Is labor the source of all wealth? Is labor entitled to all it creates? Will commodity production exist under socialism?
These are questions we don’t often take the time to ask. Take the first question for example: is labor the source of all wealth? Karl Marx had this to say.
Insofar as labor shapes raw materials into finished products, we could say that labor creates new wealth, but this is not the same as saying labor creates all wealth. And while labor shapes raw materials into finished products, labor does not create these raw materials, but, rather, harvests them from nature. Even this explanation, however, is still incomplete, as even labor power (a specific term Marx invented to refer to a person’s ability to work) is a product of nature and does not exist separately from nature. The fact that labor power has the ability to act upon nature does not mean that it is separate from nature. Therefore, labor is not the source of all wealth; nature is the source of all wealth. (Critique of the Gotha Program: Part I.)
What about the second question: is labor entitled to all it creates?
For anyone who works for a living, it is tempting to answer yes to this question. But saying that labor is entitled to all it creates also excludes those who are too young to work, too old to work, and others who are unable to work due to sickness or disability. And what about people who work in the public sector? Are these people not entitled to a portion of what labor creates?
Now for the final question: will commodity production (Marx’s term for all the stuff produced for sale under capitalism) exist under socialism?
This is a more complicated question and its answer is multifaceted. We must start by understanding what a commodity is, and a concise explanation comes from Friedrich Engels:
“What are commodities? Products made in a society of more or less separate private producers, and therefore in the first place private products. These private products, however, become commodities only when they are made, not for consumption by their producers, but for consumption by others, that is, for social consumption; they enter into social consumption through exchange. The private producers are therefore socially interconnected, constitute a society. Their products, although the private products of each individual, are therefore simultaneously but unintentionally and as it were involuntarily, also social products. In what, then, consists the social character of these private products? Evidently in two peculiarities: first, that they all satisfy some human want, have a use-value not only for the producers but also for others, and secondly, that although they are products of the most varied individual labour, they are at the same time products of human labour as such, of general human labour. In so far as they have a use-value also for other persons, they can, generally speaking enter into exchange; in so far as general human labour, the simple expenditure of human labour-power is incorporated in all of them, they can be compared with each other in exchange, be assumed to be equal or unequal, according to the quantity of this labour embodied in each. In two equal products made individually, social conditions being equal, an unequal quantity of individual labour may be contained, but always only an equal quantity of general human labour. An unskilled smith may make five horseshoes in the time a skilful smith makes ten. But society does not form value from the accidental lack of skill of an individual, it recognises as general human labour only labour of a normal average degree of skill at the particular time. In exchange therefore, one of the five horseshoes made by the first smith has no more value than one of the ten made by the other in an equal time. Individual labour contains general human labour only insofar as it is socially necessary.” (Anti-Dühring: Chapter VI)
Upon close examination, we can see that commodity production rests upon several preconditions. Firstly, commodity production presupposes a sophisticated social division of labor. Rather than individuals producing everything they need to survive, they specialize in production of a single, or very small variety of products. Secondly, commodity production presupposes the existence of markets. Since commodities are goods which have been produced to be exchanged for other goods, this implies the existence of a trading space where these goods can be exchanged for one another. Within this economic arrangement, there is an inherent disorganization/anarchy of production. As a blacksmith, I may specialize in the production of plate armor, but not many people need plate armor. Once someone has purchased a suit of armor from me, they will presumably not need a new suit of armor for some time. And the commodity which I specialize in producing could be made obsolete by a new invention, such as the firearm. Despite all of this, even if there is no demand for my plate armor, I must produce it anyway, as it is by exchanging my commodity for others that I acquire everything I need in order to live.
Over a long enough period of time, two primary classes emerge. This is Marx’s starting point in the Communist Manifesto. There are those who survive by selling their labor power (the proletariat), and those who enrich themselves by purchasing the labor power of others and keeping the profits made by selling the subsequent products (the bourgeoisie). This creates a new contradiction within commodity production. Before, I as a blacksmith only needed to produce enough plate armor to feed myself, keep a roof over my head, and replenish any other supplies I required in order to produce plate armor. But in this new arrangement in which I sell my labor power to someone else, and they keep the profits from the sale of what I produce, I must now make more than what I individually need to survive.
Suppose an individual capitalist invests $100 dollars in labor power and raw materials, and this investment yields $200 worth of new product. In order to turn a profit, this new product cannot be consumed by the workers, as they were only paid enough in wages to consume a fraction of what they produced. The individual capitalist cannot turn a profit by purchasing these new products himself, as this is just more money out of his pocket. The only way our capitalist can profit is by selling these commodities on the market, where it is possible to find consumers who were not involved in the production of his specific commodities. But herein lies a problem, as every capitalist trying to sell commodities on the market is doing so because they have the same problem.
That’s why commodity production cannot be the way social production is organized under socialism. In a socialist society, instead of producing goods for exchange, they must be produced for consumption, and in order to ensure that society has all the goods it needs, the market must also be abolished in favor of generalized economic planning. Since goods are no longer produced for exchange under socialism, but for consumption instead, commodity production does not exist under socialism. That is, we’ll still have to produce all the goods and services we need to survive and enjoy life, but those goods and services will no longer be commodities in the Marxist sense, they’ll simply be goods and services.
Thinking through these seemingly straightforward questions is why it is necessary for organizers to make a habit of reading. Even if your common sense is able to guide you towards the correct answer to certain questions, it cannot be relied on all the time. You must read, not only about what you may be unfamiliar with, but also about what you are already familiar with.
This can be a daunting task for many people who have to spend so much time at work just to make rent. This is why it is also important to join organizations, as studying socially is much more effective than studying individually, provided that everyone is committed to doing their best to come to grips with sometimes complex theoretical or historical problems. Studying socially also relieves the individual of needing to be an expert in everything. There can be people focused on learning economics, others focused on political strategy, and these experts can translate their accumulated knowledge to their peers as it becomes relevant. In doing so, the collective can overcome the shortcomings of any individual member.
If you’re looking for a good place to begin, I’d say pick up a copy of Engels’ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Engels wrote it as a short guide to Marx’s ideas for people who were sick of capitalism. In other words, he wrote it for you and me.
