The Industrial Reserve Army in Marxist Theory

A particularly current aspect of the social contradictions that the capitalist mode of production develops is the phenomenon of unemployment. The relevance of the analysis that we propose here becomes evident at first glance when looking at the data regarding worker unemployment in recent times. Therefore, we propose to analyze the phenomenon in all its breadth, recalling the economic laws that determine its accentuation in periods of crisis and "restructuring" of the industry, and its decrease in periods of more or less regular growth of invested capital.

The key to fully understanding the problem lies in the analysis of the composition of capital, as the changes it undergoes during the accumulation process are the determining cause of the worsening of the unemployment phenomenon. The composition of capital should be considered under two aspects: that of value and that of the material of which this value is composed. Regarding value, the composition of capital is established by the proportion in which the capital is divided into constant capital (the value of means of production) and variable capital (the value of the living workforce employed or the total sum of wages). Regarding material, every capital is distributed into usable means of production and the quantity of labor required to use them. The former is defined as the value composition, the latter as the technical composition of capital. They are closely interconnected. To make this relationship clear, we call the value composition of capital because it is determined by its technical composition and reflects changes in the organic composition of capital. It is evident that each capital can have a completely different organic composition from another in the same period. To study the problem in general, we use an average of individual branches of industry of the country or countries in question, then we average these individual averages to obtain an accurate and general view of the degree of accumulation of the capitalist mode of production, and particularly of the general trend of capital regarding the phenomenon of unemployment, a trend that in its particular elements could instead be contradictory.

Since history entrusts us with the task of combating opportunism in all its theoretical and political manifestations, we take as a hypothesis the slogan of the opportunists regarding the problem of unemployment: rebuilding the economy, increasing invested capital by shifting capital to the South, etc., as an alternative to the fact that the capitalist mode of production always tends to expel a workforce in ever greater quantities, especially in moments of stagnation that precede the crisis of overproduction. Therefore, we will focus on studying the consequences of a general increase in invested capital for the working class, assuming its composition remains unchanged, i.e., assuming that a specific mass of means of production or constant capital always requires the same mass of labor force to be put into action.

We know that wages, the value of labor power, like that of any other commodity, is determined by the sum of the values of subsistence goods which, considering the particular historical conditions of a given working population, the worker needs to preserve and reproduce their capacity to work and their class. But we also know that this basic value, like the value of every commodity, is subject to oscillations on the market determined by variations in the relationship between supply and demand, and that this law, the law of supply and demand, based on value, determines the market price. It is clear that, in the case considered above, the demand for labor, and consequently the subsistence fund of the workers, grows in relation to capital, and more rapidly the more rapidly capital increases. Indeed, since every capital produces surplus value every year, part of which is annually annexed to the original capital; since this same increase is all the greater the more each year the amount of capital already in operation grows; and finally, due to the particular stimulus constituted by the impulse towards enrichment, such as the opening of new markets, new fields of capital investment following the emergence of new social needs, the scale of accumulation suddenly becomes elastic thanks to a simple modification in the division of surplus value or surplus product into capital and income. The needs of capital accumulation may exceed the increase in the labor force, i.e., the number of workers; therefore, the demand for workers may often exceed their supply, and thus wages can increase. Given that more workers are hired every year than before, sooner or later we reach the point where the needs of accumulation begin to exceed the normal job offer, thus causing wages to increase. Now a problem arises. To what extent can wages of workers, under the aforementioned conditions, rise? First of all, these conditions of accumulation, which are most favorable for workers, do not affect the relationship between wage laborer and capital in the least. Here's how Marx expresses it in this regard: "Of the surplus product of the workers that grows, and as it grows, converts into additional capital, a larger portion returns to them in the form of means of payment, in order to extend the range of their enjoyments, enrich their consumption fund for clothes, furniture, etc., and form small money reserves. However, just as clothing, nutrition, better treatment, and a more substantial peculium do not suppress the relationship of dependence and exploitation of the wage laborer, they also do not suppress that of the wage laborer. In practice, an increase in the price of labor following capital accumulation only means that the volume and weight of the golden chain forged with its own hands by wage laborers allow for a loosened tension...

But, under these conditions, the general increase in wages faces an alternative: either the price of labor continues to increase, as long as its rise does not hinder the accumulation process, or the increased price of labor weakens or hinders the process of capital accumulation. Accumulation then decreases, but together with it, the cause that had caused it to stop also decreases; the mechanism of capitalist production itself removes the obstacles it had created: the price of labor power, like that of any commodity for which there is no longer demand, falls again in accordance with the development needs of the capital valorization process. But in both cases examined, under the conditions most favorable to the worker, i.e., those in which there is an increase in invested capital without prejudice to its average organic composition, wages cannot grow above a certain limit beyond which, on the one hand, the existence of the worker's subsistence as a wage earner would be put into question, and on the other hand, there would be an obstacle to the accumulation process of capital. Ultimately, no wage increase can, within the scope of the capitalist production system, change the condition of the worker as exploited, subjected to the needs of capital valorization.

The variable capital (wages) decreases relative to constant capital.

From the analysis conducted here, another law also emerges. In the first case examined, it is not the decrease in absolute or proportional growth of the workforce or working population that renders capital excessive, but rather it is the increase in capital that makes the exploitable workforce insufficient. In the second case, it is not the increase in absolute or proportional growth of the workforce or working population that makes the exploitable workforce insufficient, but rather its price. Continuing with the analysis, we see that the hypothesis that during the accumulation process there is only a quantitative increase in invested capital is rarely seen in the history of capitalism. The needs of accumulation and the law of competition among various capitals, which tend to continually decrease the value contained in the goods produced, ensure that capital is forced to qualitatively change its form to favor its process of valorization and accumulation. This general tendency of the accumulation process is such that the surplus product to be reinvested as additional capital is increasingly allocated to the constant part of its composition rather than its variable part. Indeed, since the value of goods is determined by the amount of social labor contained in them, and given that this value tends to decrease due to increased labor productivity driven by competition between various capitals, goods must be produced where the variable part of capital decreases in favor of the constant part—such as means of production, machinery, etc.—which enable the production of significantly more goods per working hour than before, thereby reducing the number of workers employed by a given capital to produce a given quantity of goods. Therefore, the historical tendency of capital is to modify its organic composition in favor of the constant constituent part. However, this change in organic composition only reflects to a limited extent the change in its technical composition (which is of particular interest as it determines the disparity between the availability and demand for workforce by the working population and capital), since alongside the increasing productivity of labor, not only does the volume of means of production used increase, but their value decreases relative to their volume.

That this is the general tendency of the capitalist production process, in addition to all the theoretical deductions of Marxist economics, is demonstrated to us every day by the history of capitalism. In fact, in parallel with the growth of capital as a result of accumulation, technical progress in labor productivity necessitates more complex and expensive technical tools and machines. From this perspective (capital increase accompanied by a decreased ratio between the variable part and the constant part), it would superficially seem that the demand for labor by capital is always smaller, and therefore that workers' wages continue to decline. This thesis is supported by those who, starting from the fact that working conditions have improved in the last fifty years, seek to demonstrate the falsehood of formulated wage laws derived from Marxist economics.

However, when we talk about the decrease in labor demand following the decrease in the variable part of capital, we always mean a relative decrease relative to the constant part. Indeed, while decreasing relative to the constant part, the variable part of invested capital can grow in absolute terms. This phenomenon takes on different aspects in various branches of industry. In a company where a machine is introduced that replaces a certain number of workers, there would thus be a decreased demand for labor. But we cannot stop there. Machines, for instance, need labor to be manufactured, and even as mechanization gradually establishes itself, especially in companies producing means of production, they enable more raw materials to be processed and thereby favor the demand for labor in other branches of industry.

In conclusion, the general trend is the increase in the number of wage earners as a consequence of the accumulation process, so that increasingly vast strata swell the ranks of the working and industrial class. However, this development is not continuous. When the impulse to invest surplus value in new businesses has pushed the number of workers to the maximum, products become overabundant. As soon as their distribution encounters difficulties, as they are no longer demanded for consumption, the so-called crises of overproduction occur.

Large masses of goods remain unsold, capitalists stop or reduce the activity of their factories, and a large number of workers are laid off. To emerge from the crisis, capitalism strives to produce at lower costs by making the most of all technical improvements. Upon emerging from the crisis, a certain relationship is established that reflects an organic composition of capital in which the constant part prevails even more than the variable part. Production and accumulation resume, and with the increase in total invested capital, for a certain time, variable capital also increases and consequently, the demand for labor. But another crisis is not far off, so that the workers attracted in ever greater numbers are abruptly pushed back into unemployment.

The industrial reserve army constitutes a further condition of existence of capitalism.

The succession of these alternatives and the creation of a surplus of wage workers with respect to the needs of accumulated capital characterize capitalist production. Therefore, one of the first laws that we can formulate regarding the process of capital accumulation is this: the accumulation of capital, by producing a surplus of the working population or an industrial reserve army, creates a further condition of existence for capitalism. In fact, without having to excessively increase the demand for labor, capitalism finds millions of unemployed workers always ready to be exploited as soon as it needs to expand again after emerging from a crisis. Indeed, capitalism or its theoreticians are constantly concerned with the formation and conservation of the industrial reserve army through the annexation of artisans, women, children, blacks, Chinese, etc., to wage labor.

In what forms does this mass of workers abandoned by capitalist mode of production present itself in the most infamous of existences? The first form is where workers made supernumerary by technical improvements are first rejected by factories, then reabsorbed due to increased potential and production. We Marxists define this form as "floating". We then call the latent form whereby, in rural districts, technical improvements make a large number of workers available, forcing them to flock to cities and offer themselves to industrial masters. Then there is the stagnant form, whereby, both in industry and agriculture, an excess of workers is formed who offer themselves for jobs with a high degree of exploitation, such as so-called home working. Finally, the last remnant of the working population constitutes pauperism and includes workers fit for work but supernumerary, orphans and children of workers assisted by public charity (these two categories are at the disposal of capitalism to return to active service in moments of great demand), workers who, due to age, disability or decline in their profession, are forever disabled.

The law of increasing poverty of the proletariat as opposed to growing capitalist wealth is not at all contradicted by the rise, on a historical scale, of wages for employed workers and also by a better standard of living for some privileged categories. In fact, regardless of the level and rate of wages, the progression of accumulation leads to the increase in the relative surplus population of the working population; as capital accumulates, the condition of the class worsens. To the extent that capital accumulates, the situation of the worker, regardless of their wages, must deteriorate. The law that constantly balances the industrial reserve army on one hand and the volume and vigor of accumulation on the other chains the worker to capital in a manner firmer than the wedges of Hephaestus nailed Prometheus to the rock. This law determines an accumulation of misery proportional to capital accumulation. The accumulation of wealth at one pole is therefore at the same time an accumulation of misery, of work torment, slavery, ignorance, brutality, moral degradation at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product as capital. (C. Marx: Capital, Chapter XXIII of the book).

In what relationship do the two parts constituting the industrial proletariat stand: the part of the employed workers and the industrial reserve army? So far, analyzing the phenomenon in general, we have concluded that the capitalist production regime incessantly generates an industrial reserve army, and that the general law of capitalist accumulation is one which, on the one hand, generates wealth for capital, and on the other hand, increasingly impoverishes and brutalizes the worker. But the effects that the industrial reserve army produces are not limited to the fact that its existence is necessary to satisfy the needs of capitalist production at all times; its most pernicious influence is exerted on the employed part of the working class, constantly fostering and generating competition among the workers themselves, which employers exploit as a threat against the more combative proletarians or those willing to fight for better living and working conditions.

Here is how an English newspaper put it: "Another cause of idleness in this kingdom is the lack of a sufficient number of working hands. Every time an additional demand for articles renders the mass of workers insufficient, they feel their importance and want to make their masters feel it too; It's incredible, yet the intentions of those scoundrels are so depraved that, in similar circumstances, some workers gathered together and stood around doing nothing all day with the aim of creating difficulties for their bosses... In fact, those scoundrels were asking for a higher salary. But, in the long history of the proletariat's battles, the working class has precisely learned that it is necessary to unite to defend its economic interests and therefore to forge a solid chain even among the employed workers.”

The true result of the workers' struggles is the increasing solidarity of the class to conquer power.

Marx was already able to write as early as 1848 in the Communist Manifesto:

"At first, individual workers, then factory workers, then workers of a specific branch in a given place fight against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them... At this stage, workers constitute a mass spread throughout the entire country and dispersed due to competition... But the proletariat, with the development of industry, not only multiplies; it consolidates into larger masses; its strength grows and it feels it more... The collisions between individual workers and bourgeois increasingly take on the character of a collision between two classes. Workers begin by forming coalitions against the bourgeois and unite to defend their wages... THE TRUE RESULT OF THEIR STRUGGLE IS NOT IMMEDIATE SUCCESS, BUT THE FACT THAT THE UNION OF THE WORKERS EXPANDS MORE AND MORE."

The bourgeois journalist of a hundred years ago was precisely concerned about this. Today, after a century of exhilarating victories and tragic defeats, the bourgeoisie entrusts the task of dividing and fracturing workers' struggles, of hindering their process of unification around general and common goals, to those who should instead defend proletarian interests. They bargain for positions within the bourgeois government, betraying and methodically abandoning every class position. Parallel to these now classic traitors, we witness the pitiful spectacle of petty bourgeois degeneration, embodied by Sunday revolutionaries, old and new anarchists, and spontaneous groups without even a minimum program, who persist in smuggling in revolutionary theses defeated by one hundred and fifty years of experience in the proletariat's struggle. We are particularly interested here in the position of these opportunists regarding the union. They argue that the union form, and with it the economic struggle of the proletariat, is now outdated, while official opportunism strives through every means to crush the unified struggle of the working class, which, based on the first signs of overproduction crises, moves spontaneously in that direction. Against old and new anarchists, and against false Marxists who muddle anarchist positions, we highlight some passages from the resolutions of the London Conference of the First International in September 1871:

Whereas:

against this collective power of the owning classes, the proletariat can act as a class only by organizing itself into a political party distinct from all the old parties formed by the owning classes and opposed to them. This organization of the proletariat into a political party is indispensable to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its final goal, the abolition of classes; the coalition of workers' forces already obtained through economic struggles must serve the proletariat as a lever in its struggle against the political power of its exploiters: the conference reminds the members of the International that the economic movement and the political action of the working class in struggle are inextricably linked to each other.

This is the line through which it passes forcibly and deterministically: the struggle for the defense of immediate interests, for the organization and mobilization of the working class in view of its supreme historical tasks—the overthrow of the capitalist State through political revolution merging into proletarian dictatorship and the transformation of the capitalist mode of production into communism. Therefore, here is the general strategy, the program, which must guide the working class also against the threat of unemployment. Within the dominant relations of production, this situation is inevitably forced to reproduce itself. The general action of capital, to the extent that its investment possibilities become increasingly universal through imperialism, finds thousands of hands at its disposal; thus, it happens that Italian workers in the North feel the pressure of the unemployed in the South, and workers in more industrially developed capitalism feel that of Indian, Spanish, Chinese workers, and generally those of underdeveloped countries, in which capital forcibly inserts itself by proletarianizing countless groups of individuals. Thus in Turin, we can witness the persistence of gangs renting low-cost labor which, through disorganization on the level of struggle and the programmatic purposes of the workers' union organization, perpetuate the worst infamies of early capitalism. The slogan of the communists in the union must therefore be: guaranteed wages for the unemployed. This perspective is not linked to the goodness or generosity of capital, but to the strenuous struggle of the workers. It is not a reform, but a conquest obtained in the centuries-old battle of the working class against its enemy: capital. It is on slogans like this that the rebirth of the class union rests. And this is the line that starts from the real conditions in which workers struggle and aims beyond them at the revolutionary outcome of the conquest of power, since without class organisms between the party and proletariat, there can never be a revolutionary recovery.