menswarehousedottxt
menswarehousedottxt
Post rating:
~
THE POPULATION ISSUE: MARX VS. MALTHUS
Martha E. Gimenez
University of Colorado
Revised version of a paper presented at the Pacific Sociological Association Meeting in Honolulu, April 1971. Published in Den Ny Verden (Journal of the Institute for Development Research), Copenhagen, Denmark, December 1973.
It has currently become fashionable to argue that excessive population growth stands in the way of economic growth and that underdeveloped countries should take measures to reduce their rates of natural increase. Population growth appears today as THE major factor determining underdevelopment and population control is advocated as the most urgent and necessary step if development is to be eventually achieved.
Within the context of the developed countries it is argued that their pressing problems such as urban blight, crime, pollution, environmental deterioration, etc. would have greater possibilities of being satisfactorily solved if population growth were to be curtailed.
Abstractly considered, the relationship between scarce resources and a continuously increasing population turns the arguments in favor of population control into "self-evident truths" which can only be rejected by the unthinking and the dogmatic. From a Marxist viewpoint, such "self-evident truths" are but reifications of concrete historical, social, political, and economic relations which should be taken into account if the population issue is to be at all understood. Just as in the 18th century the English ruling classes fought the impact of the French Revolution with military and ideological weapons among which Malthus' "Essay on Population" was perhaps the most important, today the ruling classes are bringing back the Malthusian argument in an effort to increase their control over the growing number of the dispossessed. Like Malthus, contemporary socio-economic theorists view excessive population rather than social institutions and social relations as the main source and barrier to the solution of social problems. It is, therefore, the purpose of this paper to present an Marxist critique and a Marxist alternative to the Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian approaches to the study of population. While a complete Marxist theory of population under conditions of capitalist production remains to be developed, some guidelines for the pursuit of a Marxist analysis of population are provided.
THE MALTHUSIAN ARGUMENT
Malthus' argument rests upon two propositions; unchecked population increases in a geometrical ration while subsistence increases in an arithmetical ratio. The two propositions together constitute the famous principle of population which, according to Malthus, is "... one of the causes that have hitherto impeded the progress of mankind towards happiness" (Malthus, 1933:5). This cause is "intimately united with the very nature of man ... (it) is the constant tendency in all animated life to increase beyond the nourishment prepared for it" (Malthus, 1933:5); "...its natural and necessary effects (are) ... a very considerable portion of that vice and misery, and of that unequal distribution of the bounties of nature which it has been the unceasing object of the enlightened philanthropists in all ages to correct" (Malthus, 1933:5).
Malthus bases his principle of population on a natural law; the tendency of all animated life to increase beyond the means available for its subsistence. The natural law of population growth is checked by another natural law; the law of necessity which restrains that growth within certain boundaries and keeps it down to the level of the means of subsistence. Within the human species the natural law of necessity operates through various checks which fall under two main categories: a) preventive checks which control fertility (i.e., moral restraint or marriage postponement, and vice). b) positive checks which increase mortality or the probability of dying (i.e., "unwholesome occupations, ... poverty ...great towns and excesses of all kinds, the whole train of common diseases and epidemics, war, plague and famine
(Malthus, 1933:14).
The constant operation of the principle of population brings about the operation of the law of necessity. The outcome is "much of that poverty and misery observable among the lower classes of people in every nation, and those reiterated failures in the efforts of the higher classes to relieve them" (Malthus, 1933:1).
Malthus also brings support to his theory in the law of diminishing returns the implication of which is that food production is bound to lag behind population growth. This law provides him with the most general theoretical basis for his principle of population and constitutes the basic argument with which Neo-Malthusian thought addresses itself to population problems today. Thus, according to contemporary thought about this matter, not only food production but every natural resource is bound to lag behind population growth.
THE MARXIST ARGUMENT
Marx and Engels reacted very strongly against Malthus' population theory which they saw as an apology for the status quo and all throughout their work they referred to Malthus in a very ironic and disdainful manner. Leaving aside the superficial aspect of their criticism, in looking at their scientific critical statements it is possible to distinguish two levels of analysis.
At the most general theoretical level Marx and Engels see in Malthus' principle of population another instance of the way in which bourgeois economists reify social relations.
Within Marxist theory, to reify means to change concrete historical social relations and processes into universal categories or eternal natural laws. This process of reification of social relations characterizes the nature of intellectual production under conditions of capitalist production and, through this process,
"... man's reflections of the forms of social life and, consequently, also his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development... He begins POST FESTUM, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him ... THE CATEGORIES OF BOURGEOIS ECONOMY CONSISTS OF SUCH FORMS..." (Marx, 1970:75; our emphasis).
Malthus begins "post festum indeed, with the results of the process of capitalist development before him; i.e., widespread poverty, hunger, unemployment, etc. and, disregarding the concrete social relations of exploitation and competition which had produced that hungry and unemployed population, he views it as the outcome of the operation of inexorable natural laws. He reifies the specific relations of exploitation which obtained at that time between wage workers and capitalists, and the antagonistic relations between the landed and the industrial interests, changing them into the operation of the natural law of necessity that manifests itself through positive checks to population growth. Poverty, unwholesome working conditions, hunger, disease, unemployment, etc. are depicted as the product of the natural law of necessity which in that way checks the functioning of another natural law; the tendency of all animated life to reproduce itself beyond the means of subsistence.
2. At a more specific level, Marx's answer to Malthus' principle of population is the principle of the reserve army of labor or relative surplus population which he elaborates in the course of his analysis of the general law of capital accumulation (Marx, 1970:612-712).
The accumulation and expansion of capital constitutes the driving force of capitalism and it becomes possible only as long as capitalists can operate with a profit. Profits originate in the appropriation, by the capitalist, of the surplus value produced by the labor power he buys. Accumulation takes place when capitalists convert a portion of their surplus value into capital; this allows them to expand, to appropriate more surplus value which will lead to further accumulation and expansion and so on.
The process of accumulation implies also a process of increase in the demand for labor. As an increase in the demand of any commodity produces an increase in the price of that commodity, in this specific case, accumulation leads to an increase in the value of labor power above its natural value (that is, the wages which assure the worker a minimum level of subsistence). The consequences of such increase would be to narrow the gap between the amount invested in labor power and the value of the output produced by labor power. In other words, there would be a reduction or even a disappearance of the surplus value.
In actual practice, wages tend to rise together with capital accumulation but they never rise enough to endanger the system itself. For the classical economists and for Malthus in particular, the mechanism that kept wages equal to the "natural" price of labor power is embodies in the principle of population. When wages are high, workers over-reproduce themselves. The consequent population increase produces a supply of labor larger than the demand and wages fall to their natural price. As this natural price only gives to the workers a minimum level of subsistence, the only way in which workers can improve their condition is by controlling their numbers thereby raising the price of labor. Poverty and unemployment are, therefore, only the result of the workers' natural propensity to reproduce beyond the available means of subsistence.
Marx rejects the Malthusian solution to the problems created by the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system. In the process of capital accumulation the composition of capital does not remain constant; it changes and it is this change which is most important to understand the effect of capital accumulation and expansion upon the working population.
From the perspective of its value composition, capital is composed of constant capital (value of the means of production) and variable capital (value of the labor power). From the perspective of its technical composition, capital is composed of the means of production and living labor. Changes in the technical composition produce changes in the value composition and this correlation between the two is what Marx calls the organic composition of capital (Marx, 1970:612). In the process of capital accumulation the organic composition of the total social capital changes. The constant increases at the expense of the variable component and,
"... since the demand for labor is determined not by the amount of capital as a whole, but by its variable constituent alone, that demand falls progressively with the increase of total social capitla... it falls relatively to the magnitude of the total social capital and at an accelerated rate" (Marx, 1970:629).
This is the general law of capital accumulation; the appropriation and accumulation of surplus value in the hands of the capitalist class leads to the poverty of those who are precisely the source of that surplus value. In other words, capital accumulation unavoidably leads to the unemployment of a sector of the available labor force. Unemployment, as inherent feature of the capitalist mode of production, means the constant presence of a "relative surplus population" or "reserve army of labor" whose size and composition will vary with the concrete needs of capital accumulation within the context of any given social formation where the capitalist mode of production may prevail.
The error of Malthus and the classical economists was to focus their analysis of capital accumulation and its effects upon specific sectors of production instead of looking at the relationship between total social capital and the total labor force. This perspective leads them to confuse the laws that regulate that general ratio with the laws which regulate the allocation of specific sectors of the labor force to specific sectors of production (Marx, 1970:638-639).
Marx's analysis shows that population is the dependent variable. Whenever the reserve army of labor is relatively depleted and the level of wages tends to rise reducing the rate of surplus value, the capitalist class will adopt measures (i.e., technological improvements, foreign investments, etc.) which, while increasing the productivity of labor and the rate of profit, will render obsolete a number of jobs.
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RESERVE ARMY OF LABOR
Is it possible to consider the principle of the reserve army of labor as "THE" Marxist principle of population valid for all times and places? Such a question can only be answered negatively. As Marx specifically states in this respect,
"...this is a law of population peculiar to the capitalist mode of production; and in fact every specific historic mode of production has its own special laws of population historically valid within its limits alone. An abstract law of population exists for plants and animals only, and in so far as man has not interferred with them" (Marx, 1970:631- 632).
Therefore, the validity of the principle of the reserve army of labor is linked to the permanence of the capitalist mode of production. Each stage in the development of the capitalist system modifies the operation of the principle and its empirical manifestations at the level of concrete social formations in a historically specific manner which can be theoretically elaborated and empirically tested.
Today, in the stage of monopoly capital, imperialism and consolidation of the world capitalist system, a Marxist analysis of population should elucidate the effects upon population structure and processes of the principle of the reserve army of labor and the other mechanisms with which the capitalist economy attempts to counteract its inherent fundamental contradiction: the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The production of a reserve army of labor is the most important mechanism at the level of analysis of the mode of production. Its explanatory value in a concrete historical situation must be determined taking into consideration the effect upon its size and composition of the other mechanisms; i.e., increasing intensity of exploitation, reduction of wages below the value of labor power, cheapening the elements of constant capital, foreign trade, and the increase of stock capital (Marx, 1970a:232-240).
Malthus' claim that "effective demand" was needed to avoid crises of underconsumption constitutes the basis of contemporary economics. To the unproductive consumption of privileged groups the welfare state adds sectors of the population which are seldom employed and are kept on welfare and other subsidies. Institutionalized waste, state expenditures other than welfare (i.e.; defense expenditures, public works) and the exploitation of the population of other nations also contribute to maintain the rate of profit while changing the size and composition of the reserve army of labor and producing therefore important changes in population structure and processes. It is important, at this point, to realize that the reserve army of labor of the capitalist system is international in nature.
For example, looking at a concrete historical capitalist society, empirical research would show that its reserve army of labor is composed by its own ranks of the unemployed and underemployed plus those who immigrate from other countries or, while remaining in their own countries, occasionally work for foreign owned and/or controlled corporations. Awareness of the international dimensions of the reserve army of labor is important for sound research, sound policy making, and effective political analysis and practice. Policy recommendations which see in population control a solution for internal social problems and a step towards development, are based upon an analysis of the problem that focuses upon closed societies where population structure and processes are determined mainly by individuals have no control whatsoever. Policies of this kind which see in population control a panacea for unemployment and poverty and a pre-condition for development are unrealistic and doomed to failure in the long run though they might be effective as techniques of social control in the short run.
A Marxist analysis of the current population situation in the countries of the Third World would aim at specifying, for each country, the concrete relations of economic dependency that link that country to another or to others, as well as the kinds of social and political structures which emerged upon the basis of such colonial or neo-colonial relationships. Once that aspect of the problem has been determined, the nature of capital accumulation and its effects upon population (i.e., its effect upon the quantity and quality of the demand for labor, location of investments and their relationship to migration and population distribution, etc.) can be assessed within the context of the existing legal and political framework and the main tenets of the dominant ideologies about the family and sex roles.
Neo-Malthusian emphasis on birth control and family planning programs aimed at underdeveloped countries today repeat the same error that Malthus committed almost two hundred years ago. There is obviously (i.e., empirically available to common sense perception) a problem of "overpopulation" in the Third World if by that it is meant that a large proportion of their population is hungry, jobless, sickly, and dies very young. It also appears obvious that, given the situation of economic stagnation of those countries, lowering the birth rate might improve a little their situation. However, such arguments assumes that both private and public sources of investments whether national or foreign are ACTUALLY spending too much in services for the excessive dependent population (i.e., housing hospitals, schools, etc.) and that such funds would be automatically diverted towards productive enterprises if population size or, more specifically, if the dependency ration were to decline. Such assumption is not only naive but reveals lack of scientific rigor in the analysis of population within underdeveloped countries.
Birth control programs within the context of the capitalist mode of production amount to the same advice Malthus gave to the English working classes. What underdeveloped countries are told today is that the road to development is based upon population control and their underdeveloped condition is partially or totally blamed on their excessive rates of growth. To attribute underdevelopment to the operation of the Malthusian principle of population alone, disregarding the situation of colonialism and neo-colonialism under which those countries stagnate, the relationship between the plunder of their resources and the indiscriminate introduction of public health measures which drastically reducing the death rate CREATED the gap between birth rates and death rates and, therefore, the present "population explosion," etc., is again typical of the kind of analysis prevalent in academic circles. The inability of academic intellectuals to see the present historically leads them to an incomplete analysis of the problem and to policy recommendations (such as the implementation of birth control clinics and family planning programs) which contribute to the perpetuation of the problem they are trying to solve.
So far this general discussion has proceeded at a macro level of analysis. At the micro level and from a Marxist perspective, a great step towards the understanding of population processes could be taken from what might tentatively be called, at this point, "the alienation theory of fertility."
The point of departure for the elaboration of this theory is Marx's analysis of alienation and of alienated labor. Under conditions of capitalist production the workers are alienated from themselves, from their fellow workers, from their work, and from the product of their work. Consequently...
...the worker feels himself at home only during his leisure time, whereas at work he feels homeless. His work is not voluntary but imposed, forced labor. It is not the satisfaction of a need, but only the means for satisfying other needs ... We arrive at the result that man (the worker) feels himself to be freely active only in his animal functions--eating, drinking and procreating, or at most also in his personal adornment--while in his human functions he is reduced to an animal. Eating, drinking and procreating are of course also genuine human functions. But abstractly considered, apart from the environment of human activities, and turned into final and sole ends, they are animal functions" (Marx, 1964:125; our emphasis).
It is surprising the modernity of Marx's statement. Written more than 100 years ago, it accurately describes contemporary life under conditions of capitalist production. It is not surprising, though, that contemporary sociology regards this separation between the world of work (where workers are exploited, full of anxiety and forced into a ruthless competition with their fellow workers) and the world of leisure (where workers are turned into consumers of sex, children, consumer goods, mass entertainment, and "gourmet foods") as "functional for the maintenance of the system."
Briefly stated, the sociological argument runs as follows; in modern society individuals compete for the rewards (money, consumer foods, success monetarily defined) that the economic structure offers as incentives so individuals will feel motivated to fill the positions and fulfill the necessary roles within those structures. As the positions within the economic structure are reserved mainly for males, the system can work (that is, commodities can circulate) only if women and children are also incorporated as consumers. Such incorporation proceeds through the family which, as capitalism develops, changes within the ranks of the working classes from a productive unit to a unit of consumption. This essential family function is described as follows:
Within the family--which is the society's unit of consumption for economic goods--the position husband-father calls for its occupant to provide support for the entire group in the form of money with which to purchase goods and services. Adult males are, therefore, expected to occupy a position in an industrial or occupation organization and a position in a family simultaneously. The role wife-mother...calls for occupant to take money earned by its specific male counterpart into the market to purchase goods and services needed by the entire family (Grainfield, 1969:251).
As the performance of the roles husband-father involves negative aspects such ad the number of expenses that deprive the role incumbent from accumulating money or consuming desired goods, how are individuals motivated to form a family? Within the context of the capitalist system, the family appears as the only source of love, affection and security; a refuge against the anxiety and competitiveness of the life of work. In this sense, the family acts as a security valve and love becomes:
an "institutionalized irrationality" that serves as "... the reward motive that induces individuals to occupy the structurally essential positions of husband-father and wife- mother...and form nuclear families which are essential not only for reproduction and socialization but also to maintain the existing arrangements for distributing and consuming goods and services and, in general, to keep the social system in proper working order and thus maintaining as a going concern (Grainfield, 1969:253).
While the antagonism between work and family life or leisure activities is thus seen as functional for the system, under conditions of capitalist production it is the source of what sociologists would call "unanticipated consequences" which, from a Marxist perspective, are the logical consequences of that antagonism. Specifically, such consequences are crystallized or embodied in the importance of sex roles and family roles for the definition of normal adulthood. Within a capitalist society, while a career, profession or development of any specific skills or creative capacities appear as alternatives that individuals may freely choose, the performance of family roles and sex roles (the latter being defined as subordinate to the former) emerges as a constant need that must be satisfied. The concrete manifestation of this theoretical insight might achieve different forms within the different sectors of the working classes both employed and in the reserve army. While sociologists refer to the value of "familism" in regards the middle classes and reserve the terms "machismo" and "traditional value orientations" to deal with some manifestations of alienated behavior in the lower ranks of the proletariat, the concrete phenomena is the same. If children and family life can provide today to the wage earners a sense of identity and meaning for their lives, in spite of the competing sources of alienated identity (things and sex), while on the one hand the family may go on keeping the system as a "going concern," on the other hand it produces more people than it would under other circumstances produce. In that way, a relative surplus population is being created not only by the needs of capital accumulation and expansion (which operate "setting workers free" through technological improvement, for example) but also because of the meaning that children and family life acquire under conditions of capitalist production. This is the reason why Engels was probably right in stating that only in a socialist society effective population control wold be possible:
There is, of course, the abstract possibility that the number of people will become so great that limits will have to be set to their increase. But if at some stage communist society finds itself obligated to regulate the production of human beings, just as it has already come to regulate the production of things, it will be precisely this society and this society alone which will carry this out without difficulty (Engels, 1971:119).
Only in a society where individuals are allowed to develop fully within their historical possibilities will their animal functions be integrated with their social activities and will not constitute the main axis around which life is organized.
CONCLUSION
Engels' statement in no way contradicts what has been said in this paper regarding the Marxist theoretical standpoint on the population issue. To admit the abstract possibility of the necessity of curtailing population increase does not invalidate the Marxist rejection of the use of that possibility as an unavoidable outcome of "natural laws" which control and explain contemporary events. From a Marxist theoretical perspective, that constitutes a reification of the exploitative relations within a specific historical mode of production which generate both artificial food scarcity and surplus population.
Looking at the contemporary situation in underdeveloped countries, the Marxist critique of Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian analysis and policies does not deny the existence of the problems that stem from high dependency ratios and high rates of population growth. However, it shows that to deal with such phenomena as "population" problems overlooks the social, political, and economic structural factors that make possible such a population structure and processes and that, therefore, as long as population control remains the main or only concern of the various international and national organizations which in one way or another are trying to foster economic development in underdeveloped societies, their action will only consolidate the economic backwardness they are avowedly aiming to solve.
Martha E. Gimenez
University of Colorado
Revised version of a paper presented at the Pacific Sociological Association Meeting in Honolulu, April 1971. Published in Den Ny Verden (Journal of the Institute for Development Research), Copenhagen, Denmark, December 1973.
It has currently become fashionable to argue that excessive population growth stands in the way of economic growth and that underdeveloped countries should take measures to reduce their rates of natural increase. Population growth appears today as THE major factor determining underdevelopment and population control is advocated as the most urgent and necessary step if development is to be eventually achieved.
Within the context of the developed countries it is argued that their pressing problems such as urban blight, crime, pollution, environmental deterioration, etc. would have greater possibilities of being satisfactorily solved if population growth were to be curtailed.
Abstractly considered, the relationship between scarce resources and a continuously increasing population turns the arguments in favor of population control into "self-evident truths" which can only be rejected by the unthinking and the dogmatic. From a Marxist viewpoint, such "self-evident truths" are but reifications of concrete historical, social, political, and economic relations which should be taken into account if the population issue is to be at all understood. Just as in the 18th century the English ruling classes fought the impact of the French Revolution with military and ideological weapons among which Malthus' "Essay on Population" was perhaps the most important, today the ruling classes are bringing back the Malthusian argument in an effort to increase their control over the growing number of the dispossessed. Like Malthus, contemporary socio-economic theorists view excessive population rather than social institutions and social relations as the main source and barrier to the solution of social problems. It is, therefore, the purpose of this paper to present an Marxist critique and a Marxist alternative to the Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian approaches to the study of population. While a complete Marxist theory of population under conditions of capitalist production remains to be developed, some guidelines for the pursuit of a Marxist analysis of population are provided.
THE MALTHUSIAN ARGUMENT
Malthus' argument rests upon two propositions; unchecked population increases in a geometrical ration while subsistence increases in an arithmetical ratio. The two propositions together constitute the famous principle of population which, according to Malthus, is "... one of the causes that have hitherto impeded the progress of mankind towards happiness" (Malthus, 1933:5). This cause is "intimately united with the very nature of man ... (it) is the constant tendency in all animated life to increase beyond the nourishment prepared for it" (Malthus, 1933:5); "...its natural and necessary effects (are) ... a very considerable portion of that vice and misery, and of that unequal distribution of the bounties of nature which it has been the unceasing object of the enlightened philanthropists in all ages to correct" (Malthus, 1933:5).
Malthus bases his principle of population on a natural law; the tendency of all animated life to increase beyond the means available for its subsistence. The natural law of population growth is checked by another natural law; the law of necessity which restrains that growth within certain boundaries and keeps it down to the level of the means of subsistence. Within the human species the natural law of necessity operates through various checks which fall under two main categories: a) preventive checks which control fertility (i.e., moral restraint or marriage postponement, and vice). b) positive checks which increase mortality or the probability of dying (i.e., "unwholesome occupations, ... poverty ...great towns and excesses of all kinds, the whole train of common diseases and epidemics, war, plague and famine
(Malthus, 1933:14).
The constant operation of the principle of population brings about the operation of the law of necessity. The outcome is "much of that poverty and misery observable among the lower classes of people in every nation, and those reiterated failures in the efforts of the higher classes to relieve them" (Malthus, 1933:1).
Malthus also brings support to his theory in the law of diminishing returns the implication of which is that food production is bound to lag behind population growth. This law provides him with the most general theoretical basis for his principle of population and constitutes the basic argument with which Neo-Malthusian thought addresses itself to population problems today. Thus, according to contemporary thought about this matter, not only food production but every natural resource is bound to lag behind population growth.
THE MARXIST ARGUMENT
Marx and Engels reacted very strongly against Malthus' population theory which they saw as an apology for the status quo and all throughout their work they referred to Malthus in a very ironic and disdainful manner. Leaving aside the superficial aspect of their criticism, in looking at their scientific critical statements it is possible to distinguish two levels of analysis.
At the most general theoretical level Marx and Engels see in Malthus' principle of population another instance of the way in which bourgeois economists reify social relations.
Within Marxist theory, to reify means to change concrete historical social relations and processes into universal categories or eternal natural laws. This process of reification of social relations characterizes the nature of intellectual production under conditions of capitalist production and, through this process,
"... man's reflections of the forms of social life and, consequently, also his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development... He begins POST FESTUM, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him ... THE CATEGORIES OF BOURGEOIS ECONOMY CONSISTS OF SUCH FORMS..." (Marx, 1970:75; our emphasis).
Malthus begins "post festum indeed, with the results of the process of capitalist development before him; i.e., widespread poverty, hunger, unemployment, etc. and, disregarding the concrete social relations of exploitation and competition which had produced that hungry and unemployed population, he views it as the outcome of the operation of inexorable natural laws. He reifies the specific relations of exploitation which obtained at that time between wage workers and capitalists, and the antagonistic relations between the landed and the industrial interests, changing them into the operation of the natural law of necessity that manifests itself through positive checks to population growth. Poverty, unwholesome working conditions, hunger, disease, unemployment, etc. are depicted as the product of the natural law of necessity which in that way checks the functioning of another natural law; the tendency of all animated life to reproduce itself beyond the means of subsistence.
2. At a more specific level, Marx's answer to Malthus' principle of population is the principle of the reserve army of labor or relative surplus population which he elaborates in the course of his analysis of the general law of capital accumulation (Marx, 1970:612-712).
The accumulation and expansion of capital constitutes the driving force of capitalism and it becomes possible only as long as capitalists can operate with a profit. Profits originate in the appropriation, by the capitalist, of the surplus value produced by the labor power he buys. Accumulation takes place when capitalists convert a portion of their surplus value into capital; this allows them to expand, to appropriate more surplus value which will lead to further accumulation and expansion and so on.
The process of accumulation implies also a process of increase in the demand for labor. As an increase in the demand of any commodity produces an increase in the price of that commodity, in this specific case, accumulation leads to an increase in the value of labor power above its natural value (that is, the wages which assure the worker a minimum level of subsistence). The consequences of such increase would be to narrow the gap between the amount invested in labor power and the value of the output produced by labor power. In other words, there would be a reduction or even a disappearance of the surplus value.
In actual practice, wages tend to rise together with capital accumulation but they never rise enough to endanger the system itself. For the classical economists and for Malthus in particular, the mechanism that kept wages equal to the "natural" price of labor power is embodies in the principle of population. When wages are high, workers over-reproduce themselves. The consequent population increase produces a supply of labor larger than the demand and wages fall to their natural price. As this natural price only gives to the workers a minimum level of subsistence, the only way in which workers can improve their condition is by controlling their numbers thereby raising the price of labor. Poverty and unemployment are, therefore, only the result of the workers' natural propensity to reproduce beyond the available means of subsistence.
Marx rejects the Malthusian solution to the problems created by the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system. In the process of capital accumulation the composition of capital does not remain constant; it changes and it is this change which is most important to understand the effect of capital accumulation and expansion upon the working population.
From the perspective of its value composition, capital is composed of constant capital (value of the means of production) and variable capital (value of the labor power). From the perspective of its technical composition, capital is composed of the means of production and living labor. Changes in the technical composition produce changes in the value composition and this correlation between the two is what Marx calls the organic composition of capital (Marx, 1970:612). In the process of capital accumulation the organic composition of the total social capital changes. The constant increases at the expense of the variable component and,
"... since the demand for labor is determined not by the amount of capital as a whole, but by its variable constituent alone, that demand falls progressively with the increase of total social capitla... it falls relatively to the magnitude of the total social capital and at an accelerated rate" (Marx, 1970:629).
This is the general law of capital accumulation; the appropriation and accumulation of surplus value in the hands of the capitalist class leads to the poverty of those who are precisely the source of that surplus value. In other words, capital accumulation unavoidably leads to the unemployment of a sector of the available labor force. Unemployment, as inherent feature of the capitalist mode of production, means the constant presence of a "relative surplus population" or "reserve army of labor" whose size and composition will vary with the concrete needs of capital accumulation within the context of any given social formation where the capitalist mode of production may prevail.
The error of Malthus and the classical economists was to focus their analysis of capital accumulation and its effects upon specific sectors of production instead of looking at the relationship between total social capital and the total labor force. This perspective leads them to confuse the laws that regulate that general ratio with the laws which regulate the allocation of specific sectors of the labor force to specific sectors of production (Marx, 1970:638-639).
Marx's analysis shows that population is the dependent variable. Whenever the reserve army of labor is relatively depleted and the level of wages tends to rise reducing the rate of surplus value, the capitalist class will adopt measures (i.e., technological improvements, foreign investments, etc.) which, while increasing the productivity of labor and the rate of profit, will render obsolete a number of jobs.
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RESERVE ARMY OF LABOR
Is it possible to consider the principle of the reserve army of labor as "THE" Marxist principle of population valid for all times and places? Such a question can only be answered negatively. As Marx specifically states in this respect,
"...this is a law of population peculiar to the capitalist mode of production; and in fact every specific historic mode of production has its own special laws of population historically valid within its limits alone. An abstract law of population exists for plants and animals only, and in so far as man has not interferred with them" (Marx, 1970:631- 632).
Therefore, the validity of the principle of the reserve army of labor is linked to the permanence of the capitalist mode of production. Each stage in the development of the capitalist system modifies the operation of the principle and its empirical manifestations at the level of concrete social formations in a historically specific manner which can be theoretically elaborated and empirically tested.
Today, in the stage of monopoly capital, imperialism and consolidation of the world capitalist system, a Marxist analysis of population should elucidate the effects upon population structure and processes of the principle of the reserve army of labor and the other mechanisms with which the capitalist economy attempts to counteract its inherent fundamental contradiction: the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The production of a reserve army of labor is the most important mechanism at the level of analysis of the mode of production. Its explanatory value in a concrete historical situation must be determined taking into consideration the effect upon its size and composition of the other mechanisms; i.e., increasing intensity of exploitation, reduction of wages below the value of labor power, cheapening the elements of constant capital, foreign trade, and the increase of stock capital (Marx, 1970a:232-240).
Malthus' claim that "effective demand" was needed to avoid crises of underconsumption constitutes the basis of contemporary economics. To the unproductive consumption of privileged groups the welfare state adds sectors of the population which are seldom employed and are kept on welfare and other subsidies. Institutionalized waste, state expenditures other than welfare (i.e.; defense expenditures, public works) and the exploitation of the population of other nations also contribute to maintain the rate of profit while changing the size and composition of the reserve army of labor and producing therefore important changes in population structure and processes. It is important, at this point, to realize that the reserve army of labor of the capitalist system is international in nature.
For example, looking at a concrete historical capitalist society, empirical research would show that its reserve army of labor is composed by its own ranks of the unemployed and underemployed plus those who immigrate from other countries or, while remaining in their own countries, occasionally work for foreign owned and/or controlled corporations. Awareness of the international dimensions of the reserve army of labor is important for sound research, sound policy making, and effective political analysis and practice. Policy recommendations which see in population control a solution for internal social problems and a step towards development, are based upon an analysis of the problem that focuses upon closed societies where population structure and processes are determined mainly by individuals have no control whatsoever. Policies of this kind which see in population control a panacea for unemployment and poverty and a pre-condition for development are unrealistic and doomed to failure in the long run though they might be effective as techniques of social control in the short run.
A Marxist analysis of the current population situation in the countries of the Third World would aim at specifying, for each country, the concrete relations of economic dependency that link that country to another or to others, as well as the kinds of social and political structures which emerged upon the basis of such colonial or neo-colonial relationships. Once that aspect of the problem has been determined, the nature of capital accumulation and its effects upon population (i.e., its effect upon the quantity and quality of the demand for labor, location of investments and their relationship to migration and population distribution, etc.) can be assessed within the context of the existing legal and political framework and the main tenets of the dominant ideologies about the family and sex roles.
Neo-Malthusian emphasis on birth control and family planning programs aimed at underdeveloped countries today repeat the same error that Malthus committed almost two hundred years ago. There is obviously (i.e., empirically available to common sense perception) a problem of "overpopulation" in the Third World if by that it is meant that a large proportion of their population is hungry, jobless, sickly, and dies very young. It also appears obvious that, given the situation of economic stagnation of those countries, lowering the birth rate might improve a little their situation. However, such arguments assumes that both private and public sources of investments whether national or foreign are ACTUALLY spending too much in services for the excessive dependent population (i.e., housing hospitals, schools, etc.) and that such funds would be automatically diverted towards productive enterprises if population size or, more specifically, if the dependency ration were to decline. Such assumption is not only naive but reveals lack of scientific rigor in the analysis of population within underdeveloped countries.
Birth control programs within the context of the capitalist mode of production amount to the same advice Malthus gave to the English working classes. What underdeveloped countries are told today is that the road to development is based upon population control and their underdeveloped condition is partially or totally blamed on their excessive rates of growth. To attribute underdevelopment to the operation of the Malthusian principle of population alone, disregarding the situation of colonialism and neo-colonialism under which those countries stagnate, the relationship between the plunder of their resources and the indiscriminate introduction of public health measures which drastically reducing the death rate CREATED the gap between birth rates and death rates and, therefore, the present "population explosion," etc., is again typical of the kind of analysis prevalent in academic circles. The inability of academic intellectuals to see the present historically leads them to an incomplete analysis of the problem and to policy recommendations (such as the implementation of birth control clinics and family planning programs) which contribute to the perpetuation of the problem they are trying to solve.
So far this general discussion has proceeded at a macro level of analysis. At the micro level and from a Marxist perspective, a great step towards the understanding of population processes could be taken from what might tentatively be called, at this point, "the alienation theory of fertility."
The point of departure for the elaboration of this theory is Marx's analysis of alienation and of alienated labor. Under conditions of capitalist production the workers are alienated from themselves, from their fellow workers, from their work, and from the product of their work. Consequently...
...the worker feels himself at home only during his leisure time, whereas at work he feels homeless. His work is not voluntary but imposed, forced labor. It is not the satisfaction of a need, but only the means for satisfying other needs ... We arrive at the result that man (the worker) feels himself to be freely active only in his animal functions--eating, drinking and procreating, or at most also in his personal adornment--while in his human functions he is reduced to an animal. Eating, drinking and procreating are of course also genuine human functions. But abstractly considered, apart from the environment of human activities, and turned into final and sole ends, they are animal functions" (Marx, 1964:125; our emphasis).
It is surprising the modernity of Marx's statement. Written more than 100 years ago, it accurately describes contemporary life under conditions of capitalist production. It is not surprising, though, that contemporary sociology regards this separation between the world of work (where workers are exploited, full of anxiety and forced into a ruthless competition with their fellow workers) and the world of leisure (where workers are turned into consumers of sex, children, consumer goods, mass entertainment, and "gourmet foods") as "functional for the maintenance of the system."
Briefly stated, the sociological argument runs as follows; in modern society individuals compete for the rewards (money, consumer foods, success monetarily defined) that the economic structure offers as incentives so individuals will feel motivated to fill the positions and fulfill the necessary roles within those structures. As the positions within the economic structure are reserved mainly for males, the system can work (that is, commodities can circulate) only if women and children are also incorporated as consumers. Such incorporation proceeds through the family which, as capitalism develops, changes within the ranks of the working classes from a productive unit to a unit of consumption. This essential family function is described as follows:
Within the family--which is the society's unit of consumption for economic goods--the position husband-father calls for its occupant to provide support for the entire group in the form of money with which to purchase goods and services. Adult males are, therefore, expected to occupy a position in an industrial or occupation organization and a position in a family simultaneously. The role wife-mother...calls for occupant to take money earned by its specific male counterpart into the market to purchase goods and services needed by the entire family (Grainfield, 1969:251).
As the performance of the roles husband-father involves negative aspects such ad the number of expenses that deprive the role incumbent from accumulating money or consuming desired goods, how are individuals motivated to form a family? Within the context of the capitalist system, the family appears as the only source of love, affection and security; a refuge against the anxiety and competitiveness of the life of work. In this sense, the family acts as a security valve and love becomes:
an "institutionalized irrationality" that serves as "... the reward motive that induces individuals to occupy the structurally essential positions of husband-father and wife- mother...and form nuclear families which are essential not only for reproduction and socialization but also to maintain the existing arrangements for distributing and consuming goods and services and, in general, to keep the social system in proper working order and thus maintaining as a going concern (Grainfield, 1969:253).
While the antagonism between work and family life or leisure activities is thus seen as functional for the system, under conditions of capitalist production it is the source of what sociologists would call "unanticipated consequences" which, from a Marxist perspective, are the logical consequences of that antagonism. Specifically, such consequences are crystallized or embodied in the importance of sex roles and family roles for the definition of normal adulthood. Within a capitalist society, while a career, profession or development of any specific skills or creative capacities appear as alternatives that individuals may freely choose, the performance of family roles and sex roles (the latter being defined as subordinate to the former) emerges as a constant need that must be satisfied. The concrete manifestation of this theoretical insight might achieve different forms within the different sectors of the working classes both employed and in the reserve army. While sociologists refer to the value of "familism" in regards the middle classes and reserve the terms "machismo" and "traditional value orientations" to deal with some manifestations of alienated behavior in the lower ranks of the proletariat, the concrete phenomena is the same. If children and family life can provide today to the wage earners a sense of identity and meaning for their lives, in spite of the competing sources of alienated identity (things and sex), while on the one hand the family may go on keeping the system as a "going concern," on the other hand it produces more people than it would under other circumstances produce. In that way, a relative surplus population is being created not only by the needs of capital accumulation and expansion (which operate "setting workers free" through technological improvement, for example) but also because of the meaning that children and family life acquire under conditions of capitalist production. This is the reason why Engels was probably right in stating that only in a socialist society effective population control wold be possible:
There is, of course, the abstract possibility that the number of people will become so great that limits will have to be set to their increase. But if at some stage communist society finds itself obligated to regulate the production of human beings, just as it has already come to regulate the production of things, it will be precisely this society and this society alone which will carry this out without difficulty (Engels, 1971:119).
Only in a society where individuals are allowed to develop fully within their historical possibilities will their animal functions be integrated with their social activities and will not constitute the main axis around which life is organized.
CONCLUSION
Engels' statement in no way contradicts what has been said in this paper regarding the Marxist theoretical standpoint on the population issue. To admit the abstract possibility of the necessity of curtailing population increase does not invalidate the Marxist rejection of the use of that possibility as an unavoidable outcome of "natural laws" which control and explain contemporary events. From a Marxist theoretical perspective, that constitutes a reification of the exploitative relations within a specific historical mode of production which generate both artificial food scarcity and surplus population.
Looking at the contemporary situation in underdeveloped countries, the Marxist critique of Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian analysis and policies does not deny the existence of the problems that stem from high dependency ratios and high rates of population growth. However, it shows that to deal with such phenomena as "population" problems overlooks the social, political, and economic structural factors that make possible such a population structure and processes and that, therefore, as long as population control remains the main or only concern of the various international and national organizations which in one way or another are trying to foster economic development in underdeveloped societies, their action will only consolidate the economic backwardness they are avowedly aiming to solve.
menswarehousedottxt
menswarehousedottxt
Post rating:
~
tl;dr you can argue for malthusianism all you want but it just hurts your case and your totems spent a lot of time trying to refute it
[account deactivated]
piss
piss
Post rating:
~
the point is that there's nothing inherently leftwing about ecology, its just a random reactionary position that got sucked into the academic left around 1970
dipshit420
dipshit420
political car tune
Post rating:
~
roseweird posted:no one here is malthusian and i don't think you actually know what malthusianism means
I read dan brown's "Inferno" and I'm malthusian now
[account deactivated]
DR
DR
Post rating:
~
sure it is, there were plenty of pre ~1970 reactionaries into ecology. i know you like reading things so read some fascism.
[account deactivated]
biryanibiryani
biryanibiryani
Post rating:
~
99% of the modern understanding of hypothermia is based on mengele's research
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
+
why does anybody need to "understand" hypothermia? just stay warm, ya dinguses!
[account deactivated]
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
no one here is malthusian and i don't think you actually know what malthusianism means
there aren't any total malthusians but i often see "consumption is unsustainable" or "consumption is somehow bad" type arguments from the trots here who don't realize they're arguing points that marx and engels used to argue against. sometimes they don't respond when i call them out, but when that happens, i just take over their account and include my objections in their own posts.
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
i don't think anyone here thinks consumption itself is bad and i doubt anyone here thinks marx thought so either. you don't have to refer to politics to notice that we live stupid bleak wasteful meaningless lives and that our culture celebrates empty acquisition.
communism won't make your life any more meaningful or prevent you from wanting other peoples things. it'll just hold back the people who do care and take advantage of the opportunities presented to them.
if it is economically unsustainable (and every form of consumption on a long enough time scale will become unsustainable—our sun will explode eventually),
i don't question that, my point is that sustainability arguments, particularly overpopulation arguments, tend to help the reactionary side.
Edited by Hubbert ()
[account deactivated]
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
you don't exactly suggest yourself as an authority on how to live a meaningful life
i'm not, i'm just saying a social system based on appeasing envy won't solve anyone's lack of meaning in life.
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
if you really thought communism would solve your problems then you could easily do that by joining some commune. but you haven't, because you know that wouldn't work.
maybe good communism is just being satisfied with what you already have?
maybe good communism is just being satisfied with what you already have?
Edited by Hubbert ()
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
do you think maybe this habit of yours might be a serious mental/emotional disorder
of course
and why would i join a commune to advance communism.
don't, its gross and people shit everywhere
have you ever considered asking people about themselves
i gotta reinstall mibbit or whatever but sure
[account deactivated]
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
roseweird posted:why can't you just be polite and try to find some common ground with people. i don't think you even believe the things you say , you just don't know how to interact with people you aren't actively pissing off
i don't "believe" things, i just dispute other peoples ideas (aka libertarianism)
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
under conditions of genuine global equality i would have considerably less than i have now. that would be acceptable
just an aside but this may not work very well. most first world income is in services which are non-exportable. if you tried to achieve equality by, say, raising terms of trade then you would end up a weird economy where housing and personal services would remain abundant in the first world while manufactured goods would be extremely scarce, and vice versa in developing countries, except that they might not even have the services or infrastructure to distribute it.
Edited by Hubbert ()
[account deactivated]
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
you've learned well.
i'm just saying that global redistribution would be really weird, most of the economy would be unaffected while narrow parts would be extremely strained.
for example agriculture is 1% of the economy. you could kill and impoverish everyone in the first world by redistributing the right 1% of gdp.
raw materials are another case. if the us exported the 0.1% gdp going to materials it would really mess up everything else.
overall only like 5% of the economy is actually exportable, the vast majority goes to infrastructure, services, and nonexportable industries like housing.
i'm just saying that global redistribution would be really weird, most of the economy would be unaffected while narrow parts would be extremely strained.
for example agriculture is 1% of the economy. you could kill and impoverish everyone in the first world by redistributing the right 1% of gdp.
raw materials are another case. if the us exported the 0.1% gdp going to materials it would really mess up everything else.
overall only like 5% of the economy is actually exportable, the vast majority goes to infrastructure, services, and nonexportable industries like housing.
[account deactivated]
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
something really weird that no one has proposed you should work it out yourself
i can't, it's an inherently flawed concept. just because an american has $50,000 and a zimbabwean has $1,000 doesn't mean there's $49,000 there to redistribute, its actually much less.
[account deactivated]
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
nor coherently communicate to anyone else.
its pretty simple. only about 5% of the economy can actually be exported.
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
+
roseweird posted:i don't think anyone here thinks consumption itself is bad and i doubt anyone here thinks marx thought so either.
You could not be more wrong. Tuberculosis claimed 4 of Marx's siblings, and his own susceptibility to the disease caused him to be declared unfit for military service in 1836. Sure, it might have saved his life in the long run, but i can assure you that any man with a heart as large and as deep as Karl Marx's would have gladly put the lives of 4 children ahead of his own wellbeing without a moment's hesitation.
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
roseweird if you think im boring i can go back to needless sensationalism about feudalism and wind turbines
Hubbert
Hubbert
Pacific Northwest
Post rating:
~
you see superabound what i do is, i set all my posts in lf to frontpage, so mods cant edit or ban them. just figured it out.
LittleEichmann
LittleEichmann
Post rating:
~
drats it dunnae work
[account deactivated]
LittleEichmann
LittleEichmann
Post rating:
~
i appreciate you trying to help roseweird but nothing can cure my bloodlust
"what did you want to do when you grow up mustang?"
"exterminate liberals"
"what did you want to do when you grow up mustang?"
"exterminate liberals"