The Specter of Collective Force
Sometime ago a group of Nationalist Anarcho-Capitalists, Springtime of Nations, posted a video trying to obliterate Proudhon’s Theory of Collective Force, at least in terms of economics, by appealing to Marginalism — specifically, Marginal Productivity Theory. This response is not directed at their overall appropriation of Mutualist canon (which I DO object to), but more specifically on the pitiful attempt to “correct” Proudhon in terms of his theory of Collective Force. I will call the author of the video “Charles” as per their website.
Proudhon’s Theory of Exploitation relies, as the title suggests, on the notion of Collective Force. The fundamental concept is that individuals working in tandem form products greater than the sum of their individual parts. So, when workers generate a Collective Force, part of the value they generate is due to associated labor — created as a product of the group and not any sole individual — and this product is appropriated by the Capitalist.
Proudhon’s Theory of Collective Force is generally recognized by most Mutualists today. The neo-Proudhonians view it as a fundamental concept not just to Proudhon’s economics, but to his whole sociological program. The Freed-Market Anti-Capitalists, likely with more fickleness, agree that Collective Force forms part of the profits Capitalists unjustly receive. In Kevin Carson’s “Organization Theory” Chapter 11 §B, he discusses how the fruits of Collective Force, now enjoyed by Capitalists, would be socialized in a Mutualist Market. Far from being competing concepts, as Springtime’s newest video on Mutualism suggests, the Mutual Bank and Collective Force were interconnected and complementary analyses to identify how laborers were exploited, and how to empower them to attain their product. Nevertheless, they reveal their ignorance anyway.
“In addition to the lack of historical interest in collective force, if you want to learn about its irrelevance for economic and political solutions check out our video ‘’Marginalist Economics: The Completion of Anarchism.’”
So, Collective Force supposedly is “irrelevant for economic and political solutions”. Given by the video cited — the same one about to be dissected — the “economic solution” in question is wage determination. Their essential thesis is that workers under Capitalism do receive their full product, which is not their full-full product, it’s actually their marginal product.
The logic that is presented for “the worker [being] paid the equivalent for his labor” is flimsy, to say the least. The general argument rests on a hypothetical supposition of a business that requires the equal labor of five workers that generates $100. Therefore, they say Proudhon thinks, that each worker deserves $20 for their work. Charles does not comment on the legitimacy of this, but instead goes on to suppose a sixth worker in the business who only generates $10. Charles then explains:
“With these six workers what is the true value that each of them has contributed? That is, without any one of the workers, how much less value would there be? If, on the day that work for the project was about to start, one of the five took ill, the sixth would be hired away from his less productive work to join the other four and complete the project producing the product worth $100, with the product worth $10 not being made.
Therefore, what is really owed to each worker, how much value is created because he shows up for work, is only $10. This is called the marginal product of labor and with this justice is satisfied, the worker is paid the equivalent for his labor. The price that employs all the workers is also the fair price: the marginal product of labor.
Proudhon’s desire is realized, a true equivalent really is paid, but not in the way he thought.”
There is a very conspicuous fault in Charles’ logic. That is the fact that employers pay for labor, not the ability to do labor. “The ability to labor” is commodity that Marx called “labor-power”. Capitalists don’t purchase labor-power for itself, they purchase labor-power in order to perform LABOR! If no labor was performed when a Capitalist hires workmen then it would be sunk costs. No production would take place and no value would be created. Therefore, no value is created because a worker shows up for work.
What justifies labor being paid an “equivalent” for them is not a good argument. Obviously, they don’t mean that labor is paid its equivalent by Proudhon’s standards, because that would mean workers receive in wages an equivalent of the value they added in production. What they are saying is that Proudhon’s standards for an “equivalent” was wrong, and actually is represented by the marginal product of labor. From a Mutualist perspective, there is no legitimate reason all workers are getting paid $10. Five workers laboring in a joint project create $100 of value while the sixth does an individual task that generates only $10 revenue. So, if we fully compensate the value created in production, then we would compensate the set of five workers with $20 wages each, and the sixth with $10. The Mutualist response is that labor ought to receive its full product, not its potential product if it had to perform the shittiest role available for a Capitalist in an alternate Universe. Since the product of labor in the last role has no connection to the laborers’ full product, Proudhon’s desire is NOT realized, and a true equivalent is NOT really paid.
Charles does not truly touch on the critique of Collective Force, though. If Collective Force is the product of a group of workers laboring in tandem, how does any sole individual have the legitimacy to claim its fruits? As we will see shortly, Proudhon had already assumed individuals were getting paid an equivalent, but not the group. Not only does Charles’ rote recount of Marginal Productivity Theory not really say anything about Proudhon’s critique, it does worse than nothing, the mere mention of Collective Force lights a path for the viewer to a weakness in their Theory of Wages, thereby undermining their case for Capitalism.
Let us return to one of Proudhon’s first examples of Collective Force in What is Property?.
“‘The capitalist,’ they say, ‘has paid the laborers their daily wages.’ To be accurate, it must be said that the capitalist has paid as many times one day’s wage as he has employed laborers each day, — which is not at all the same thing. For he has paid nothing for that immense power which results from the union and harmony of laborers, and the convergence and simultaneousness of their efforts. Two hundred grenadiers stood the obelisk of Luxor upon its base in a few hours; do you suppose that one man could have accomplished the same task in two hundred days? Nevertheless, on the books of the capitalist, the amount of wages paid would have been the same.”
Let’s see how Marginal Productivity corrects Proudhon’s analysis here. Suppose that lifting the obelisk generates a value due to some demand, and now a Capitalist who wishes to fulfill this demand gathers laborers to lift the obelisk. Let us assume, with Proudhon’s figure, that 200 laborers is the minimum to lift the obelisk. There are only two states the obelisk can be in: lifted or not lifted. 199 workers generates no value in this endeavor, and no more workers after 200 generate any extra value. What is their marginal productivity?
In this scenario, there is no room for marginal productivity, since without each of the workers performing their part, the task they strive towards cannot be accomplished. Collective Force is not a phenomena relegated to a few niche examples either. It is found in many industries, even as a necessary prerequisite to start production. For example, Charles mentions an example at the beginning of his video: that of a combination of five workers operating a train. If no more workers are needed than the five operators to run the train, then there is no marginal product of labor.
Economist Piero Sraffa recognized this deficiency in more general terms, and made a note of it in his Prelude to a Critique in Economic Theory:
“The marginal approach requires attention to be focused on change,: for without change either in the scale of an industry or in the ‘proportions of the factors of production’ there can be neither marginal product nor marginal cost. In a system in which, day after day, production continued unchanged in those respects, the marginal product of a factor (or alternatively the marginal cost of a product) would not merely be hard to find — it just would not be there to be found.”
Marginalist economics — far from undermining Collective Force — is itself undermined by the reality of Collective Force.
Anyhow, Charles does not comment on whether these scenarios warrant the Capitalist to demand profits. If the Capitalist contributes the capital in this sort of venture — let’s say, the obelisk, for example — should they reap a profit? Something tells me they would jump at the chance to defend the Capitalist, but the groundwork they have laid so far is flimsy.
Wielding the marginal approach, Charles defends the profits accumulated by the Capitalist:
“As for the remaining $50, it goes to remunerate the person who provided the tools and equipment necessary or useful to complete the project, the capitalist. It should be remembered that if the 5 laborers needed no tools for the joint project, they could do it themselves and split the $100 between them. That they do not do this and instead are hired by a capitalist to do so is because they do not have the necessary tools. That is, without the tools, they couldn’t be this productive. Just as the laborers should be compensated for the value they provide, the person who provides the tool provides a value and should be compensated.”
To defend profits, Charles takes for granted that the laborers do not have the tools necessary to carry out production. The Mutualist response is a simple question: why do they not have the necessary tools?
It is that the institutions in Capitalist society hinder the laborer from working for themselves. Property norms that encourage absentee ownership and the collection of rent, crediting institutions that maintain interest above cost, and the multitudes of other factors that keep the bargaining power held by workers to a minimum. Workers can’t be exploited if they have the opportunities to work for themselves.
The answer to why profits exist is a little deeper than what Charles says, though. He is somewhat right, the Capitalist gets an income because he has the tools to rent out, but this is hardly the complete picture. If the laborer could work for themselves, to sustain themselves by their own labor one way or another, then there is no reason a worker would sell themselves out to generate profit for anyone else.
Mr. Sraffa sums this nicely in his lecture on the Advanced Theory of Value:
“The only reason why the worker has to be employed is that he does not possess the means of maintenance: if he did he would not need to be employed, he could work on his own account and keep for himself the whole produce. … If all the workmen had the means of maintaining themselves [until production is complete], nobody could be employed and no capital could exist that is not owned by the workmen.”
This is supported by historical evidence. The markets in pre-Capitalist America offered greater wages and workers had more autonomy compared to their European counterparts. This is because Americans had access to a large amount of land, and had means to enter into work for themselves and not for Capitalists. Even when capital was brought over, the difference in the ownership of capital itself was not enough to induce the transition into a Capitalist economy. It was only when opportunities were extricated from laborers that the transition materialized.
A whole new video would be warranted to dive into Marginal Productivity in more detail. Otherwise, there is nothing more to say regarding Collective Force vs. Marginal Productivity Theory; or about Springtime of Nations’ views on it, at the very least. The only thing to point out is the change in tone between their two videos on Collective Force. In the first, they said Proudhon was “insightful” yet ultimately mistaken. In their latest video, they dispensed with the façade and simply treat Proudhon’s analysis as irrelevant and meaningless. What this indicates to me is that they lack any sort of cohesive stance, and ultimately just pick positions to oppose Mutualists who are actually invested in what Mutualism has to offer.
