The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-08-12

SOhdpSAOAV paA 10 VI tuC WOEAu FCNSAu'
tons. Against this, are directed all
the attacks Of the social democrats,
on the theoretical as well as on the
practical field.
Criticism Of Program.
Now what does our super-clever Bo-
ris propose? He criticises my draft
program by saying:
What is the implication Of the
assertion that the bourgeoisie raised
the wages of the workers at home and
thus gave them an interest in the
plunder? The European and Ameri-
can workers are exploited. The work
ers receive the value of their labor
power, /. O., the means Of existence
which are necessary to maintain and
reproduce their class. Hence the
means of existence must be sufficient
to maintain the laborer as laborer
in his normal standard of living and
to allow him to reproduce his kind.
BY fighting, the workers have been
able to attain a certain standard of
living. The basis for raising this
! standard was the development of pro-
ducing power. The wages of the
workers in the home countries were
not raised by the bourgeoisie for the
purpose of corrupting the super-pro-
fits Of some sort or other. Moreover,
there are no super-profits; there is
only one profit, and this is created
by surplus labor in production"
1--WE cannot speak Of super-proflts
from the Colonies"
And after he has set forth our mu-
tual stand point, he writes:
And the Communist International
is expected to elevate this class-con-
ciliatory nonsense to its program.
And the thesis covering the war and
postwar period are still more alb
surd. For the 10Th century, Bukharin
was able to use Karl Marx in a mutt
lated form. For the beginnings Of the
goth century, he used Hilferding,
whom he faithfully echoed, since
theoretically he is his Disciple. But
he has also developed few OF his
own senseless theories of state CAPT
talism."
Thus, the whole doctrine of super
profits is fundamentally anti-Marxist;
it is absurd, it is class-conciliatory
etc. Well, / don't know what class
conciliatory means. But first l want
to make brief remark. Comrade
Boris says that this doctrine is not
Marxist at all,-that it is fundamen-
tally anti-Marxist. There is no such
thing as super-profits; it is impossible
and impermissible to speak of the ex-
ploitation Of one country by another;
that is sheer nonsense. / base myself
on an author who was in no way a
petty-bourgeois run wild, I. e., the ven
cradle Karl Marx. In his Theories
of Surplus Value" Vol. 2, Part 2,
Marx says: Even a blind SOW can
find an acorn, and even a bourgeois
economist can sometimes speak the
truth" And with reference to his
famous blind SOW, Marx says:
81. B. Say, in his comments on
Constanzio'S translation of Ricardo,
made just one correct observation on
foreign trade. Profit can also be made
by cheating. One wins what the 9th.
er loses. Gains and losses within a
country cancel each other. But this
is not the case between various coun-
tries. And even according to Ricar-
dos own theory-which Say does not
notice-three working days of one
country can be exchanged forN one
working day of another Here the
law Of values must be essentially mo-
dified. Or, as highly-skilled, complex
labor within a country bears certain
proportionate unskilled, simple labor,
so the working days of one country
can bear certain proportion to the
working days Of another country. In
such case, the richer country ex-
ploits the poorer, altho the latter may
gain by the exchange. ]. S. Mill de-
veloped this theory in his Some I'm
settled Questions, etc."
From this we can infer that Com
rade Boris conceptions are somewhat
more profound than those Of a blind
sow. But of course, that is not the
decisive factor for us. The decisive
factor is that we clearly see that this
doctrine Of super-profits of richer
countries is an entirely Marxist doc
trine. Marx put that down in black
and white. But Marx proceeds from
the ypothesis-only from this hy-
pothesis-that there is a peaceful ex-
change between the countries. He
does not speak of downright plumber;
he does not speak OF the results which
must arise from the direct pressure
Of the state apparatus. What must be
said when we also take this power
full means into consideration? f'hc
question is perfectly clear and com
prehensible to any child. Only Cam.
rade Boris believes that this doctrine
is absurd.
Now for the arguments of Comrs.Ie
Boris on wages. Naturally, the bspf
geois can corrupt the working cl1.a
only by means of higher wages. That
Is entirely correct. II, for instance,
we consider the wa0ae NJ fha xvorlr aro