Introduction
In a previous post I pointed out the limited nature of the criticism of Israeli soldiers robbing $54.29 million from the Bank of Palestine–without criticizing the Bank of Palestine itself for exploiting its workers (see The Rate of Exploitation of Bank of Palestine Workers, or the Issue of Socialist Strategy and Tactics). It is necessary to link, whenever possible, more macro issues (such as the current genocide in Gaza and the West Bank) and issues linked to the daily lives of workers, citizens, immigrants and migrant workers (such as exploitation and oppression both inside and outside workplaces).
I thought it appropriate to inquire into whether there are (or rather were) capitalist corporations in Palestine that exploit their workers since the left here in Toronto tend to idealize Palestine. I have already determined the rate of exploitation of Palestinian workers who work for PADICO (see The Rate of Exploitation of Palestinian Workers at PADICO Holding, a Palestinian Capitalist Company). Of course, even if there are capitalist corporations, they may be controlled by other than Palestinian capitalists; I leave that issue for others to determine.
Toronto leftists sympathetic to Palestine under the current situation generally fall in the category of Marxists who define the conflict between Palestine and Israel mainly in political terms, where the main conflict or contradiction is just that conflict. As Oded Nir (2020) has written, in “Israel’s Two Marxisms,” in 231-256, New Understanding of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, pages 245-246:
Meanwhile, the second approach (positing the primacy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) does not give up altogether on the unity of reality; but it asserts it not materially-historically, but rather politically: it is the political goal of the liberation of Palestinians (once articulated by the two-state vision of the Peace Process) that orders all of reality, including of course its economic register. We might do well to call this political principle of unity “totality,” using the quotation marks to distinguish it from the first approach. This “totality” has the effect of immediately dividing all of reality according to the demands of the political project of Palestinian liberation. Not only the economic is understood as a stage for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but all other facets of society, too. … Perhaps David Grossman’s The Yellow Wind from 1987 captures this “totality” in its purest form: tracing the ways in which the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories infiltrates any realm of life (Grossman 2002, originally published in Hebrew in 1987). Thus, the economy is only one of these realms that bears the mark of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The other form of Marxism characterizes the Palestinian-Israel conflict in terms of the totality called capitalism and focuses on the economic. Page 246:
The first approach (arguing for the primacy of the economic) begins by asserting capitalism as the totalizing force: more and more parts of reality becoming structured by capitalism, either in the external limitations put on them, or in their very structure. The organization of the world in a totality here, as it is for Georg Lukács (Lukács 1971,
90), not some methodological first principle or belief, but the result of a historical development – the expansion of capitalism. That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, in the last analysis, of the same order as capitalism’s contradiction, is a way of articulating in thought this totalizing process in reality.
Nadir characterizes the first approach as the more subjectivist approach whereas the second approach is the more objectivist approach. Neither approach is sufficient to characterize the Palestinian and Israel conflict, he implies, and he suggests that what is needed is a synthesis of the two. Pages 251-252:
It should be clear by now that it is not the case that one of the two variants of thinking discussed in this article is the true Israeli Marxism, while the other is fake or misleading. For it can be asserted that a fully-fledged Marxism is precisely one that can somehow
unite the two, in a specific context – the political project and the different understanding of all of reality that it implies coinciding in some original and productive way with the analysis of the objective system of capitalism and its contradictions. The invention of this
unity – always ephemeral and stubbornly depending on sheer belief just as much as facts – is precisely the temporary solution for the gap between the two kinds of “Marxism.” And so the final point of this essay is the following: that, perhaps surprisingly, it is not the case that there is already in existence some correct position of Israeli Marxism, waiting to be taken up by parties, organizers, and the masses. No: this Marxist position is still waiting to be invented, coinciding completely neither with the objective description of the system, nor with a subjective structuring of all reality in the name of achieving a goal.
Although the focus on the conflict between Palestine and Israel may not be reducible to capitalist economic relations, the tendency of the left to idealize Palestine while throwing in here and there the words “imperialist” (related to the United States) and “capitalist” without in any way linking this to the daily lives of those in Canada who are exploited and oppressed by employers hardly enlightens workers, citizens, immigrants and migrant workers about the nature of exploitation and oppression in Canada; indeed, I suspect that many who support Palestine and oppose Israeli’s genocidal efforts are social democrats or reformers who do not consider working for an employer to require a radical change by creating a socialist society without a class of employers and the associated economic, political and social structures.
Marxists need to engage in a critique of capitalist exploitation and oppression wherever it occurs and in whatever form–but you would not know that such exploitation and oppression has occurred in Palestine (apart from Israeli exploitation and oppression of Palestinians).
Consider for example the case of the capitalist company Indigo and its support for the Israeli military. I have already written about the arrest of protesters and determined the rate of exploitation of workers of this employer (see Idealization of the Rule of Law Once Again: The Case of Indigo CEO Heather Reisman and Activists Against Israel’s Palestinian Genocideand The Rate of Exploitation of Workers at Indigo (or Chapters or Coles) Or: How Unionized Jobs Are Not Decent or Good Jobs).
The protesters apparently glued posters on Indigo’s windows and walls and splashed red paint on its windows. They were charged with vandalism over $5,000 and were arrested in a brutal fashion, with coordinated police raids breaking down doors in the early morning of November 22, 2023, for example; the protesters were also accused via much of the usual media coverage of engaging in anti-semitism and hate crimes.
Although I sympathize with such acts of civil disobedience and the fortitude of those who engaged in the act, I wonder how such an act is related to advancing a socialist society. The focus seems to be exclusively on what Israel is doing in Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank in particular), with no critical reflection of how to link such acts of civil disobedience to a criticism of what happens on a daily basis in Canada–the exploitation and oppression of millions of workers.
Let us listen to a comment on Reddit (undoubtedly many commentators on Reddit are right-wing, but unless the left is going to simply address the converted, it certainly needs to engage in debates with right-wing people or people who simply assume that modern property relations, and political and social conditions are legitimate):
They’re not protesting a CEO because they’re successful. They’re protesting because her and her husband have an organization that recruits foreign citizens to fight for the Israeli army. Profits from Indigo are funnelled directly into the genocide of Palestinians by the IDF.
This comment is from a defender of the protestors. But ironically the comment lets employers in general and CEOs in particular off the hook by implicitly considering “successful CEOs” as legitimate rather than part of a system of exploitation characteristic of the class power of employers. What should have been done is a simultaneous protest against that class power and the particular way that power has been used in the particular situation of Heather Reisman and her support of the Israeli army.
The following thus has a political purpose: to inquire into the extent to which Palestinian bank workers are exploited by a Palestinian bank, the TNB, a Palestinian national bank.
I have used the 2018 statistics rather than the 2019 statistics since the 2019 annual report, for some reason, does not include an essential statistic for calculating the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value for that year: salaries. I have also used the early date rather than, say the 2022 annual report (which does include salaries) because of the possible continued skewing of the data due to Covid.
What is the TNB?
Since 2011, The National Bank (TNB) is Palestine’s fastest growing bank, one of the country´s most trusted providers of comprehensive, integrated financial services for the corporate, retail, investment, and MSME’s financing sectors. The National Bank is the second largest in terms of paid-up capital within the Palestinian banking sector, which amounts to USD75 million, and attracts the most respected and successful companies to its board, including Siraj Palestine Fund I, Massar International Investment Company, Enterprise Investment Company, PalTel Group, Bank al Etihad, Birzeit Pharmaceutical Company and Mashareq for Investment & Development.
With over 9000 shareholders, the bank commands the largest shareholder base in Palestine. Our world-class financial services are offered through our well-positioned network of branches and ATMs distributed throughout the liveliest and most integral parts of the West Bank, and champions progressive digital offerings, including TNB’s online banking and TNB’s mobile application.
The Nature of the Rate of Exploitation
But what is the rate of exploitation? And why not use the usual rate of profit or the rate of return? The rate of profit is calculated as profit divided by investment. Since employers purchase both the means for work–buildings, computers, office supplies, raw material–and hire workers–we can classify investment into two categories: c, meaning constant capital, or the capital invested in commodities other than workers; and v, or variable capital, the capital invested in the hiring of workers for a certain period of time (wages, salaries and benefits).
The purpose of investment in a capitalist economy is to obtain more money (see The Money Circuit of Capital), and the additional money is surplus value when it is related to its source: workers working for more time than what they cost to produce themselves. The relation between surplus value and variable capital (or wages and salaries) is the rate of surplus value or the rate of exploitation, expressed as a ratio: s/v.
When the surplus is related to both c and v and expressed as a ratio, it is the rate of profit: s/(c+v).
In Marxian economics, you cannot simply use the economic classifications provided by employers and governments since such classifications often hide the nature of the social world in which we live. The rate of profit underestimates the rate of exploitation since the surplus value is related to total investment and not just to the workers. Furthermore, it makes the surplus value appear to derive from both constant capital and variable capital.
I decided to look at the annual report of some of the largest private companies (if they are available) in order to calculate the rate of exploitation at a more micro level than aggregate rates of surplus value at the national or international level. Politically, this is necessary since social democrats here in Toronto (and undoubtedly elsewhere) vaguely may refer to exploitation–while simultaneously and contradictorily referring to “decent work” and “fair contracts.” Calculating even approximately the rate of exploitation at a more micro level thus has political relevance.
Conclusions First
As usual, I start with the conclusion in order to make readily accessible the results of the calculations for those who are more interested in the results than in how to obtain them.
The Rate of Exploitation of TNB Palestinian Workers
To calculate the rate of surplus value, we need to divide “Final Adjusted Surplus value (s)” or “Income before provision of income taxes” by “Variable capital (v) or Adjusted “Salaries and Benefits.”
So, with the adjustments in place, the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value=s/v=35,262,718/30,264,997=117%.
This means that, in terms of money, for every $1 of wage or salary of a regular TNB worker receives, TNB receives $1.17 surplus value or profit for free. Alternatively, for every hour worked, a TNB worker works an additional 1 hour 10 minutes for free for TNB. Or, within one hour of work, a worker receives an equivalent of her hourly wage in 28 minutes and works for free for 32 minutes for TNB.
Of course, during the time that the worker works to receive an equivalent of her/his own wage, s/he is subject to the power of management and hence is unfree (see, for instance, Management Rights, Part Four: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario and Employers as Dictators, Part One).
In a 6-hour (360 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 2 hours 46 minutes (166 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 3 hours 14 minutes (194 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
In a 7-hour (420 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 3 hours 14 minutes (194 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 3 hours 46 minutes (226 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
In an 8-hour (480 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 3 hours 41 minutes (221 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 4 hours 19 minutes (259 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
In a 9-hour (540 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 4 hours 9 minutes (249 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 4 hours 51 minutes (291 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
In a 10-hour (600 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 4 hours 36 minutes (276 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 5 hours 24 minutes (324 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
In a 12-hour (720 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 5 hours 32 minutes (332 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 6 hours 28 minutes (388 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
It should be noted that I have used the verb “obtain” rather than “produce.” In Marxian economics, bank, credit union and insurance workers, as well as sales workers do not produce surplus value but rather transfer the surplus value already produced. This does not mean that these workers are not exploited capitalistically; they are used impersonally by the employer to obtain surplus value and a profit. Furthermore, things produced by others are used by employers such as TNB to control their working lives in order to obtain surplus value or profit. (I leave the issue of how banks exploit workers as consumers to others more competent to deal with the issue; the point here is to focus on the exploitation of credit union workers as workers and not as consumers.)
Political Considerations and Conclusion
Again, the rate of exploitation measures the extent to which workers work for free, producing or obtaining all the surplus value and hence all the profit for employers. However, even during the time when they work to produce or obtain their own wage, they are hardly free. They are subject to the power and dictates of their employer during that time as well.
I have been unable to determine whether TNB workers belong to a union. If the situation of Canadian bank workers is typical, they likely do not. Would, however, their becoming unionized turn their situation into one where they had a “fair contract” and “decent work?” I think not. Unions can limit exploitation and can control some aspects of their working lives, but in principle workers are things to be used by employers even with unions. This does not mean that a non-unionized environment is the same as a unionized environment. With unions that are independent of particular employers, that is to say, are real unions, there is an opportunity for workers to develop collective organizations of resistance against the power of particular employers.
Do you think that these facts contradict the talk by the left and unionists of “fair wages,” “fair contracts” (see Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One for the rhetoric of the largest union in Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)) and “decent work?” Do they ignore the reality of life for workers, whether unionized or non-unionized? If exploitation and oppression of workers is a constant in their lives, even if they are only vaguely aware of it, should this situation not be frankly acknowledged by their representatives? Do such representatives do so? If not, why not? Do workers deserve better than neglecting the social context within which they live and work? Should such problems be addressed head on rather than neglected?
Even if workers were not exploited, they would still be oppressed since they are used as things (means) for purposes which they as a collectivity do not define (see The Money Circuit of Capital). Does that express something fair? Management rights clauses (implied or explicit in collective agreements give management as representative of employers–and as a minority–the power to dictate to workers what to do, when to do it, how to do it and so forth–and is not the imposition of the will of a minority over the majority a dictatorship? (See Employers as Dictators, Part One). Is that fair? Do union reps ever explain how a collective agreement somehow expresses something fair? Is that fair?
Data on Which the Calculation Is Based
The calculation of the rate of exploitation is undoubtedly imperfect, and I invite the reader to correct its gaps. Nonetheless, the lack of any attempt to determine the rate of exploitation at the city level has undoubtedly reinforced social-reformist tendencies.
Surplus Value (Profit)
Revenue
Interest income 45,702,312
Interest expense (18,639,531)
Net interest income 27,062,781 [45,702,312-18,639,531=27,062,781]
Net financing and investment income 34,162,287
Net commissions income 14,844,677
Net interest and commission income 76,069,745 [27,062,781+34,162,287+14,844,677=76,069,745]
Foreign currency gain 5,452,053
Net gains from financial assets portfolio 964,918
Share of results of associates 596,326
Loss on sale of an associate (342,796)
Net re-measurement for expected credit losses allowance 34 1,946,925
Recovery of legal cases provision 481,450
Other revenues 379,959
Gross profit 85,548,580 [76,069,745+5,452,053+964,918+596,326-342,796+1,946,925=85,548,580]
Expenses
Personnel expenses (note 35) 32,636,028
Other operating expenses (note 36) 22,374,972
Depreciation and amortization 5,097,532
Impairment of projects in progress 1,585,707
Palestine Monetary Authority’s fines (note 37) 71,403
Total expenses 61,765,642 [32,636,028+22,374,972+5,097,532+1,585,707+71,403=61,765,642]
Profit for the year before taxes 23,782,938 [85,548,580-61,765,642=23,782,938]
Adjustments of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
In Marxian economics, it is necessary to make certain adjustments since some categories that an annual report uses do not reflect accurately the amount of surplus value (profit) and variable capital (wages/salaries and benefits) the specific capitalist produces or obtains. I will also exclude some categories from adjustments when appropriate and will explain why I do so.
I will address some of the items in the above account in order, with the exception of “Personnel expense,” which I will address in the section on variable capital (wages/salaries and benefits).
Foreign Currency Gain
This does not seem to require any adjustment in this instance. If more information were available, a case could be made to exclude it: It is unclear whether the change in the value of currency is due to the exploitation of its own workers or other workers–a very complicated issue that would require much more work and skill to address properly. It would be very difficult to separate out the exploitation of TBN workers and the exploitation of the class of workers.
Share of results of associates
The idea of calculating a particular rate of exploitation should aim to determine, as accurately as possible, to what extent a specific capitalist company exploits a specific group of employees. The above category “Share of results of associates” pertains to joint ventures. If the joint ventures involve little control over the exploitation of other workers, they probably should be excluded for that reason. However, in the annual report, we read:
Investment in associates
An associate is an entity over which the Bank has significant influence. Significant influence is the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of the investee, but is not.
Since TNB does exert “significant influence” over such investments, it should be included as part of surplus value (profit). Consequently, there is no need to make an adjustment in this case.
There are subcategories within “Operating expenses,” however, that do require adjustment of surplus value (profit). The subcategories are:
Palestine Deposit Insurance Corporation* 4,240,766
Fees, licenses and subscriptions 3,945,244
Rent 2,358,281
Maintenance 2,323,409
Advertisements and marketing 2,021,229
Telephone and postage 1,112,786
Utilities 961,527
Professional and consulting fees 813,115
Insurance 712,734
Board of Directors’ expenses 707,403
Stationary and printings 653,808
Donations and sponsorships** 711,309
Transportation and vehicle expenses 354,600
Hospitality 277,639
General assembly meetings’ expenses 178,344
Mortgage insurance fees 132,290
Property tax 97,443
Cash shipment 73,644
Others 699,401
22,374,972 [4,240,766+3,945,244+2,358,281+2,323,409+2,021,229+1,112,786+961,527+813,115+712,734+707,403+653,808+711,309+354,600+277,639+178,344+132,290+97,443+73,644+699,401=22,374,972]
* Banks are required to accrue and account for an annual fee of %0.3 from the total
deposits specified by the Law No. (7) of the year 2013.
** The Bank provides donations for social, sports’ fields events, and others as part of the
Bank’s commitment to society development, and effective contribution to raise
standards of living in the Palestinian community. Donations represent 3.69 % of net
profits as at December 31, 2018.
First Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Palestine Deposit Insurance Corporation* 4,240,766
Although this subcategory is an expense from the point of view of TNB, the source for its expenditure comes from the surplus value obtained from its workers. Consequently, the amount of this subcategory must be added to surplus value or profit (“Profit for the year before taxes”):
First temporarily adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes) 28,023,704 [23,782,938+4,240,766]
Second Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Rent 2,358,281
As I wrote in another post:
Another expense category is also relevant for making adjustments–the category “Rent.” The rent of buildings, like the rent of equipment, is an expense both at the level of the firm and at the level of the economy as a whole. However, in the case of occupancy, rent also includes the capitalized value of land, and this capitalized value of land is derived from surplus value (see Jorden Sandemose (2018), Class and Property in Marx’s Economic Thought: Exploring the Basis for Capitalism). Again, without further information, it is impossible to tell or determine the proportion that is paid for the rental of buildings and the rental of land. I will assume that 10 percent of rent is due to the exclusive ownership of land (a non-produced means of production).
Consequently, 10 percent of the amount of this subcategory (235,828) must be added to surplus value or profit (“Profit for the year before taxes”):
Second temporarily adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes)
28, 259, 532 [28,023,704+235,828=28,259,532]
Third Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Advertisements and marketing 2,021,229
This category requires adjustment if it involves the sale or purchase of commodities since in Marxian economics such expenses are costs from the point of the particular capitalist but really are paid out of surplus value from the class point of view. This is so because work performed to sell commodities and services involves expenditure of surplus value in order to fund it. Consequently, the amount of this subcategory must be added to surplus value or profit (“Profit for the year before taxes”):
Third temporarily adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes) 30,280,761 [28, 259, 532+2,021,229]
Fourth Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Insurance 712,734
Payment of insurance premiums for a capitalist firm, like an individual, comes from revenue; from the point of view of the individual firm, it is indeed a cost, but the source of the payment is from surplus value; the payment of insurance premiums is merely a shuffling of already produced value–like what happens when a person goes to a casino and places a bet.
Consequently, the amount of this subcategory must be added to surplus value or profit (“Profit for the year before taxes”):
Fourth temporarily adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes) 30,993,495 [30,280,761+712,734=30,993,495]
Fifth Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Board of Directors’ expenses 707,403
A large proportion of the nature of these expenses by members of the board of directors is probably not mainly for the coordination of the work of others but for the exploitation of others–it is pure surplus value. In other words, this category needs to be shifted to surplus value since it represents the result of exploiting workers and not in being exploited. Of course, the exact proportion between expenses related to the coordinating function and expenses related to the exploitation function is difficult to determine–I will assume that all such expenses are functions of exploitation of TNB workers.
Consequently, the amount of this subcategory must be added to surplus value or profit (“Profit for the year before taxes”):
Fifth temporarily adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes) 31, 700, 898 [30,993,495+707,403=31,700,898]
Sixth Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Donations and sponsorships 711,309
The money required to make donations and sponsorships, though it may appear to derive from the benevolence of employers, must derive from somewhere since benevolence in itself creates nothing–and it is not generally from the wages of workers or costs of production. Consequently, the origin of this individual expense is surplus value. Indeed, donations and sponsorships often hide the exploitative source of such donations and sponsorships. From P. Nickel and A. Eikenberry (2010), “Philanthropy in an Era of Global Governance,” at pages 269-280, Third Sector Research, pages 276-277:
The key point made by Ryan is that blights on the system, such as those addressed
by philanthropy, are not external. Much of the suffering that philanthropy aims to
alleviate is not the result of a lack of philanthropy, but that of a system that makes
philanthropy possible and necessary. Philanthropy is able to act as the social policy
of the ruling classes in its distribution of resources, allowing wealthy elites to not
only get to decide social policy because of their wealth but also to cover up the
hegemonic control they have in society, which perpetuates their wealth and powerful
positions (Arnove 1980; Roelofs 1995). This is particularly true in an era of global
governance, in which the responsibility for alleviating social problems is devolved
to those with the financial, organizational, or political resources to gain access.
When we treat philanthropy and poverty as individual successes and failures
rather than as the outcomes of one social system that facilitates both, we forget
that philanthropic governing capacity is the result of the accumulation of massive
amounts of money. In the case of Bill Gates, it is the accumulation of billions of
dollars. Why do we not discuss it as such, preferring to discuss his philanthropic
governing capacity as an act of benevolence? How does this fact – that today philanthropic governing capacity is possible only through the circumstances that allow
for a few to pursue massive amounts of profit – become transformed from a political
issue into what Ben Agger (1989) calls a “de-signified fact” that we mistakenly
interpret as fate instead of a political choice? Agger’s (1989, p. 52) answer in his theory
of fast capitalism is that we have reached a stage of capitalism in which money
and its uneven distribution are now taken as pre-given facts and we fail to recognize
that money and the power relations it sustains tells us a lot about the social structure
in which we live:Money’s falsehood lies in the truth it conceals about capital/labor relations, namely that money is possible only if workers are robbed of surplus value. But money is not simply a text to be read against an external standard of validity, namely that of critique . . . Money has utility. It also tells the truth in its reified social relation dispersed into the exterior environment.
Philanthropy disguises money as benevolence and thus disguises that it is possible
only through capital–labor relations. This understanding, which disguises how
philanthropic governing capacity is derived, is then dispersed uncritically into the
exterior environment, inhibiting social action on well-being through its insistence
on change through the pursuit of profit, or money. Philanthropy’s capacity to act,
money, is particularly difficult to criticize because money is just as easily associated
with the achievement of well-being (wealth) rather than the denial of well-being
(poverty). Hence, profit derived from marginality appears to be the only means by
which to facilitate social action. As global philanthropists exercise philanthropic
governing capacity, they further their own capacity to profit through the stabilization
of the myth that money is benevolent.Our awareness of how philanthropic governing capacity is achieved, most often
through labor relations that result in the denial of well-being for some and extreme
wealth for others, is lost in the seemingly natural medium of money. The social
relationship embedded in money proceeds to make social policy via philanthropic
governing capacity. When money is used to control the distribution of resources,
resources are distributed as social policy according to those who have managed
to accumulate it. This is distinctly exclusionary because social policy comes to
be dictated by profit in the hands of the few who are able to amass wealth, further
marginalizing those who already have been denied well-being. Social policy
that is dependent on philanthropists’ discretionary exercise of governing capacity
legitimates the very system that it is assumed to oppose. It legitimates profit’s creation
of philanthropic governing capacity by appearing to be benevolence rather
than profit. Philanthropists depend on the social system remaining the same if they
are to continue to govern.
Consequently, the amount of this subcategory must be added to surplus value or profit (“Profit for the year before taxes”):
Sixth temporarily adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes)
32,412,207 [31, 700, 898+711,309=32, 412, 207]
Seventh Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Hospitality 277,639
As I wrote when calculating the rate of exploitation of Palestinian workers by PADICO:
It is not clear to me whether this subcategory should be included as a real expense or funded through surplus value. Since it is not clear, I will not change the calcuation based on this subcategory.
I suspect that it should be deducted from surplus value, but I will leave it as is since the exact nature of what is covered by hospitality remains unclear.
General assembly meetings’ expenses 178,344
This category refers to expenses related to a meeting of shareholders and consequently has as its source surplus value. Therefore, it needs to be added to surplus value or profit (“Profit for the year before taxes”):
Seventh temporarily adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes)
32,590,551 [32,412,207+178,344=32,590,551]
Eighth Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Mortgage insurance fees 132,290
Like individual insurance policies, insurance paid by a capitalist firm is a cost–but it is really a mere transfering of wealth from the profit of one capitalist firm to another one. Accordingly:
Eighth temporarily adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes)
32,722,841 [32,590,551+132,290=32,722,841]
Ninth Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Property tax 97,443
Taxes paid by capitalist firms are derived from surplus value and therefore must be added to the total amount of surplus value. Accordingly:
Ninth temporarily adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes)
32,820,284 [32,722,841+97,443=32,820,284]
Tenth Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)
Palestine Monetary Authority’s fines (note 37) 71,403
Note 37 reads as follows:
A fine as a result of the bank’s violation of the laws and instructions for “know your customer”- The National Bank 41,403
A fine as a result of the Bank’s failure to obtain a preapproval of PMA to grant credit facilities and not to disclose all facilities in the monthly reports – The National Bank 20,000
A fine as a result of the Bank’s purchase of a banking office in Nablus without a prior written approval of the PMA – Palestine Islamic Bank 5,000
A fine as a result of the Bank’s failure to obtain a preapproval of PMA before granting a loan to related parties – Palestine Islamic Bank 5,000
71,403 [41,403+20,000+5,000+5,000=71,403]
The fine is an expense from the point of view of TNB, but the source of payment for the expense is surplus value (just as the source of a fine against workers would be wages). Accordingly:
Tenth temporarily adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes)
32,891,687 [32,820,284+71,403=32,891,687]
Eleventh and Final Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Profit)and Adjusted Calculation of Variable Capital (V) (Salaries and benefits)
The category “Personnel expenses” is broken down further as follows:
Salaries and benefits 23,025,680
Provision for employees’ end of service 3,242,196
VAT on salaries 3,205,849
Bank’s contribution to the provident fund* 1,284,417
Health insurance 1,017,778
Travel and transportation 542,554
Training expense 242,806
Others 74,748
32,636,028 [23,025,680+3,242,196+3,205,849+1,284,417+1,017,778+542,554+242,806+74,748=32,636,028]
* The Bank contributes 10% of the basic salary of the employee and the employee
contributes 5% of his basic salary to the Provident Fund.
An adjustment to the amount expressed in the category “Salaries and benefits” is necessary because of the nature of the activity of some of those who receive this amount (managers, directors and CEOs): this compensation is not mainly for the coordination of the work of others but for the exploitation of others–it is pure surplus value.
There are two statistics that relate to managerial income:
- Benefits and remuneration of the Executive Management (in USD) [page 65/adobe=33]
Share of bonuses and related expenses for the executive management 1,500,160 (probably rounded up) [415,108+1,085,051=1,500,159]
General manager 415,108
Executive management 1,085,051
2. Key management personnel remuneration (salaries, bonuses and other benefits) are as
follows:
Executive management share of salaries and related benefits (short term) 2,193,418
Executive management share of indemnity (long term) 177,613
I have been unable to reconcile the two sets of stastistics. I will use the second set of statistics since it refers explicitly to salaries. The amount 2,371,031 [2,193,418+177,613=2,371,031) needs to be subtracted from 32,636,028 and added to 32,891,687. Accordingly:
Final adjusted surplus value (s) or profit (Profit for the year before taxes) 35,262,718
Final Adjusted Variable Capital (V) (Salaries and Benefits) 30,264,997
The Rate of Exploitation of TNB Palestinian Workers
To calculate the rate of surplus value, we need to divide “Final Adjusted Surplus value (s)” or “Income before provision of income taxes” by “Variable capital (v) or Adjusted “Salaries and Benefits.”
So, with the adjustments in place, the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value=s/v=35,262,718/30,264,997=117%.
This means that, in terms of money, for every $1 of wage or salary of a regular TNB worker receives, TNB receives $1.17 surplus value or profit for free. Alternatively, for every hour worked, a TNB worker works 1 hour 10 minutes for free for TNB. Or, within one hour of work, a worker receives an equivalent of her hourly wage in 28 minutes and works for free for 32 minutes for TNB.
Of course, during the time that the worker works to receive an equivalent of her/his own wage, s/he is subject to the power of management and hence is unfree (see, for instance, Management Rights, Part Four: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario and Employers as Dictators, Part One).
I have been unable to find any specific references to the number of hours TNB workers work per day. I will assume a variable working day of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 hours.
In a 6-hour (360 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 2 hours 46 minutes (166 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 3 hours 14 minutes (194 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
In a 7-hour (420 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 3 hours 14 minutes (194 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 3 hours 46 minutes (226 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
In an 8-hour (480 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 3 hours 41 minutes (221 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 4 hours 19 minutes (259 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
In a 9-hour (540 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 4 hours 9 minutes (249 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 4 hours 51 minutes (291 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
In a 10-hour (600 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 4 hours 36 minutes (276 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 5 hours 24 minutes (324 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
In a 12-hour (720 minutes) work day, an individual TNB worker spends 5 hours 32 minutes (332 minutes) to obtain her/his wage for the day, and s/he spends 6 hours 28 minutes (388 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for TNB.
It should be noted that I have used the verb “obtain” rather than “produce.” In Marxian economics, bank, credit union and insurance workers, as well as sales workers do not produce surplus value but rather transfer the surplus value already produced. This does not mean that these workers are not exploited capitalistically; they are used impersonally by the employer to obtain surplus value and a profit. Furthermore, things produced by others are used by employers such as TNB to control their working lives in order to obtain surplus value or profit. (I leave the issue of how banks exploit workers as consumers to others more competent to deal with the issue; the point here is to focus on the exploitation of credit union workers as workers and not as consumers.)
Political Considerations and Conclusion
Again, the rate of exploitation measures the extent to which workers work for free, producing or obtaining all the surplus value and hence all the profit for employers. However, even during the time when they work to produce or obtain their own wage, they are hardly free. They are subject to the power and dictates of their employer during that time as well.
I have been unable to determine whether TNB workers belong to a union. If the situation of Canadian bank workers is typical, they likely do not. Would, however, their becoming unionized turn their situation into one where they had a “fair contract” and “decent work?” I think not. Unions can limit exploitation and can control some aspects of their working lives, but in principle workers are things to be used by employers even with unions. This does not mean that a non-unionized environment is the same as a unionized environment. With unions that are independent of particular employers, that is to say, are real unions, there is an opportunity for workers to develop organizations of resistance against the power of particular employers.
The ideology of unions–that somehow they can produce a “fair contract” and “decent work” (see for example Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One: The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and Fair Contracts or Collective Agreements: The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part Three: Unifor (Largest Private Union in Canada))–needs, though, to be constantly criticized. Workers deserve better than the acceptance of such ideology by the left.
Should workers not be discussing why they must work for an employer, whether TNB or some other employer? Should they not discuss whether they are exploited? Should they not discuss whether, as they work, they live under an economic dictatorship (see for example Employers as Dictators, Part One)? Should workers not be discussing whether an unelected management should have power over them? Should workers not be discussing how to organize to abolish this dictatorship? Should workers not be criticizing anyone who claims that their working situation is fair, good, decent and all other such platitudes?
The Abolitionary 