising other aspects.
Capitalism has transformed the world immeasurably in terms of creating an abundance of material wealth. This process, however, has never been smooth. Capitalism is prone to economic downturns that occur roughly every ten years. So, growth occurs only in the form of ups and downs. Some downturns are deeper than others, sparking an economic crisis where the system has to destroy some of its own wealth before it can re-accumulate. This doesn’t mean capital literally burns its own commodities (although that sometimes happens.) What becomes important in a crisis isn’t a physical destruction as such, but the destruction of value, the social substance whose body is the physical commodity and itself represents a definite amount of abstract human labour in a congealed form. But why can’t value just grow and grow without periodic crises?
The mechanism for its growth is active (rather than idle) capital, i.e. capital engaged in the production process. When capitalists deploy their money in production in order to gain more, what they seek is the highest rate of profit measured in percentage terms. There’s no point in investing if all you get back is the same, so capitalists are motivated all the time by the possibility of expansion and take risks in order to get that. Capital within the production process takes the form of a ‘constant’ capital (plant and machinery etc.,) and ‘variable’ capital (the amount spent on wages and employee perks). Capital grows as a mass of value when it is able to extract a ‘surplus’ value from the worker. But the mass of value is unmotivating to capitalists compared to the rate of profit. The quantity of the surplus divided by the value embodied in the constant and variable components of capital gives us the rate of profit. In order to increase the rate of profit, capital needs to increase the surplus value in relation to the constant and variable components. There are a number of ways it can do this. It can, for example, cut wages or other employee perks, or intensify the labour process with speed-ups. However, these things are socially unpopular as well as limited in application. More commonly, and especially during a period of growth, a capitalist will technologically innovate in order to increase the productivity of labour. The consequence of this is that more is produced in the same amount of time yet the sale price of the commodity remains temporarily unchanged. So more value is harvested by the capitalist. But when rival capitalists catch up with the entrepreneur and deploy similar technology – and they have to or go bust – then the price of a singular one of those commodities falls as less labour-time is embodied in it. If you sell all of the new increased number of commodities, you only get back the same amount of value as was previously embodied in the lesser number. So, the new situation is that you have spent all this money on increasing technology (part of the constant capital) yet the total product is fetching the same. Therefore, constant capital has increased whilst the surplus value is back to where it was before. Thus, in the ratio of surplus value divided by the constant and variable capital now shows a larger measure in the denominator. The rate of profit has therefore fallen. If the rate of profit falls too much, then employees get laid off and constant capital also needs to be destroyed in one way or another (usually as a written off asset), and this is the economic crisis. Mullan puts it like this:
“The profit arising from the new value created by labour in the production process tends to decline relative to the rising amounts of capital invested in fixed assets and materials. This means that the profit rate measured over all capital deployed – in employing people as well as in fixed assets and other inputs – will also tend to decline. This tendency of the general rate of profit to fall follows as a direct consequence of the development of the social productivity of labour since this is dependent upon increasing amounts of capital investment.”
Given that any further development of the productivity of labour (i.e. producing more with less labour input) is reliant on a healthy rate of profit, if the rate of profit falls too much, then productivity also stagnates leading to a general economic malaise. This is what has happened since the 1970s. Mullan says the annual productivity growth rate in Britain is now down to 1.1%, all things considered. This is not exactly an economy that is unleashing the human potential.
Note, the Marxist explanation of crisis doesn’t mean that each and every crisis is attributable to these reasons. Crises can also occur owing to a natural disaster such as an earthquake or tsunami. The theory is therefore just one possible explanation that stands in need of empirical verification. One’s suspicion’s get raised when conditions are favourable to capital accumulation such as a more muted level of class struggle. When the crisis still takes place in those conditions, it is probable it can be explained with this theory, though it still needs to be empirically proved.
The chapter on this profitability problem is the strongest part of the book. However, there is no place in the book where Mullan explains the distinction between value and use-value. This omission is important because a reader unfamiliar with Marxism may believe that the declining rate at which labour productivity advances implies a falling amount of value in the world. It doesn’t. If the amount of labour-time deployed in a society remains constant, then the amount of value produced in that society also remains constant regardless of whether the quantity of use-values is going up or down. The amount of value in the world is limited by the size of the working population and the length and intensity of the working day. Contrary to commonly held belief, despite mountains of cash reserves, capitalism doesn’t actually increase the amount of value in the world, except to the extent it has drawn more people into production, increased the length of the working day, and increased labour’s intensity. Other than those things which can only be increased to a certain point, labour under capitalism does not produce extra value owing to productivity increases. As Marx says, “The same labour, therefore, performed for the same length of time, always yields the same amount of value, independently of any variations in productivity.” And also: “Take a certain working population of, say, two million. Assume, furthermore, that the length and intensity of the average working day, the level of wages, and thereby the proportion between necessary and surplus labour, are given. In that case the aggregate labour of these two million, and their surplus labour expressed in surplus value, always produces the same magnitude of value.”
There are places in ‘Creative Destruction’ where Mullan seems to be unclear about this point. He says “world output per person was US$467 in the year 1 AD, falling slightly to US$453 1000 years later, and rising to only US$615 by 1700. That’s an average annual growth rate over 17 centuries of 0.02% – effectively zero for influencing people’s life experiences.” It needs to be clarified that the extra value produced per head in the advancing centuries is not because capitalism has some magical value-increasing spell. The value of output per head can only rise if labour becomes more intensive or the working day is lengthened. Indeed, it is these factors that explain the discrepancy between 1 AD and 1700 AD, with bigger leaps since then. Industrial society most definitely does increase labour intensity and lengthen the working day. No rise in the value of output is determined by productivity. Nevertheless, productivity growth does lead to an increase in the quantity of use-values available to society. That is not the same thing as value, but it does justify why productivity growth is important for increasing living standards. Productivity growth disperses the value of an hour of socially necessary labour-time over a greater number of use-values. The number of use-values has increased but each use-value is now the bodily form of a lesser quantity of value.
The Weak Must Perish!
Whilst capitalism is crisis-prone, this doesn’t mean it collapses of its own accord. It has counter-acting tendencies that automatically activate when production is breaking down. Through these counter-acting tendencies, the system destroys some of its value through, for example, writing off assets, and is then able to regrow. One way of conceptualising the crisis was captured in George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’. There, the animals build a windmill, only for it to be burnt down the next day. Then they rebuild it and once again it is destroyed, and so on. The process of the accumulation of capital is much like this – it grows up to a certain point, then self-destructs, only to inflate again later, etc. Each post-recovery peak is slightly lower than the previous peak. It doesn’t exactly correspond therefore to a society in which the economy is genuinely progressing. Although the mass of use-values rises, in value terms the system is just jumping up and down on the same spot.
There are other counter-acting tendencies in capitalism such as intensifying or extending the working day that effectively increase the surplus in relation to capital investment, or slashing the wage bill which decreases variable capital. It is worth noting that with more women in the workforce now, a family unit conceived as a single entity now works for longer than in the 19th century. Back then, workers scored a victory with the 10 hours’ bill, but now in Britain a woman and her husband will often be found working 14 hours a day in total, excluding any overtime. Of course, gender equality is an important achievement of the Women’s Liberation movement, my point is only significant for noting that capital has effectively increased the length of the working day.
A counter-acting tendency that Mullan finds particularly appealing is that of ‘creative destruction.’ This is when the unprofitable companies go bankrupt and their assets are sold off cheaply (devaluing the constant capital) to a more profitable company who then is able to keep production going, or even elevate it to a higher technological level. The process of creative destruction is a healing, purifying mechanism for capital. By destroying some of the constant component of capital that has overaccumulated, a new round of production is able to get going. So ‘creative destruction’ is what it says: both destructive and creative.
However, Mullan’s originality as an author on the crisis consists here: he argues that the ‘normal’ processes of creative destruction are being held back by the state. Mullan argues the state is giving too many subsidies to unprofitable companies to keep them afloat, when really it should let them die. The state is propping up a zombie form of capitalism, says Mullan. If instead the unprofitable companies are left to die, then the state could invest its money on driving forward newer production at a higher technological level. Note, Mullan doesn’t think the job can be left to capitalists because they are too concerned with short-term profit whereas the high-tech stuff is risky and costly. In the absence of other collectivities in society then, Mullan wants the state to take a commanding role in rejuvenating the economy and he thinks this will create real progress. He has conceded this will mean the state borrowing a few extra trillion to fund this progress.
His ideas for progress involve employing the youth (who have suffered higher rates of unemployment since the 2008 Crash) in tasks such as building new aircraft made out of the new compound graphene which is lighter than the current metals. Furthermore, he wants more investment in driverless cars, quantum technology for, among other things, faster computers, and virtual reality. Production in these areas will create ‘decent jobs’, he believes. He says people who don’t want to go down this route of a high-tech state capitalism have a ‘loss of belief in progress.’ Whilst he recognises he holds a minority view, he thinks strong leaders will emerge that promote these ideas and ensure they have democratic approval.
Sadly, Mullan’s optimism is delusional. Firstly, the level of destruction he is proposing is so high, people are unlikely to go for it. “There are no pain-free routes out of the Long Depression. The processes of creative destruction will mean economic ruin, adding to areas already severely affected by deindustrialisation.”  Yay, economic ruin! To be fair, Mullan believes such ruin will just be a short-term part of the transition to a high-tech state capitalist society and also the people affected will receive welfare benefits as they learn the new skills required to become a quantum computing scientist. So, we are invited to sing ‘Kum-by-ya’ as millions get laid off.
The second criticism concerns Mullan’s notion of ‘decent jobs.’ Is there such a thing? Even if the fellow designing a quantum circuit board experiences this as rewarding because he is deploying a high level of skill, the production of enough quantum computers for the world requires hundreds of thousands more low-paid assemblers on the factory line. They are unlikely to feel particularly rewarded.
The third criticism is that Mullan is only tinkering around with one particular counter-acting tendency, that of ‘creative destruction.’ With the fundamental social relations of capitalism remaining intact, the new high tech state capitalism will still be crisis-prone. Indeed, with such a high level of constant capital, when its Crash comes, it will be incredibly severe, making 2008 look like a tea party. What’s worse is that if the employer is the state, all hell could break loose. No matter how much representative democracy you have, you will find the state qua capitalist-in-recession is going to be quite vicious in attacking variable capital when the crisis breaks. Note Mullan is recommending his model for all the Western economies. So, you have North American, European, Japanese and Australasian state capitalisms all crashing down. I’m sorry, but this is just a recipe for war. Mullan, who argues the Manhattan project to develop the atom bomb pushed science forward, will surely come to regret the recommendations he has made here.
It’s probably best for the time being that we stick with zombie capitalism, until such a point arises that revolutionary humanist theory has gripped the masses such that they are well-equipped to change the world in the interests of human liberation. Even though living standards may only be rising at 1.1% under zombie capitalism, this is little different to what it was in 1860 (a period Mullan thinks was ‘dynamic’ and ‘enlightened’). For the time being, we should stick with it rather than go down the Mullanite route of playing with fire. Ultimately, we need a radically different alternative, so it is to that I now turn.
Changing The Mode of Production
Mullan’s explanation for why he now backs capitalism (albeit rejuvenated), makes about as much sense as a chocolate teapot. He says:
“There are still some on the radical left who argue for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. This had meaning when the working class existed as a political force. But the working class’s demise brought that era of possibilities to an end. The question remains of how the existing system of production can be organised, or transformed, or transcended in such a way as to advance the best interests of humanity. Once we have escaped the Long Depression, the resulting phase of economic expansion would not be forever. Economic growth would at some time hit limits, just as the post-war boom did. Working out how to overcome the limitations of a profit-driven economy is not today’s priority.”
But some of us don’t want to live in either zombie capitalism, nor the 1950s. Mullan’s problem here is premised upon a misinterpretation of what the best bits of the Enlightenment were. He assumes its message of ‘progress’ dictates we stick with capitalism. In actual fact, many different traditions emerged from the Enlightenment which is unsurprising if you realise that the most dominant theme in the Enlightenment (as a diffuse body of philosophy) was that we have freewill and can choose our fate. Mullan’s commitment to capitalism is therefore a choice. It is not the case ‘there is no alternative,’ it all depends on what system we think has the most going for it. The truth-value of the ideas is therefore the most important thing, not the status of contemporary working class politics. If we focus instead on truth, and circulate those ideas, who knows what it might animate in the future? Indeed, ideas often have a ‘trickle down’ effect. The positive moments of the 20th century, although rarely ‘orthodox-Marxist’, were influenced by his raising of the stakes. Mini-socialism, e.g. the British Labour Party or social democracy in Europe, would not have happened without the effect of Marx trickling-down. The task then is for intellectuals to constantly seek truth, and refresh and renew truths discovered historically. Therefore, the contemporary status of working class politics is logically irrelevant to whether or not we decide to pursue Marxist ideas and attempt to circulate them. Mullanism is also unlikely to be implemented directly, but tragically a trickled-down Mullanism might pervade in the short-term, i.e. more Trumpism – a pro-capitalism that has disregarded the humanist bits in Mullan’s book. We have a mammoth responsibility to the future and therefore it is necessary to have the best ideas possible so that even if they are not directly implemented, at least some progress could occur in their trickled-down form. For these reasons, the rest of this section is dedicated to a Marxist alternative to the arguments put forward by Mullan. The reader is invited to decide at the end which vision he or she prefers.
Zombie capitalism really represents capitalism on its last legs. This doesn’t mean that one day it will spontaneously collapse – as Mullan notes, the system is highly resilient. What it does mean however, is that its failure to durably increase living standards for all, its failure to turn the increasing social productivity of labour into a shortening of the working day, its failure to make labour rewarding and creative rather than burdensome and monotonous, its failure to overcome brutalised and alienated social relations, its failure to overcome its crisis-prone nature, the persistence of famine and war, and the general sense that human beings are not in control of their own affairs – yeah, it seems capitalism is a pretty messed-up system. Mullan’s attempts to reform the beast, even if they worked on their own terms, wouldn’t solve many of these problems, but as I have argued, they wouldn’t work even on their own terms – high-tech state capitalism would end up being even worse than its zombie form. So, what we need is a different mode of production. Before we can work out how to get there, we need to probe a little deeper into the fundamental basis of capitalism. If we analyse that, then we can work out how to change the whole thing.
Various Marxist categories deployed in this review – e.g. capital, constant capital, variable capital, surplus value, wages, use-value and value – have as their basis commodities. Commodities are the basic unit of wealth in a capitalist society. Capitalism specifically is about the production of commodities. Any attempt to change capitalism into something else must therefore tackle what is specific to commodity production. Revolutions that have failed to change commodity production into something else have themselves always eventually failed.
The commodity has a dual character – the use-value side, which is the way in which it satisfies a concrete need, and its value side, i.e. how much it is worth, which can be expressed in terms of money or indeed any other commodity. Hence it is possible to say an apple is worth the same as a pencil, or each are worth 20 pence. Value is a representation of how much socially necessary human labour has gone into the production of the commodity, as an amount of time. Capital (privately accumulated mass of value), is the most dialectically developed commodity, but the fact it is also on its last legs, demands from us we understand both it, and the simple commodity.
As a privately accumulated mass of value, capital is therefore an appropriation of the labour-time of others. The nature of capitalism and all the attendant problems follow from this private appropriation of the labour of society. The problems are based therefore, not on personal character traits, but the very fact that persons are not in conscious control of their affairs. Even the capitalist isn’t free because he has to work under certain economic laws in order to survive as a capitalist. The private appropriation of labour has lowered the status of all human beings.
Hence value, from which capital springs, has to be regarded as an estranged form. It is a social substance that has become a threat to our very wellbeing. Thus, we need to get rid of it and turn the product of labour into just an article of use that is stripped of the value form.
To get rid of commodity production therefore requires that the first task is simultaneously to seize back the appropriated value that has been taken from us, and also, in order to prevent new value being taken from us, stop labour existing in the form of labour-power, i.e. as a commodity. Labour-power is a unique commodity because it is incorporated into a human being who is conscious. Thus, it is the only commodity that hypothetically can commence the chain reaction of getting rid of all commodities. To refuse point blank to sell your labour-power is therefore key, but it cannot be done alone. Workers of the world must unite as a giant collective and initiate a worldwide general strike at the same time as expropriating the expropriators, taking back what is rightfully ours. One of the slogans of the revolution is therefore “I AM A MAN, not a commodity.” This slogan immediately raises the dignity of the individual which is, as we shall see, the ultimate key to undo all commodity production. But this is only the first step.
Expropriating the expropriators certainly makes everyone a little more wealthy, but more importantly some of what the capitalists had expropriated from us exists in the form of constant capital. Therefore the collective taking back also involves taking the means of production into social ownership. The post-revolutionary society is now at the start of the lower phase of communism and can start to work towards the task of undoing commodity production. Labour has already self-emancipated in the sense that the commodity labour-power no longer exists. Furthermore, it has got rid of capital in all its forms.
That now permits the communist mode of production to begin to take shape. The working population now produces directly for society and individuals are compensated according to how many hours of labour they have put in. This constitutes an assault on the capitalistic law of value, and therefore an assault on commodity production. Whereas under capitalism the wage represents the value of the goods needed to reproduce you as a worker, i.e. chiefly your ability to regenerate yourself in order to resell your labour power the next day, the new compensation is a moral standard, i.e. a fair share in the social bounty. Value isn’t being measured but the amount of what you do is.
Nevertheless, there is still the problem that the products of emancipated labour still represent abstract human labour, i.e. they have economic value. The new products of labour aren’t strictly speaking commodities, but it would still be possible in the mind to think “1 apple = 1 pencil.” Really for value to disappear completely, such a thing needs to seem absurd, just as ancient religions seem absurd to the skeptic today. The persistence of value in the mind is a hangover from capitalism that will fade when the new society is metaphorically sober. Some logical steps will help the sobering up process occur. When you collect what you need with your labour certificate that says how much you are entitled to, you are not making a trade. You are not exchanging a commodity (money) for goods in a supermarket. You are simply collecting (or ordering via the internet or virtual reality) your goods. Thus, the products of labour are no longer strictly commodities, although they still bear value as a hangover. But what happens if some individuals start accumulating things in one way or another? – they would be amassing value which could become a threat to individuals within the collective. The problem wouldn’t exist if these objects were just use-values, but remember they still bear value. We didn’t just go through the risky business of emancipating ourselves from wage-slavery just to have someone re-accumulate value and thereby possibly seek to employ us. The new society therefore develops a constitution containing several features. The two that are pertinent here are ‘1: No individual is to sell their labour to anyone else. 2: While we have this problem whereby the products of labour still bear value, no member of the commune is to exchange their goods for anyone else’s. You can give the products to someone else (e.g., a child), but you are not allowed to make a trade. Our commune’s exchanges with other communes will only take place under strict control of participatory democracy.’ This policy enactment to be agreed by the communal participatory democracy should be sufficient to buy us enough time whereby the value embodied in the product of labour has finally withered away. But more developments that spontaneously arise from the new society ensure its victory in finally ridding the products of labour of value in order to complete the broader human liberation.
The equalization of different concrete labours represented in the fact that now 1 hour of brain surgery = 1 hour of smart phone assembly in a factory, in relation to the quantity of products you get back, raises the level of dignity of all labours. Far from being an underpaid oppressed creature, spending some time assembling the smart phones, (and rotating who does that), makes the experience far more pleasurable and rewarding. You are now an equally valued member of society. Knowing you are doing something vital and precious to the collective society, it follows the happy individual is likely to show more initiative and creativity. Meanwhile the dignity of the brain surgery has not decreased. If they save a child’s life, they will likely receive gifts from many members of society. Furthermore, training for skilled labour is compensated with a generous student package. So, they are still rewarded and prized by society without that desire impinging on the new fairness.
Meanwhile, the urge to technologically innovate also gets a boost in relation to the sluggish rate of technological progress under capitalism. The latter mainly only innovates when a company wants to gain the market edge. And when it isn’t profitable to do so, innovation slows. But under communism the thirst for new tech knows no bounds. Communism innovates on the basis of two motivations: i) because it is inherently rewarding work ii) to develop the productivity of labour that allows for even more creativity to be enjoyed by workers and a shortened working day.
As the lower phase of communism develops and happier people with more rewarding work, more products to enjoy, and tech that has become beneficial, human solidarity jumps light years. It develops to such a high point that eventually it becomes possible for society to successfully jump into the higher phase of communism. Herein, labour time ceases to be the measure by which you get your goods. People now put into society what they can, and take out what they need. For an analogy, it is like a family in a capitalist society. Unless it is dysfunctional and requires a written rota, family chores are usually shared nowadays without ‘exchange’ needing to take place or a sense of ‘what do I get out of it.’ You just do the cooking, someone else does the washing up, someone does the cleaning. Under the higher phase of communism, humanity becomes one giant family. But note, it is impossible to jump from capitalism straight to this phase. We are so used to putting a price on everything that takes place, human relations are too estranged and you cannot expect the milk of human kindness to be substantial enough, even after a revolution, to accomplish the goal. But this Marxist road-map shows the logical steps needed – revolution then reasoned evolution towards the good society.
You can buy ‘Creative Destruction: How to Start an Economic Renaissance’here.
 Mullan, P. (2017) “Creative Destruction: How to Start an Economic Renaissance” (Policy Press), p.124
Communism is not about forcing a false equality on people dominated by the kind of centralised state that existed in places such as the USSR. Those regimes never escaped capitalism. The main problem with capitalism is that it strips work – our life activity – of its creativity and potentially rewarding character. It traps the individual into a mundane monotonous rut where work is experienced as degrading, rhythmic, and exploitative. Producers are reduced to the level of appendages to machines without powers of thought or a myriad of talents to be cultivated and developed for their own betterment, or the enrichment of society.
Clearly however, the impetus of market relations has transformed the world for the better in material terms. In pre-capitalist societies, work often shares some of the aforementioned characteristics. One is a ‘carpenter’, a ‘baker’, a ‘butcher’, or whatever, as many surnames that are derived from professions attest. A fixed role in life was often defining to the individual, as it remains under capitalism. But the massive expansion of productive powers that has taken place under capitalism through the development of among other things, machinery, provides a potential basis for radical social transformation and the total liberation of the individual.
It is often difficult to see how our globalized economy *could* be stripped of the degrading character of work so that we have our cake and eat it – i.e., to combine high standards of living with a liberated workforce. But it’s not impossible. The trick is to understand that commodity production is not the same thing as production-for-others.
Commodity production is production exclusively for a market and your product is owned and sold by capitalists and their chain of command. You do not know where your product is going, who it will be used by, or see any satisfaction in that relation. You simply produce blindly, and worse still, your managers will seek to get the maximum out of you in return for a wage that makes the whole process highly coercive. The level of the wage is itself determined by what you need to reproduce your existence for the next working week, at a rate acceptable to society. It does not reflect how much you produce or how much effort was expended. The class relation concealed behind the wage – i.e., that you work for the capitalist class, means the surplus product is appropriated by them. This surplus value has held steady – bearing in mind ups and downs – at around a third of the total you have produced. It is as if for every meal you cook, a burglar invades your house and takes a third.
The problem of the lacklustre relation of specifically commodity production to human liberation however, would also hold even if there was no capitalist class and all producers were small businessmen or women. The same drudgery and tedium of being fixed in a role would persist, only you now pay yourself rather than are technically exploited. Besides, such a society is impossible to conceive, since in order to grow, a small businessman or woman would need to deploy their capital in employing others, hence class relations would emanate from this. So how does society escape the rut whilst maintaining (or even improving) the physical standard of living that high-tech capitalism has provided?
Production-for-others need not mean production for the market with all the negative consequences that entails. In a communally organised economy, the local community agrees through participatory democracy what needs to be done and the conversant individual decides to do it. This idea is not as far-fetched as might first appear to those whose only experience is within the confines of the market. Tribal societies that were once the dominant arrangement used this method all the time. With varying degrees of conscious control, they would sit around the campfire of an evening and work these things out. You didn’t have production for production’s sake, i.e. a brutalising state of affairs where the individual has no say and therefore experiences his or her life activity as alien to him or herself. Rather, production just took place to meet the needs of others. The length of the working day in these situations was usually far shorter since the surplus product was enjoyed by the collective rather than privately expropriated. And work was rewarding because you knew why you were doing it, knew who it was for, and had strong bonds with these people. Nevertheless, this is not to glorify tribal societies. There were usually hierarchies and technology levels were so low that lifespans were shorter and ridden with physical maladies.
But to extract what was positive about tribal societies and square that with our high-tech physically decent standards of living today, is a real possibility now that has become more immanent with the development of communication technologies. Thanks to things like the internet and smart phones, it would now be possible to have an economy that is consciously planned by those doing the work in direct accordance with the needs of society as agreed by local participatory democracy. The compensation for your time expended at work would be something like a certificate that guarantees you access to society’s bounty. Not every certificate would be equal at this point. In order to incentivise highly skilled work such as brain surgery or work that continues to be dull such as shovelling faeces, the quantity of goods you can get would be greater. You could be writing articles one week for a lower level of reward than someone who is shovelling faeces, yet alternate those roles or do something entirely different the next week according to the agreements reached by the participatory democracy. The faeces-shoveller of course would be able to acquire his Ferrari quicker. So, at this lower phase of communism, individuals are not yet equal in material terms, though they are equal in terms of political power. Moreover, it is worth noting that in this scenario, society is now totally incentivised to increase its technological level. In order that it doesn’t have to devote too many resources for both the highly skilled work or the dull work, society becomes obliged to develop smart robotics and other machinery that can annul the drudge. Insodoing, the new society is adopting a new economic law concerning an ever-increasing amount of liberation of the worker, freeing him or her to develop their creative powers and basically live the life of Riley. The capitalist law of value has essentially collapsed, providing the ground for the evolution of a post-money system. This is an entirely different mode of production to capitalism, and a vastly superior one at that. The starting point for the new society in relation to its emergence from capitalism, is the demand that the means of production become socially rather than privately owned.