An Anarchist FAQ

Selections from section C.2: Where do profits come from?

As mentioned in the last section, profits are the driving force of capitalism. If a profit cannot be made, a good is not produced, regardless of how many people "subjectively value" it. But where do profits come from?

In order to make more money, money must be transformed into capital, i.e., workplaces, machinery and other "capital goods." By itself, however, capital (like money) produces nothing. Capital only becomes productive in the labour process when workers use capital ("Neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilised by labour" - Bakunin). Under capitalism, workers not only create sufficient value (i.e. produced commodities) to maintain existing capital and their own existence, they also produce a surplus. This surplus expresses itself as a surplus of goods, i.e. an excess of commodities compared to the number a workers' wages could buy back. Thus Proudhon:

"The working man cannot. . . repurchase that which he has produced for his master. It is thus with all trades whatsoever. . . since, producing for a master who in one form or another makes a profit, they are obliged to pay more for their own labour than they get for it." [What is Property, p. 189]

In other words, the price of all produced goods is greater than the money value represented by the workers' wages (plus raw materials and overheads such as wear and tear on machinery) when those goods were produced. The labour contained in these "surplus-products" is the source of profit, which has to be realised on the market. (In practice, of course, the value represented by these surplus-products is distributed throughout all the commodities produced in the form of profit -- the difference between the cost price and the market price).

Obviously, pro-capitalist economics argue against this theory of how a surplus arises. However, one example will suffice here to see why labour is the source of a surplus, rather than (say) "waiting", risk or capital (these arguments, and others, will be discussed below). A good poker-player uses equipment (capital), takes risks, delays gratification, engages in strategic behaviour, tries new tricks (innovates), not to mention cheats, and earns large winnings (and can even do so repeatedly). But no surplus product results from such behaviour; the gambler's winnings are simply redistributions from others with no new production occurring. Thus, risk-taking, abstinence, entrepreneurship, etc. might be necessary for an individual to receive profits but are far from sufficient for them not to be the result a pure redistribution from others (a redistribution, we may add, which can only occur under capitalism if workers produce goods to sell).

Thus, in order for a profit to be generated within capitalism two things are required. Firstly, a group of workers to work the available capital. Secondly, that they must produce more value than they are paid in wages. If only the first condition is present, all that occurs is that social wealth is redistributed between individuals. With the second condition, a surplus proper is generated. In both cases, however, workers are exploited for without their labour there would be no goods to facilitate a redistribution of existing wealth nor surplus products.

The surplus value produced by labour is divided between profits, interest and rent (or, more correctly, between the owners of the various factors of production other than labour). In practice, this surplus is used by the owners of capital for: (a) investment (b) to pay themselves dividends on their stock, if any; (c) to pay for rent and interest payments; and (d) to pay their executives and managers (who are sometimes identical with the owners themselves) much higher salaries than workers. As the surplus is being divided between different groups of capitalists, this means that there can be clashes of interest between (say) industrial capitalists and finance capitalists. For example, a rise in interest rates can squeeze industrial capitalists by directing more of the surplus from them into the hands of rentiers. Such a rise could cause business failures and so a slump (indeed, rising interest rates is a key way of regulating working class power by generating unemployment to discipline workers by fear of the sack). The surplus, like the labour used to reproduce existing capital, is embodied in the finished commodity and is realised once it is sold. This means that workers do not receive the full value of their labour, since the surplus appropriated by owners for investment, etc. represents value added to commodities by workers -- value for which they are not paid.

So capitalist profits (as well as rent and interest payments) are in essence unpaid labour, and hence capitalism is based on exploitation. As Proudhon noted, "Products, say economists, are only bought by products. This maxim is property's condemnation. The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief." [Op. Cit., p. 170] It is this appropriation of wealth from the worker by the owner which differentiates capitalism from the simple commodity production of artisan and peasant economies. All anarchists agree with Bakunin when he stated that:

"what is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. . . [and so] the power and right to live by exploiting the work of someone else . . . those . . . [who are] forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 180]

Obviously supporters of capitalism disagree. Profits are not the product of exploitation and workers, capitalists and landlords get paid the value of their contributions to output, they say. A few even talk about "making money work for you" (as if pieces of paper can actually do any form of work!) while, obviously, human beings have to do the actual work (and usually for money). However, all agree that capitalism is not exploitative (no matter how exploitative it may look) and present various arguments why capitalists deserve to keep the products others make. This section of the FAQ presents some of the reasons why anarchists reject this claim.

Lastly, we would like to point out that some apologists for capitalism cite the empirical fact that, in a modern capitalist economy, a large majority of all income goes to "labour," with profit, interest and rent adding up to something under twenty percent of the total. Of course, even if surplus value was less than 20% of a workers' output, this does not change its exploitative nature. These apologists of capitalism do not say that taxation stops being "theft" just because it is around 10% of all income. However, this value for profit, interest and rent is based on a statistical sleight-of-hand, as "worker" is defined as including everyone who has a salary in a company, including managers and CEOs (income to "labour" includes both wages and salaries, in other words). The large incomes which many managers and all CEOs receive would, of course, ensure that a large majority of all income does go to "labour." Thus this "fact" ignores the role of most managers as de facto capitalists and exploiters of surplus value and ignores the changes in industry that have occurred in the last 50 years (see section C.2.5 - Aren't Executives workers and so creators of value?).

To get a better picture of the nature of exploitation within modern capitalism we have to compare workers wages to their productivity. According to the World Bank, in 1966, US manufacturing wages were equal to 46% of the value-added in production (value-added is the difference between selling price and the costs of raw materials and other inputs to the production process). In 1990, that figure had fallen to 36% and (using figures from 1992 Economic Census of the US Census Bureau) by 1992 it had reached 19.76% (39.24% if we take the total payroll which includes managers and so on). In the US construction industry, wages were 35.4% of value added in 1992 (with total payroll, 50.18%). Therefore the argument that because a large percentage of income goes to "labour" capitalism is fine hides the realities of that system and the exploitation its hierarchical nature creates.

We now move on to why this surplus value exists.

C.2.1 Why does this surplus exist?

It is the nature of capitalism for the monopolisation of the worker's product by others to exist. This is because of private property in the means of production and so in "consequence of [which] . . . [the] worker, when he is able to work, finds no acre to till, no machine to set in motion, unless he agrees to sell his labour for a sum inferior to its real value." [Peter Kropotkin, Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 55]

Therefore workers have to sell their labour on the market. However, as this "commodity" "cannot be separated from the person of the worker like pieces of property. The worker's capacities are developed over time and they form an integral part of his self and self-identity; capacities are internally not externally related to the person. Moreover, capacities or labour power cannot be used without the worker using his will, his understanding and experience, to put them into effect. The use of labour power requires the presence of its 'owner'. . . To contract for the use of labour power is a waste of resources unless it can be used in the way in which the new owner requires . . . The employment contract must, therefore, create a relationship of command and obedience between employer and worker." [Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract, pp. 150-1]

So, "the contract in which the worker allegedly sells his labour power is a contract in which, since he cannot be separated from his capacities, he sells command over the use of his body and himself. . . The characteristics of this condition are captured in the term wage slave." [Ibid., p. 151] Or, to use Bakunin's words, "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time" and so "concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 187]

This domination is the source of the surplus, for "wage slavery is not a consequence of exploitation - exploitation is a consequence of the fact that the sale of labour power entails the worker's subordination. The employment contract creates the capitalist as master; he has the political right to determine how the labour of the worker will be used, and - consequently - can engage in exploitation." [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 149]

So profits exist because the worker sells themselves to the capitalist, who then owns their activity and, therefore, controls them (or, more accurately, tries to control them) like a machine. Benjamin Tucker's comments with regard to the claim that capital is entitled to a reward are of use here. He notes that some "combat. . . the doctrine that surplus value -- oftener called profits -- belong to the labourer because he creates it, by arguing that the horse. . . is rightly entitled to the surplus value which he creates for his owner. So he will be when he has the sense to claim and the power to take it. . . Th[is] argument . . is based upon the assumption that certain men are born owned by other men, just as horses are. Thus its reductio ad absurdum turns upon itself." [Instead of a Book, pp. 495-6]

In other words, to argue that capital should be rewarded is to implicitly assume that workers are just like machinery, another "factor of production" rather than human beings and the creator of things of value. So profits exists because during the working day the capitalist controls the activity and output of the worker (i.e. owns them during working hours as activity cannot be separated from the body and "[t]here is an integral relationship between the body and self. The body and self are not identical, but selves are inseparable from bodies." [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 206]).

Considered purely in terms of output, this results in, as Proudhon noted, workers working "for an entrepreneur who pays them and keeps their products." [quoted by Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, p. 29] The ability of capitalists to maintain this kind of monopolisation of another's time and output is enshrined in "property rights" enforced by either public or private states. In short, therefore, property "is the right to enjoy and dispose at will of another's goods - the fruit of an other's industry and labour." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property, p. 171] And because of this "right," a worker's wage will always be less than the wealth that he or she produces.

The size of this surplus, the amount of unpaid labour, can be changed by changing the duration and intensity of work (i.e. by making workers labour longer and harder). If the duration of work is increased, the amount of surplus value is increased absolutely. If the intensity is increased, e.g. by innovation in the production process, then the amount of surplus value increases relatively (i.e. workers produce the equivalent of their wage sooner during their working day resulting in more unpaid labour for their boss).

Such surplus indicates that labour, like any other commodity, has a use value and an exchange value. Labour's exchange value is a worker's wages, its use value their ability to work, to do what the capitalist who buys it wants. Thus the existence of "surplus products" indicates that there is a difference between the exchange value of labour and its use value, that labour can potentially create more value than it receives back in wages. We stress potentially, because the extraction of use value from labour is not a simple operation like the extraction of so many joules of energy from a ton of coal. Labour power cannot be used without subjecting the labourer to the will of the capitalist - unlike other commodities, labour power remains inseparably embodied in human beings. Both the extraction of use value and the determination of exchange value for labour depends upon - and are profoundly modified by - the actions of workers. Neither the effort provided during an hours work, nor the time spent in work, nor the wage received in exchange for it, can be determined without taking into account the worker's resistance to being turned into a commodity, into an order taker. In other words, the amount of "surplus products" extracted from a worker is dependent upon the resistance to dehumanisation within the workplace, to the attempts by workers to resist the destruction of liberty during work hours.

Thus unpaid labour, the consequence of the authority relations explicit in private property, is the source of profits. Part of this surplus is used to enrich capitalists and another to increase capital, which in turn is used to increase profits, in an endless cycle (a cycle, however, which is not a steady increase but is subject to periodic disruption by recessions or depressions - "The business cycle." The basic causes for such crises will be discussed later, in sections C.7 and C.8).

.....

C.2.5 Aren't Executives workers and so creators of value?

Of course it could be argued that executives are also "workers" and so contribute to the value of the commodities produced. However, this is not the case. Though they may not own the instruments of production, they are certainly buyers and controllers of labour power, and under their auspices production is still capitalist production. The creation of a "salary-slave" strata of managers does not alter the capitalist relations of production. In effect, the management strata are de facto capitalists. As exploitation requires labour ("There is work and there is work." as Bakunin noted, "There is productive labour and there is the labour of exploitation" [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 180]), management is like the early "working capitalist" and their "wages" come from the surplus value appropriated from workers and realised on the market. Or, to use a different analogy, managers are like the slave drivers hired by slave owners who do not want to manage the slaves themselves. The slave drivers' wages come from the surplus value extracted from the slaves; it is not in itself productive labour.

Thus the exploitative role of managers, even if they can be fired, is no different from capitalists. Moreover, "shareholders and managers/technocrats share common motives: to make profits and to reproduce hierarchy relations that exclude most of the employees from effective decision making" [Takis Fotopoulos, "The Economic Foundations of an Ecological Society", p. 16, Society and Nature No.3, pp. 1-40]

This is not to say that 100 percent of what managers do is exploitative. The case is complicated by the fact that there is a legitimate need for co-ordination between various aspects of complex production processes -- a need that would remain under libertarian socialism and would be filled by elected and recallable (and in some cases rotating) managers (see Section I). But under capitalism, managers become parasitic in proportion to their proximity to the top of the pyramid. In fact, the further the distance from the production process, the higher the salary; whereas the closer the distance, the more likely that a "manager" is a worker with a little more power than average. In capitalist organisations, the less you do, the more you get. In practice, executives typically call upon subordinates to perform managerial (i.e. co-ordinating) functions and restrict themselves to broader policy-making decisions. As their decision-making power comes from the hierarchical nature of the firm, they could be easily replaced if policy making was in the hands of those who are affected by it.

C.2.6 Is interest not the reward for waiting, and so isn't capitalism just?

The idea that interest is the reward for "abstinence" on the part of savers is a common one in capitalist economics. As Alfred Marshall argues, "[i]f we admit it [a commodity] is the product of labour alone, and not of labour and waiting, we can no doubt be compelled by an inexorable logic to admit that there is no justification of interest, the reward for waiting" [Principles of Economics, p. 587]. While implicitly recognising that labour is the source of all value in capitalism (and that abstinence is not the source of profits), it is claimed that interest is a justifiable claim on the surplus value produced by a worker.

Why is this the case? Capitalist economics claims that by "deferring consumption," the capitalist allows new means of production to be developed and so should be rewarded for this sacrifice. In other words, in order to have capital available as an input -- i.e. to bear costs now for returns in the future -- someone has to be willing to postpone his or her consumption. That is a real cost, and one that people will pay only if rewarded for it.

This theory usually appears ludicrous to a critic of capitalism -- simply put, does the mine owner really sacrifice more than a miner, a rich stockholder more than an autoworker working in their car plant? It is far easier for a rich person to "defer consumption" than for someone on an average income. This is borne out by statistics, for as Simon Kuznets has noted, "only the upper income groups save; the total savings of groups below the top decile are fairly close to zero." [Economic Growth and Structure, p. 263] Therefore, the plausibility of interest as payment for the pain of deferring consumption rests on the premise that the typical saving unit is a small or medium-income household. But in contemporary capitalist societies, this is not the case. Such households are not the source of most savings; the bulk of interest payments do not go to them.

To put this point differently, the capitalist proponents of interest only consider "postponing consumption" as an abstraction, without making it concrete. For example, a capitalist may "postpone consumption" of 48 Rolls Royces because he needs the money to upgrade some machinery in his factory; whereas a single mother may have to "postpone consumption" of food or adequate housing in order to attempt to better take care of her children. The two situations are vastly different, yet the capitalist equates them. This equation implies that "not being able to buy anything you want" is the same as "not being able to buy things you need", and is thus skewing the obvious difference in costs of such postponement of consumption!

Thus Proudhon's comments that the loaning of capital "does not involve an actual sacrifice on the part of the capitalist" and so "does not deprive himself. . . of the capital which be lends. He lends it, on the contrary, precisely because the loan is not a deprivation to him; he lends it because he has no use for it himself, being sufficiently provided with capital without it; be lends it, finally, because he neither intends nor is able to make it valuable to him personally, -- because, if he should keep it in his own hands, this capital, sterile by nature, would remain sterile, whereas, by its loan and the resulting interest, it yields a profit which enables the capitalist to live without working. Now, to live without working is, in political as well as moral economy, a contradictory proposition, an impossible thing." [Interest and Principal: A Loan is a Service]

He goes on:

"The proprietor who possesses two estates, one at Tours, and the other at Orleans, and who is obliged to fix his residence on the one which he uses, and consequently to abandon his residence on the other, can this proprietor claim that he deprives himself of anything, because he is not, like God, ubiquitous in action and presence? As well say that we who live in Paris are deprived of a residence in New York! Confess, then, that the privation of the capitalist is akin to that of the master who has lost his slave, to that of the prince expelled by his subjects, to that of the robber who, wishing to break into a house, finds the dogs on the watch and the inmates at the windows." [Ibid.]

In the capitalist's world, an industrialist who cannot buy a third summer home "suffers" a cost equivalent to that of someone who postpones consumption to get something they need. Similarly, if the industrialist "earns" hundred times more in interest than the wage of the coal miner who works in his mine, the industrialist "suffers" hundred times more discomfort living in his palace than the coal miner does working at the coal face in dangerous conditions. The "disutility" of postponing consumption while living in luxury is obviously 100 times greater than the "disutility" of working for a living and so should be rewarded appropriately. Of course, the difference is that proponents of capitalism feel that capitalists deserves compensation for their "restraint" in anticipation of future gain, while at the same time refusing to recognise the ambiguity of this statement.

All in all, as Joan Robinson pointed out, "'waiting' only means owning wealth." [Contributions to Modern Economics, p. 11] Interest is not the reward for "waiting," rather it is one of the rewards for being rich.

Little wonder, then, that neo-classical economists introduced the term waiting as an "explanation" for returns to capital (such as interest). Before this change in the jargon of economics, mainstream economists used the notion of "abstinence" (a term invented by Nassau Senior) to account for (and so justify) interest. Just as Senior's "theory" was seized upon to defend returns to capital, so was the term "waiting" after it was introduced in 1887. Interestingly, while describing exactly the same thing, "waiting" became the preferred term simply because it had a less apologetic ring to it. According to Marshall, the term "abstinence" was "liable to be misunderstood" because there were just too many wealthy people around who received interest and dividends without ever having abstained from anything (as he noted, the "greatest accumulators of wealth are very rich persons, some [!] of whom live in luxury" [Op. Cit., p. 232]). So he opted for the term "waiting" because there was "advantage" in its use, particularly because socialists had long been pointing out the obvious fact that capitalists do not "abstain" from anything (see Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 233). The lesson is obvious, in mainstream economics if reality conflicts with your theory, do not reconsider the theory, change its name!

Indeed, as Joan Robinson points out, the pro-capitalist theories of who abstains are wrong, "since saving is mainly out of profits, and real wages tend to be lower the higher the rate of profit, the abstinence associated with saving is mainly done by the workers, who do not receive any share in the 'reward.'" [The Accumulation of Capital, p. 393]

To say that those who hold capital can lay claim to a portion of the social product by abstaining or waiting provides no explanation of what makes production profitable, and so to what extent interest and dividends can be paid. Reliance on a "waiting" theory of why returns of capital exist represents nothing less than a reluctance by economists to confront the sources of value creation in an economy or to analyse the social relations between workers and managers/bosses on the shop floor. To do so would be to bring into question the whole nature of capitalism and any claims it was based upon freedom.