Introduction
This is the first section of the second part of a series of criticisms of a recently published pamphlet on climate change and class, titled Climate Change is a Class Issue (2024), written by Sarah Glynn, a radical activist and writer located in the United Kingdom, and John Clarke, a radical activist located in Toronto.
The first part (see Review of the Pamphlet “Climate Change is a Class Issue” by Sarah Glynn and John Clarke, Part One: A Critique of the Identification of the Exploitation of Workers by Employers and the Exploitation of the Natural World) questioned whether their view that the exploitation of workers and the natural world are similar if not identical. I demonstrated that nowhere do Glynn and Clarke indicate how exploitation of workers and the exploitation of the natural world are similar. I also pointed out that what they mean by exploitation could probably be equivalent to the meaning of “oppression” for them–but although such terms are related, they are not by any means the same.
I argued that the pamphlet in no way provides anyone with an understanding of the specific nature of capitalist exploitation, in the first instance in relation to the exchange process between an employer and workers. The immediate exchange process hides the exploitative relation that exists between the employer and the workers in that it makes it appear as though the workers receive a wage equivalent to the value of what they produce, but in fact workers, as a class, produce a surplus of value, which forms the basis for the profits of employers.
Finally, I showed that the authors, despite the apparent identity of the exploitation of workers and the natural world in a capitalist society priorize the exploitation of the natural world over the exploitation of workers–a strategy bound to fail since it does not focus on the central aspect of capitalist production and exchange–the constant need to produce a surplus of value, to invest it and reinvest the surplus value in an infinite process on a finite planet.
Exploitation Does Not Just Have a Present and Future Reference but also a Past Reference–Neglected by Glynn and Clarke
In this post, I want to pursue further the distinctiveness of the exchange process in hiding the exploitation of workers from themselves. In the last post, I implicitly referred to surplus value in a “forward” or future sense that the workers are hired (engage in a contract of employment, whether unionized or not) and then are exploited, with the result that a surplus of value is produced (a value greater than the equivalent of their wage or salary plus benefits). This is virtually the only meaning that many Marxists and radical leftists refer to when they refer to the exploitation of workers–undoubtedly because of its moral overtones.
However, the exploitation of workers not only is going to happen once they are hired, but for the class, it has already happened; they as a class have been exploited (except in the case of the origins of capitalism, where the conditions for the emergence of capitalism are not products or results of capitalism’s own processes.
Rather than looking forward to capitalist accumulation of already produced surlus value, we can also look at the situation in terms of repetition of past processes of the exploitation of workers–as Marx does.
The following involves some long quotes from Karl Marx since, on the one hand, Glynn and Clarke provided their readers next to nothing about the nature of capitalist exploitation and, on the other, the nature of exploitation as having been and that is used to further exploit workers is rarely addressed. In a subsequent post (section two of this part), I will continue with such an analysis with some long quotes from Teinosuke Otani; I do not want these posts to be excessively long.
Such long quotes are necessary since the so-called radical and “activist” left so frequently focus only on present or future exploitation, mainly to emphasize their own morality rather than to enlighten anyone about the nature of capitalist exploitation (see for example Exposing the Intolerance and Censorship of Social Democracy, Part Five, or A Critique of Moral or Utopian Critiques of Exploitation).
From Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, volume 1, pages 727-730:
Let us now return to our example. It is the old story: Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob and so on. The original capital of £10,000 brings in a surplus-value of £2,000, which is capitalized. The new capital of £2,000 brings in a surplus-value of £400, and this too is capitalized, transformed into a second additional capital, which in its turn produces a further surplus-value of £80. And the process continues in this way.
We leave out of account here the portion of the surplus-value consumed by the capitalist. We are also not interested, for the moment, in whether the additional capital is joined on to the original capital, or separated from it so that it can valorize itself independently. Nor are we concerned whether the same capitalist employs it who originally accumulated it, or whether he hands it over to others. All we must remember is this: by the side of the newly formed capital, the original capital continues to reproduce itself and to produce surplus-value, and this is true of all accumulated capital in relation to the additional capital engendered by it.
The original capital was formed by the advance of £10,000. Where did its owner get it from? ‘From his own labour and that of his forefathers’, is the unanimous answer of the spokesmen of political economy. And, in fact, their assumption appears to be the only one consonant with the laws of commodity production.
But it is quite otherwise with regard to the additional capital of £2,000. We know perfectly well how that originated. There is not one single atom of its value that does not owe its existence to unpaid labour. The means of production with which the additional labour-power is incorporated, as well as the necessaries with which the workers are sustained, are nothing but component parts of the surplus product, parts of the tribute annually exacted from the working class by the capitalist class. Even if the latter uses a portion of that tribute to purchase the additional labour-power at its full price, so that equivalent is exchanged for equivalent, the whole thing still remains the age-old activity of the conqueror, who buys commodities from the conquered with the money he has stolen from them.
If the additional capital employs the person who produced it, this producer must not only continue to valorize the value of the original capital, but must buy back the fruits of his previous labour with more labour than they cost. If we view this as a transaction between the capitalist class and the working class, it makes no difference that additional workers are employed by means of the unpaid labour of the previously employed workers. The capitalist may even convert the additional capital into a machine that throws the producers of that capital out of work, and replaces them with a few children. In every case, the working class creates by the surplus labour of one year the capital destined to employ additional labour in the following year.5 And this is what is called creating capital out of capital.
The accumulation of the first additional capital of £2,000 presupposes that a value of £10,000 exists, advanced by the capitalist, and belonging to him by virtue of his ‘original labour’. The second additional capital of £400 presupposes, on the contrary, only the prior accumulation of the £2,000, of which the £400 is the capitalized surplus-value. The ownership of past unpaid labour is thenceforth the sole condition for the appropriation of living unpaid labour on a constantly increasing scale. The more the capitalist has accumulated, the more is he able to accumulate.
The surplus-value that makes up additional capital no. 1 is the result of the purchase of labour-power with part of the original capital, a purchase which conformed to the laws of commodity exchange and which, from a legal standpoint, presupposes nothing beyond the worker’s power to dispose freely of his own capacities, and the money-owner’s or commodity-owner’s power to dispose freely of the values that belong to him; equally, additional capital no. 2 is merely the result of additional capital no. 1, and is therefore a consequence of the relations described above; hence each individual transaction continues to conform to the laws of commodity exchange, with the capitalist always buying labour power and the worker always selling it at what we shall assume is its real value. It is quite evident from this that the laws of appropriation or of private property, laws based on the production and circulation of commodities, become changed into their direct opposite through their own internal and inexorable dialectic. The exchange of equivalents, the original operation with which we started, is now turned round in such a way that there is only an apparent exchange, since, firstly, the capital which is exchanged for labour-power is itself merely a portion of the product of the labour of others which has been appropriated without an equivalent; and, secondly, this capital must not only be replaced by its producer, the worker, but replaced together with an added surplus. The relation of exchange between capitalist and worker becomes a mere semblance belonging only to the process of circulation, it becomes a mere form, which is alien to the content of the transaction itself, and merely mystifies it. The constant sale and purchase of labour power is the form; the content is the constant appropriation by the capitalist, without equivalent, of a portion of the labour of others which has already been objectified, and his repeated exchange of this labour for a greater quantity of the living labour of others.
The immediate exchange between workers and employers is an exchange of equivalents, so that workers receive the value of their cost of production. However, when considering the larger context of previous production, then the immediate exchange between employer and workers is a semblance . The employer uses a part of the surplus produced by the workers in a previous round as means of production (machines, raw material, buildings, etc.) and another part (socially as money and physically as means of consumption, such as food, clothing, shelter) to further employ them (in addition to the initial investment).
The present domination of workers at work by employers is a consequence of past accumulation of surplus value and its investment in the further exploitation of workers; the past dominates the present rather than vice versa.
Now, the current threat of climate change undoubtedly is a result of cumulative processess of capitalist accumulation and reinvestment in the past. However, are these cumulative processes the same as the cumulative process of exploiting workers? Private employers exploit workers; in terms of the past, the money they use to hire workers is the result of previous rounds of exploitation of workers, but the exchange relation (the process of buying and selling, or in the case of workers and employers, hiring and receiving a wage or salary and benefits) hides that fact. As shown in the first post, the exchange relation also hides the forward movement of exploiting workers.
So, how do Glynn and Clarke justify the following:
Capitalism exploits nature in the same way that capitalism exploits the working class.
Is not the nature of capitalist exploitation relevant for the working class? Given the title, would you not expect the authors to link up the exploitation of workers and climate exchange? They do no such thing. For them, exploitation is at best equivalent to oppression and at worst a mere vague word that is used to criticize, vaguely, capitalism (another vague term used by them).
Vagueness of meaning permits individuals to evade intellectual (and, ultimately, practical) responsibility for their beliefs, as John Dewey, the American philosopher of education noted long ago (from How We Think, 1910/2011, How We Think, pages 129-130):
A being that cannot understand at all is at least protected from mis-understandings. But beings that get knowledge by means of inferring and interpreting, by judging what things signify in relation to one another, are constantly exposed to the danger of mis-apprehension, mis-understanding, mis-taking—taking a thing amiss. A constant source of misunderstanding and mistake is indefiniteness of meaning. Through vagueness of meaning we misunderstand other people, things, and ourselves; through its ambiguity we distort and pervert. Conscious distortion of meaning may be enjoyed as nonsense; erroneous meanings, if clear-cut, may be followed up and got rid of. But vague meanings are too gelatinous to offer matter for analysis, and too pulpy to afford support to other beliefs. They evade testing and responsibility. Vagueness disguises the unconscious mixing together of different meanings, and facilitates the substitution of one meaning for another, and covers up the failure to have any precise meaning at all. It is the aboriginal logical sin—the source from which flow most bad intellectual consequences. Totally to eliminate indefiniteness is impossible; to reduce it in extent and in force requires sincerity and vigor. To be clear or perspicuous a meaning must be detached, single, self-contained, homogeneous as it were, throughout.
Clarke posted the following on Facebook:
My New Year’s resolution this year is to help weaken capitalism to the best of my ability. I admit that it’s the same resolution I’ve had every year since 1971 but I always try to live up to it.
If that is the case, then should he not be more clear about what he means by exploitation in general and capitalist exploitation in particular?
Do Many Activists Take Seriously the Exploitation and Oppression of Workers in a Capitalist Society?
Does Clarke agree with Sam Gindin, former research director for the Canadian Autworkers union (CAW) (now Unifor)?
Everyone pretty much knows, I think, that workers are exploited even if their conditions improve.
Who is this “everyone”? The left, as far as I can see, pay lip service to the term “exploitation” but do not take it seriously. It forms one of those abstract words they use to criticze–but with little real content.
I noticed that Clarke seems to emphasize the participation of “activists” in the course he is giving:
Yesterday [December 30, 2024], we went over the full list of those who have applied to be part of my second Fighting to Win course for union and community activists. I was taken aback by the range of participants this time. Far more union activists have shown an interest as well as more people on the front lines of vital struggles that are unfolding in this city.
I have experienced first hand the atitude of some “activists” when it comes to questioning the class power of employers and the associated economic, political and social structures (a.k.a. capitalism). Thus, I had a conversation with a long-term union activist on Facebook several years ago. This person (the name is unimportant–I delete the personal names other than mine) was hardly open to considering any connection between the exploitation of workers in a capitalist context and prohibiting abortion for girls who had been raped:
chicagotribune.com
The story of Should 11-year-old girls have to bear their rapists’ babies? Ohio says yes .An impregnated preteen girl in Massillon, Ohio, has drawn national attention to the state’s new, highly restrictive abortion laws.
[name] Disgusting
[other person] Hell no!!!!!!!
[other person[ No they should not…this is disgusting
[other person] Wtf these law makers have to go who the hell would do that to someone
Fred Harris Undoubtedly this is amoral [should be immoral]–but so too is having to work for an employer. And yet how many among the left really find working for an employer to be “disgusting?”
[Major person who opposes my view] Fred Harris come on are you kidding me, you can not look at these two issues as if the level of unjust is similar or comparable because they are not!
Fred Harris Of course, social democrats simply ignore the day-to-day exploitation and oppression of billions of workers (this is so trivial) when compared to the issue of “11-year old girls having to bear their rapists’ babies.” This shows the extent to which the social-democratic left have been indoctrinated into accepting the employer-employee relation–which treats human beings as things.So “moral”! Such phrases as “decent work,” and “$15 and Fairness” hide the immorality of being treated as things.
The social-democratic left want to present themselves as morally superior, and yet they ignore the persistent and day-to-day subordination of billions of workers to the power of employers.
By the way, I do have a daughter. And she has been treated unjustly in various ways–including being treated as a thing by employers. I neither ignore the other ways in which she has been treated unjustly–nor the way in which she has been treated unjustly as an employee. The social-democratic left, however, do not consider it unjust to have to work for an employer. Their trite phrases, such as “decent work” express their own biases.
[name] Fred Harris really?
Fred Harris Really what?
Fred Harris I have a blog on the issue of the employer-employee relation and the bankruptcy of the social-democratic left–theabolitionary
[major person who opposes my view] Fred Harris this is your MO and why no one is listening. Your comparison is completely off topic, and undermines the legitimacy and outrage as it relates to this discussion. In other words, as valid as your point may be, this is not the appropriate place to reference a comparison that clearly does not exist!
Fred Harris Let us see. There was a topic on Hydro. Social democrats made many unrelated comments on that topic. But if I make a comment in a supposed unrelated topic, it is considered inappropriate.As for no one listening to me–social democrats automatically do not listen to me–that is to be expected. But some people from India, China, the UK, the US, Canada have gone on my blog.
As for my “MO”: the MO [modus operandi—a typical way of approaching the world or of doing something] of social democrats is automatically to ignore the issue of the power of employers as a class.
As for the topic of being forced to have babies after being raped–of course this should be opposed. My daughter accused the man (Juan Ulises) who lived with her mother of raping her. He was charged, but the charges were dropped because it was his word against hers. She maintains his guilt to this day–and I believe her. Is this on topic?
But social democrats simply ignore the issue of the power of employers which occurs every day at work. They like to consider themselves morally superior as I said above.
To paraphrase the mathematician, philosopher of education and philosopher of science, Alfred North Whitehead: it is very difficult to engage critically with something that you constantly experience every day as normal.
Feel free to delete me from the Facebook account.
[name] yup.
Fred Harris From [name] “come on are you kidding me, you can not look at these two issues as if the level of unjust is similar or comparable because they are not!”Children grow up to be adults–and in our society, things to be used by employers. According to the moral social democrats, their concerns take priority over the day-to-day treatment of billions of workers.
Why are they not on the same level? Why focus on this particular occurrence in a particular state? That it is morally disgusting, I fully admit.
However, social democrats–by this person’s own admission–do not find the fact that billions of workers worldwide are treated as things on a daily basis to be of the same moral consideration. But what of the children of today? Is that not their fate tomorrow unless we stop permitting any person to be treated as a thing at work?
Is it moral to ignore the future of children?
Is it moral for the top 20 largest private employers to obtain $59 billion in profit (approximately $59 000 per unemployed person in Canada)? What of the children who suffer because of this?
Etc.
What of the over 200,000 Guatemalans who were butchered during the civil war (including children) in order to defend a system of employers?
Etc.
Or the “morality” of talking about employers paying their “fair share” of the taxes–after they have exploited workers in order to obtain the profits in the first place.
Yup.
[name] Fred Harris one thing has nothing to do with the other…you’re delusional..
Fred Harris Note the lack of argument here and the lack of establishment of connections–and the resort to insults.The issue of not permitting female children who are raped to have an abortion has to do with “property rights”–and that definitely has to do with the employer-employee relation and capitalism in general.
The struggle of women (and children) to control their own bodies forms part of a larger struggle to control our lives.
To say that they have nothing to do with each other is absurd–and shows the narrow-mindedness of the social-democratic left.
But that is to be expected–since the social-democratic left do not object to the general control of our bodies by employers but only particular forms. of it.
After all, do they not express such things as “decent work”–while simultaneously not criticizing the power of employers to control our lives at work in various ways. The social-democratic left like to “compartmentalize” our lives–separating out was is necessarily connected so that they can feel themselves morally–and intellectually–superior.
From the book Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (And Why We Do Not Talk About It) (Ellizabeth Anderson–a woman, who probably would be considered delusional by the social-democratic left), pages 37-39
Communist Dictatorships in Our Midst
Imagine a government that assigns almost everyone a superior whom they must obey. Although superiors give most inferiors a routine to follow, there is no rule of law. Orders may be arbitrary and can change at any time, without prior notice or opportunity to appeal. Superiors are unaccountable to those they order around. They are neither elected nor removable by their inferiors.
Inferiors have no right to complain in court about how they are being treated, except in a few narrowly defined cases. They also have no right to be consulted about the orders they are given. There are multiple ranks in the society ruled by this government. The content of the orders people receive varies, depending on their rank. Higher- ranked individuals may be granted considerable freedom in deciding how to carry out their orders, and may issue some orders to some inferiors. The most highly ranked individual takes no orders but issues many. The lowest-ranked may have their bodily movements and speech minutely regulated for most of the day.
This government does not recognize a personal or private sphere of autonomy free from sanction. It may prescribe a dress code and forbid certain hairstyles. Everyone lives under surveillance, to ensure that they are complying with orders. Superiors may snoop into inferiors’ e-mail and record their phone conversations. Suspicionless searches of their bodies and personal effects may be routine. They can be ordered to submit to medical testing. The government may dictate the language spoken and forbid communication in any other language. It may forbid certain topics of discussion. People can be sanctioned for their consensual sexual activity or for their choice of spouse or life partner. They can be sanctioned for their political activity and required to engage in political activity they do not agree with.
The economic system of the society run by this government is communist. The government owns all the nonlabor means of production in the society it governs. It organizes production by means of central planning. The form of the government is a dictatorship. In some cases, the dictator is appointed by an oligarchy. In other cases, the dictator is self- appointed. Although the control that this government exercises over its members is pervasive, its sanctioning powers are limited. It cannot execute or imprison anyone for violating orders. It can demote people to lower ranks. The most common sanction is exile. Individuals are also free to emigrate, although if they do, there is usually no going back. Exile or emigration can have severe collateral consequences. The vast majority have no realistic option but to try to immigrate to another communist dictatorship, although there are many to choose from. A few manage to escape into anarchic hinterlands, or set up their own dictatorships.
This government mostly secures compliance with carrots. Because it controls all the income in the society, it pays more to people who follow orders particularly well and promotes them to higher rank. Because it controls communication, it also has a propaganda apparatus that often persuades many to support the regime. This need not amount to brainwashing. In many cases, people willingly support the regime and comply with its orders because they identify with and profit from it. Others support the regime because, although they are subordinate to some superior, they get to exercise dominion over inferiors. It should not be surprising that support for the regime for these reasons tends to increase, the more highly ranked a person is.
Would people subject to such a government be free? I expectthat most people in the United States would think not. Yet most work under just such a government: it is the modern workplace, as it exists for most establishments in the United States. The dictator is the chief executive officer (CEO), superiors are managers, subordinates are workers. The oligarchy that appoints the CEO exists for publicly owned corporations: it is the board of directors. The punishment of exile is being fired. The economic system of the modern workplace is communist, because the government— that is, the establishment— owns all the assets,1 and the top of the establishment hierarchy designs the production plan, which subordinates execute. There are no internal markets in the modern workplace. Indeed, the boundary of the firm is defined as the point at which markets end and authoritarian centralized planning and direction begin. Most workers in the United States are governed by communist dictatorships in their work lives.
[End of quote]
If Ms. Anderson’s analysis is correct–why would it be surprising to limit the capacity of children (and their parents’) control over their bodies given the daily lack of control over the bodies of hundreds of millions of workers in the United States and billions worldwide (which the social democrats generally ignore)?
With “union activists” like this, I doubt that capitalism will be challenged anytime soon. Let us hope that Clarke’s course will be more explicit about the nature of the exploitaiton of workers in general and the specific nature of capitalist exploitation. If not, Clarke’s New Year resolution will likely come to nothing.
Or would Clarke reply in terms of Clarke’s “Some useful considerations that may help turning FB post comment sections into ugly and impenetrable swamps”:
1. Does my comment have anything whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion? …
5. Have I forgotten that not everyone shares my appetite for lengthy dogmatic diatribes [diatribe means “a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something”]
How would Clarke address the issue of linking up the exploitation and oppression of workers on a daily basis to other issues? How would he deal with “activists” who resist expanding their point of view? How would he deal with the issue of prohibiting abortion in the case of rape without entering into a lengthy discussion? What of the Toronto activist Anna Jessup’s superficial reference to exploitation on Facebook (see Exposing the Intolerance and Censorship of Social Democracy, Part Five, or A Critique of Moral or Utopian Critiques of Exploitation).
Or would Clarke characterize both the Facebook discussion and the above critique of the pamphlet as “lengthy dogmatic diatribe?” Of course, Glynn and Clarke’s reference to exploitation without explanation could be characterized, not as lengthy dogmatic diatribe, but as brief dogmatic diatribe.
It will be interesting to see whether Clarke will expand on the nature of exploitation in general and capitalist exploitation in particular in the future.
Conclusion
Glynn and Clarke provide no justification of their identification of capitalist exploitation of workers and the exploitation of the natural world. Not only do they fail to describe the nature of the immediate process of capitalist exploitation and how the exchange process hides that capitalist exploitation, but they also fail to even consider how previous rounds of exploitation form the basis for current exploitation. Their focus on climate change and their lack of focus on capitalist exploitation indicates an unrealistic view of large-scale social change since it will require substantial ideological struggle (and not just “activism”)–and theoretical development of the working class as well.
The Abolitionary 