Professional Documents
Culture Documents
He Quintessence of Marxism
He Quintessence of Marxism
He Quintessence of Marxism
popular presentation
Karl Korsch
Platypus Review 152 | December 2022-January 2023
Karl Korsch’s “The Quintessence of Marxism” (1922), a text made reference to by Korsch
in his “Introduction to the Critique of the Gotha Program” (1922), appears to have been
translated into English only once: serialized in the pages of the Australian Workers’
Weekly, the official organ of the Australian Communist Party, across seven issues in July
and August of 1924. The translation was prepared by Guido Baracchi, a founder of that
[1]
— The Translator.
4. In what does the social unfreedom (oppression and exploitation) of the workers
(proletarians) consist in capitalist society?
The bourgeois freedoms (e.g., freedom of trade, free access to education, free franchise,
etc.) are of small avail to the proletarian — because, in capitalist society, he is hindered
from their utilization by his class position.
Illustration: 1. “The law forbids all, with equal majesty, the rich, as well as the poor, to
sleep under the bridge!” (Anatole France).
2. Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, Chapter 5, Nos. 13–
17.
5. On what is the class character of the capitalist social order based?
It has its roots in the capitalist economic order, which (according to the “materialist
conception of history and society” of Karl Marx) forms the foundation of the entire social
order.
Superstructure:
Foundation:
Ideas in the minds of men.
Law, Morality, Customs.
Church, School, Free Association.
Family, State.
Economic Order (Economy).
8. How is it that the capitalist class can oppress and exploit the proletarian class?
Marx answers: “From the dependence of labor upon nature it results that the man who
owns nothing but his labor-power must, in all states of society and civilisation, be the
slave of those persons who have acquired possession of the material objects without
which labor is impossible. The dispossessed can only work, and therefore, can only live,
upon sufferance.” (“Criticism of the Gotha Programme”).
Illustration: Comparison of the worker, who sells his labor-power for wages, with the
peasant or craftsman of the Middle Ages, who used his labor-power productively, and
sold or consumed his products. Both live “by their labor.”
9. In what forms is the oppression and exploitation of the working class by the
capitalist class accomplished?
The answer follows from the Marxian theory of Value and Surplus Value.
[The above matter is being used by Comrade Baracchi in his Economic class held in the
Communist Hall every Wednesday evening. The matter will ultimately be published in
pamphlet form and will be of great service in assisting to train young students. – Ed.]
Goods are almost all produced for exchange (sale), therefore as “commodities” for the
“market” (trade); they “circulate” as “commodities” before they are utilized and consumed
as “articles of use” (means of circulation: “money”). The “labor-power” of the proletarian
is, in the capitalist economic order, also sold as a “commodity” by its natural possessor
on the “labor-market,” before it is used and consumed by its purchaser, the capitalist, in
his factory.
Marks
2,000,000
500,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
5,500,000
15. How high are the actual “costs” for a year’s product?
For raw materials and stock
Marks
1,000,000
2,000,000
200,000
3,200,000
16. What would the undertaker say if the sold product really brought in only the
costs?
He would say: “I have made nothing.”
Supplement: He would even say: “I have lost —” and would mean by that the “interest”
which, if he had borrowed the money he would have had to pay to the moneylender (e.g.,
the bank), and which, even now, he puts down, as his own banker on his own account.
The reasons why the capitalist “undertaker” must reckon the payment of interest on his
money invested in his own factory along with the “capitalist costs of production” of his
annual product will be given later.
17. Would the undertaker be satisfied if, in addition, the sold product brought in
his wages (i.e., the return for his activity in directing the factory)?
The answer follows, if one imagines the undertaking transformed into a joint-stock
company with a share-capital of 5,500,000 marks. Then the directors’ salaries, also, are
put in the “wages and salaries account.” But the capitalist undertaker — that is, here, the
shareholders — would still ask: “Where is our dividend?”
18. In reality, what does the sold product normally bring in?
In the capitalist economy, the sold product brings in, under normal conditions, more than
the costs — e.g., instead of 3,200,000 marks, actually 5,200,000 marks; i.e., besides the
“costs” a “balance” of 2,000,000 marks. The total value-sum which the capitalist has
“invested” in the factory has, therefore, increased in one year from 5,500,000 marks to
2,300,000 marks plus 5,200,000 marks, equal to 7,500,000 marks. The capital has put on
“surplus-value” to the extent of 2,000,000 marks.
In place of the direct appropriation of the “surplus value” created by the surplus labor of
their workers, on the part of individual private owners of actual means of production
(factories), we have, therefore, in the first instance, an (invisible!) appropriation of the
total social surplus value by the social collective capitalist (the capitalist class as
possessor of the total social capital). The single fractions of the total social surplus value
created by the total social labor are then allotted among the different members in
different forms, and, in consequence, manifest themselves as capitalist “profit” or as
other capitalist “income,” frequently in quite other places than the “profit and loss
account” of the particular factory in which they were produced.
Illustration: Today, for example, the surplus value created by the surplus labor of the
railway workers manifests itself as profit of the coal and iron producers. [Another
specifically German illustration – G.B.]
Marx says: “The capitalists (i.e., here, the members of the capitalist class) participate in
the surplus value like the shareholders of a company, according to the magnitude of their
proprietary share (in the total social capital).”
25. In what forms do the individual members of the capitalist class obtain their
share of the total social surplus value?
In the different forms of “capital-profit,” and, in addition to that, in the form of an
ostensible labor-income (return for “unproductive” activities and services).
26. What are the most important forms in which capital-profit appears?
The most important is the undertaker’s profit, which falls to the possessors of the actual
capitalist undertakings. Next to that stand interest and ground-rent, as the second most
important forms. “Interest” is drawn by the possessors of money-capital, who lend it out;
“ground rent” by the possessors of ground and soil, who rent or lease it.
Illustration: In our example, let the undertaker himself have put up only a part (500,000
mks) of his working capital (5,500,000 mks). Let him have borrowed 3,000,000 mks, and
rented a piece of land with buildings (worth 2,000,000 mks). Let him have sold his annual
product (value 5,200,000 mks) not directly to its final purchasers, but to a middleman,
who has paid him 4,700,000 mks for it. Then the excess (2,000,000 mks) realised over
and above the actual costs by the sale of the annual product, divides itself (at 10 per
cent, rate of interest) [That is, 10 per cent, interest, and rent equal to 10 per cent on
2,000,000 mks – G.B.] into four parts: 300,000 mks go as “interest” to the moneylender;
200,000 mks as rental (“ground rent”) to the owner of the piece of land; 500,000 mks as
(gross) profit to the middleman; only the remainder (1,000,000 mks) is left to the
undertaker as “undertaker’s profit”; from this he deducts another 50,000 mks as “payment
of interest” on his “own” money-capital of 500,000 mks put by him into his factory
(herewith cf. Question 16).
27. In what forms do those members of the capitalist class who are not participant
in “capital-profit” in any form, obtain their share of the total social surplus value?
Participant in the surplus value are, in the capitalist society, besides the drawers of
capital-profit (Question 26), all those sections that perform no “productive” labor (king,
cleric, professor, prostitute, soldier, etc.). These sections pursue an activity which may be
strenuous and, in some cases, even necessary, or useful for the maintenance and further
development of human society, but is, in the economic sense of the word, no productive
labor (i.e., labor creating economic values). Accordingly, they, too, live on the “surplus
value” produced by the surplus-labor of the “productive” workers.
The forms in which these sections get their share of the surplus value conveyed to them,
are extremely numerous.
All these harmonies between the private interest of the individual capitalists and the
social collective interest, exist, however, only within certain limits. In the competitive
struggle of the capitalist profit-economy, the individual capitalist cannot be primarily
concerned with how many useful products are in all produced through the use of the
various means of production and labor-powers, but rather with what amount of money-
value falls to him as his private share in the distribution of the total social income. Where
the interest of the individual capitalists, in a realisation of their private capital-property as
advantageous (profitable) as possible, no longer harmonises with the interest of the
totality in an employment of all existing means of production and labor-powers as fruitful
(productive) as possible, the capitalist mode of production and social order becomes,
from a lever of economic and social progress, a fetter: it then prevents both the most
productive possible use of the means of production and labor-powers existing at the time,
and also the further development of the productive power of social labor.
This antagonism between the private interest in profitableness and the social interest
in productivity comes out especially clearly in the two-sidedness of the concepts
“capital” and “value.” From the standpoint of the individual capitalist not only actual
“means of production,” through employment of which actual articles of use can be
produced (cf. Question 7) appear as “capital,” but every possession through which he is
put in the position to appropriate a definite part of the total social income. For example a
sum of money (in paper notes), a war-loan bond, a right to the exploitation of any natural
or artificial monopoly (turnpike right, bridge toll, natural and artificial waterways, railway
traffic). According to the Marxist conception, on the other hand, all these possessions are
only “fictitious” (unreal) capital, since, from the standpoint of society, only the actual
means of production can be regarded as “real” capital.
For the same reasons, there also arise in the capitalist society the deviations of prices
from values mentioned in Question 12. In the capitalist “price” of commodities, not only
their “real value” (the social labor embodied in them) manifests itself, but also their
“fictitious value,” which they appear to have for the reason that, in the distribution of the
total social income, their possession brings an advantage to their possessor. For
example, unworked ground and soil, as well as share rights in any fictitious capital, have,
from the standpoint of society, no real “value,” are, however, in the capitalist society, a
profitable possession for their possessor.
(1) The already (Questions 28–30) pointed out inner contradictions and two-sidednesses
of the capitalist economic and social order have, in the course of time, not become
softened but sharpened; and that —
(2) The antithesis between the exploiting capitalist class and the exploited wage working
class (Questions 2–8) has also become ever greater.
Proof: (a) The economic crises periodically recurring since the beginning of the capitalist
era.
(b) The insatiable striving of all capitalist nations after new outlets for their goods on the
world market.
(c) The capitalist Powers’ antagonisms of interest arising herefrom, and, after complete
partition of the world (about 1900), appearing in more acute form, and their results:
militarism, imperialism, national wars and world war.
(d) The progressive national and international organisation of the proletariat as a class.
(All further particulars relating to these questions in the Communist Manifesto, Lenin and
Rosa Luxemburg.)
32. Are there pure economic causes which must, with objective necessity, lead to
the downfall of the capitalist economic and social order?
Were the capitalist mode of production to extend itself over the whole world-economy, so
that, finally, there were none but capitalists and wage-workers in the entire world, then, to
be sure, a moment would have to come when, from pure economic causes, this economy
could no longer function. With the mere approach to such a condition, the divergence
between the private interests of the individual capitalists and the social collective interest
(see Question 30) would become so great that the capitalist mode of production would,
as a result, be unable to fulfill its social functions any longer. Since the production of
surplus-value and ever more surplus-value forms the inner impelling motive of the entire
capitalist production, and the attainment, in the form of profit, of as large a share as
possible in this surplus value forms the impelling motive of all the individual capitalist
producers, the production of the articles of use necessary for the continued existence
and development of society is, in the capitalist society, only carried on at all by the
individual capitalists as a process of capital-realisation for the purpose of capital-
increase. It is therefore necessary for the continued existence of the capitalist mode of
production that a social “surplus-product” be not only produced, but can also be disposed
of by the individual capitalists as a commodity. Then only can the capitalist producers
realise (turn into money) themselves in the form of “profits” the “surplus-value” contained
in the surplus product. Then only can they renew and augment their working capital,
therefore continue their production on the same and a larger scale. This realisation of
the profit by disposal of the surplus-product as a commodity on the capitalist
commodity market becomes, however, always more difficult, the more the capitalists are
dependent on selling their wares solely to one another and to their wage-workers. With
an approach to this condition, a chronic “over-production” would set in for lack of solvent
buyers, the reproduction and accumulation of all the individual capitals would come to a
standstill, and, finally, the continued production of goods would, in the capitalist form,
become altogether impossible.
Illustration: Bellamy’s “Parable of the Water Tank.” [See next issue of the Workers’
Weekly. — G.B.]
In reality, however, the human society of today is still far removed from consisting of
capitalists and wage-workers only. Capitalism has only the tendency to transform the
whole world “in its own image”; this tendency can, however, completely realise itself on a
world-scale only after a long time. (All further particulars, Communist Manifesto, Part I.,
paragraphs 28 and 53, and in R. Luxemburg.)
33. What other social forces are there, which can bring about the revolutionising of
the capitalist economic and social order and realise Communism?
The class struggle of the proletariat in all its forms, the forcible overthrow of the existing
economic and social order, and the dictatorship of the proletariat can begin the
realisation of Communism as soon as the development of the productive power of social
labor is so far advanced that a Communist economic and social order is economically
possible. This condition does not first arise when the continued existence of the
capitalist social order has, for purely economic reasons, become altogether impossible,
but when the capitalist social order, and capitalist private property in particular, begins to
become a real hindrance to the further development of the social productive power. This
condition (the “economic ripeness” of society for the transition to the Communist mode of
production) has long ago been attained by us. There is, then, still lacking for the
realisation of Communism only the complete carrying out of the organisation of the
proletariat as a class capable of social and political action; the final proof that it really
possesses the requisite “organisational and ideological ripeness” for this, the proletariat
can give only by the revolutionary act itself (cf. Communist Manifesto, Part I., paragraph
37 to end of part).
34. Can the shortcomings and contradictions of the capitalist system be mitigated
and removed by a better organisation of the capitalist economy and by social-
political reforms?
All attempts at a better organisation of the capitalist mode of production and distribution
(cartels, syndicates, trusts, State Capitalism, co-operatives, etc.) and at social-
political reforms, find, within the capitalist society, an insurmountable barrier in the
capitalist profit-interest. They are, in it, practicable only in so far as they do not seriously
endanger this profit-interest, upon which, in the last resort, the activity of the entire
capitalist economy depends. They can, therefore, only change the forms in which the
capitalist private owners conduct their competitive struggle for as large private shares as
possible in the result of the common exploitation of the working class; they can, however,
never put an end to this competitive struggle itself, or to the antithesis between capitalists
and proletarians.
(The best presentation of these relations is given by R. Luxemburg: “Social Reform or
Revolution?” (1898-1900).) [4] [Not yet translated from the German. – G.B.]
35. Can the transition from the capitalist to the Communist social order be
accomplished gradually, without class struggle, revolution and dictatorship?
History teaches that a ruling and privileged class has, hitherto, never voluntarily
surrendered its position of predominance. That this cannot happen, follows also from the
materialist conception of history, according to which not the consciousness (ideas, good
will, insight) of men determines their existence, but, inversely, their social existence their
consciousness (see Question 6).
For the rest, the means by which the class struggle for the realisation of Communism is
to be conducted, do not stand fixed schematically once and for all, but must be most
closely adapted to the different conditions existing in different countries and at different
times.
(Further particulars on this in all the writings and speeches of Lenin.)
36. Is it a certainty that the present struggle of the classes must end in the victory
of the proletarian class?
According to the theory of Marx, the class struggle has, in hitherto existing history, each
time ended “in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of
the contending classes” (cf. Communist Manifesto, Part I., paragraph 2).
37. What, then, must each individual proletarian and Communist, who has “worked
himself up to a theoretical understanding of the whole historical movement,” do
for the realisation of Communism?
He must take active part in the class struggle in all its forms, and, in particular, range
himself with the Communist Party of his country, in order thereby to become a member
of the world-embracing organisation, the “Communist International,” which has begun
to lead by deeds the struggle for the realisation of Communism, and to organise on a
world-scale.
When the misery and the complaints of the people increased, the capitalists dipped their
fingers in the tank and sprinkled drops upon the people. These drops, however, which
were called charity, tasted very bitter. Then they set up great baths and fountains, and
also made other arrangements for their pleasure, in order to waste the superfluity of
water. In consequence of this the crisis ended, and the labor could again be taken up;
when, however, the population greatly increased, a crisis again broke out. This repeated
itself ever and again. All discoveries and inventions, all advances of the traffic and of skill,
might increase and diversify ever so much the luxury of the rich, the people had,
nevertheless, for the most part to remain thirsty, and sank again and again into
unemployment and misery “because of the great glut in goods” (as was said). To
conclude, it has at length arisen, abolished private property in the soil and in the sources
of water, and placed this property in the hands of the collectivity or the State; thereby the
preposterous and pernicious profit principle and, with this, the forcible limitation of
production and all misery have then been eliminated and universal welfare established. |
P
[1]
Workers’ Weekly issues of 1924: July 11, July 18, July 25, August 1, August 8, August
15, and August 22. Accessed via the National Library of Australia at
<https://trove.nla.gov.au/>.
[2]
Published in 1919. See Karl Korsch, “What is Socialization? A Program of Practical
Socialism,” trans. Frankie Denton and Douglas Kellner, New German Critique 6 (Autumn
1975): 60–81.
[3]
Georg von Charasoff, Karl Marx über die menschliche und kapitalistiche Wirtschaft:
Eine neue Darstellung seiner Lehre (Berlin: Hans Bondy, 1909). (Hans Bondy, rather
than Ladyschnikow, appears to be the publisher.)
[4]
Rosa Luxemburg, “Reform or Revolution?,” available online at
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/>.