A new way to look at the minimum wage

THE introduction of a national minimum wage has people running in all directions, with some rejecting it entirely and others supporting it without qualification.

It is important to compare the introduction of a national minimum wage as a revolutionary act, on the one hand, and as a reformist act on the other.

To simply focus on whether the figure that has been set is “enough” is unhelpful.

The introduction of a minimum wage does not signify the end of workers’ exploitation.

Its introduction may only dupe the working class as to the inner workings of capitalist enterprises in particular and capitalism in general.

In this instance, it then becomes a reformist act, intended to crush workingclass struggles.

Opponents of the national minimum wage want us to believe that the money that will be used for payment of that wage in each sector will be taken from the surplus that the bosses cash out after production is complete.

But this is far from the truth. The fact is that wages are also included in the “costs of production” when companies calculate their revenue.

During necessary labour time, workers produce everything that is required to run production, including their own wages.

Wages are never paid from the bosses’ surplus.

In terms of capitalist production, therefore, wages are part of production costs.

Thus, the introduction of a national minimum wage does not signify the end of worker exploitation, and unions must take heed. The only way this introduction can be a revolutionary act is when it is administered as a step towards the full emancipation of the working class. If, however, it is done only to “cushion” workers, then the act is reformist and unhelpful. —

Thabo Thwala, Bothaville