2. THE ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL IN THE CENTRAL CAPITALIST FORMATIONS

The capitalist mode differs from all previous modes in that here it is appropriation of means of production that are them­selves products of social labor that governs the production pro­cess, and no longer appropriation of the natural means of produc­tion.

Marx shows that in the capitalist mode of production there is an objective, necessary relation between the rate of surplus value and the level of development of the productive forces. The rate of surplus value is what basically determines the structure of the social distribution of the national income (its division between wages and surplus value, which takes the form of profit), and consequently, that of demand (wages constitute the bulk of de­mand for mass consumer goods, profits being either wholly or in part “saved” in order to be “invested”). The level of development of the productive forces is expressed in the social division of labor: the allotment of labor power in suitable proportions to Departments I and II of the reproduction model in Volume II of Capital. This objective relation, though fundamental to Marx’s argument, has often been overlooked, as in the discussion concern­ing the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The argument often put forward to the effect that an increase in the organic compo­sition of capital may be compensated by an increase in the rate of surplus value collapses if we appreciate that the contradiction between the system’s capacity to produce and its capacity to consume — which is immanent in the capitalist mode of produc­tion — is continually being overcome; that it is in this way that the objective character of the relation between the rate of surplus value and the level of development of the productive forces is expressed.

This objective relationship is expressed in the Conjunctural fluctuations of economic activity and unemployment. An increase in the rate of surplus value above the objectively necessary level results in a crisis, through the inadequacy of effective demand. A reduction in this rate slows down economic growth and creates the conditions for a labor market favorable to capital. The schema of this adjustment process — which corresponds to the history of accumulation from the Industrial Revolution to the crisis of the 1930s — is more complex, owing to the influence of the secondary effect of variations in wages upon choice of techniques, thereby reflecting the suboptimal character of the economic system. A tendency to full employment (which does not rule out but, on the contrary, implies a small margin of permanent unemployment)

and big Conjunctural fluctuations in unemployment represent the working of this system. The internal changes that have taken place in present-day capitalism have deprived this mechanism of adjustment of its functional role. The monopolization of capital, on the one hand, and labor organization on a nationwide scale, on the other, have made possible “planning” so as to reduce Conjunctural fluctuations. If the working class agrees to stay with­in this framework, that of the system — in other words, concrete­ly, if under the aegis of the state, capital and labor accept a “social contract” that links increases in real wages to increases in productivity, in proportions worked out by the “technocrats” — then a stable state of quasi-full employment can be assured. Ex­cept, of course, that some sectors of society may, by refusing to accept this “contract,” cause disturbances: this may happen with the small and medium enterprises that are the victims of concen­tration, and that may possess a far from negligible power for political blackmail; and except, too, that external relations cannot be brought within the scope of this type of planning. The contra­diction is growing between the worldwide character of production (shown in the increasing weight of the multinational corporations) and the still-national character of the institutions both of capital and of labor.

This model reflects the essence of the system. It leaves out of account external relations, which means not that the development of capitalism takes place in a self-contained national framework but that the essential relations of the system can be grasped without taking account of these relations. Moreover, the external relations of the advanced regions, taken as a whole, with the periphery of the world system are quantitatively marginal in comparison with the flows that take place within the center; besides, as we shall see, these rela­tions are a matter of primitive accumulation and not of expanded reproduction. The historically relative character of the distinction between mass consumer goods and luxury goods is also clearly seen here. Strictly speaking, those goods should be regarded as luxury goods the demand for which arises from the part of profit that is consumed. Thedemand that arises from wages increases with economic growth — the progress of the productive forces. While, at the start of the history of capitalism, this demand related almost wholly to essentials — food, clothing, and shelter — it relates ever more extensively at present to “consumer durables” such as automo­biles, electrical appliances for domestic work, and so on. This histori­cal succession in the type of “mass” goods is of decisive importance in understanding the problem that concerns us. The structure of demand in the first period of the system favored the agricultural revolution by providing an outlet for foodstuffs in the home mar­ket (historically, this transformation of agriculture took the form of agrarian capitalism).- We know, moreover, the historical role played by the textile industry and by the growth of towns (“when the building industry is going well, everything goes well”) in the accumulation process. Durable consumer goods, the production of which consumes a 'great deal of capital and of skilled labor, only make their appearance when productivity in agriculture and the industries that produce nondurable goods has already reached a high level.

This analysis plays a vital part in the demonstration of my argument. I will add to it three observations.

First, autocentric accumulation, that is, accumulation without external expansion of the system, is theoretically possible if real wages increase at a given, calculable rate. Now the immanent tendency of the system is to maintain constant the level of real wages, which do not increase unless, and to the extent that, the working class brings about an increase by means of trade-union struggles. If real wages do not increase at the necessary rate, accumulation requires, as compensation, a steady external expansion of the market. This is what underlies the necessary expansionism of the capitalist mode. Throughout the nineteenth century, until the 1880s, because real wages at the center did not increase suffi­ciently, a form of expansionism was necessary that conferred certain functions upon the periphery. Since the last decades of the nineteenth century, however, real wages at the center have increased at a faster rate, and this has caused the expansionism of the capitalist mode to assume new forms (imperialism and the export of capital) and has also given the periphery new functions to perform.

Second, autocentric accumulation gives the capitalist mode at the center of the system a tendency to become exclusive, that is, to destroy all the precapitalist modes. By way of exception among social formations, the central capitalist social formation tends to become identical with the mode of production that dominates it, whereas all previous formations were stable combinations of dif­ferent modes.

Third, autocentric accumulation is the condition necessary for manifestation of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Monopolies and imperialism are the system’s response to this tendency, putting an end to the equalization of profit. However, on the one hand, the “reparation” of profits from the periphery, where capital has gone in search of a better return, and, on the other, the steady decline in the rate of profit at the center, together with pursuit of the mechanisms of autocentric accumula­tion, aggravate the problem of how to absorb excess capital.

An example of the fundamental divergence that exists between this analysis and that made by dogmatic Marxism is provided by the discussion that took place around the book Monopoly Capi­tal, by Baran and Sweezy. This work makes an important contribution, taking account of essential new facts relative to the way in which the system is today overcoming, at its center, the fundamental, permanent, and growing contradiction between capacity to produce and capacity to consume. The tendency for the surplus to increase, which results from the policy of the state and of the monopolies in the epoch of contemporary monopoly capitalism, does not contradict the tendency for the rate of profit to fall — on the contrary, it is the way the latter finds expression in the system as it exists in our time. Some commentators have raised objections to the work of Baran and Sweezy, because it shows that the system can function, They prefer the religious and comforting vision of an apocalyptic catastrophe, and a golden age miraculously reached, to the disturbing prospect of continually changing conditions, which make it necessary continually to under­take fresh analyses.