The historical Importance of the Independent producer

 
(Daniel Plainview and son, H.W in There Will Be Blood)

I was inspired to make this post by the great film, There Will Be Blood starring Daniel day Lewis as Daniel Plainview an Independent oil man who strikes out on his own in his quest for oil with his own labour, hence why he is initially an independent producer, until he can build up enough capital and so become his own man/capitalist. Doing this piece now will remove the need to do it later on when I review the film which is featured in my American Heartland series. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is also a great example of the class of independent producers (see my review)

 The independent producer is one that produces with his or her own labour in order to subsist or provide a living. They have no recourse to selling their labour power to others in order to live like the working classes that sell their labour to the capitalists. They can do this because they own some portion of the means of production however due to a lack of capital they must utilize their own labour to make the means of production come together and so create a use value for exchange in the marketplace. The independent producer falls in to several economic categories: the peasantry, the artisan class and those individuals that partake in an economic activity, such as creating a product or a service, where they do most of the labour thereby rendering unto themselves any gains and losses to be made from sales, or lack thereof. The Independent producer normally thrives in an economy or area of an economy where the rate of capital accumulation is low or capital does not dominate a particular area. When I review There Will Be Blood I will highlight in more detail how this is so. Capital exists to exploit the labour power of the working classes by extracting surplus value/unpaid labour time. In developed capitalist economies the wage earner is subservient to capital and the only aspect of the means of production he or she is capable of owning is the labour power from which capital extracts surplus value. In normal circumstances the majority of the working class can only live by selling their labour power to the capitalist class. The independent producer on the other hand lays claim to particular material elements utilized in the production process for many reasons such as family ownership, the first in a grab for such materials etc. This core of independent producers represent a point of expansion for capital because capital can only exist by controlling the means of production which will force the working class to sell their labour power to this great social force. The independent producer who is normally much smaller than a developed capitalist enterprise cannot be so ruled because he owns a part of the means of production and can expand until he becomes a capitalist him or herself. With a proliferation of independent producers capital must constantly use this as a point for expansion. This is the historical importance of the independent producer.

I will now highlight my point with a few historical and practical examples. Firstly, the independent producers, particularly the peasantry and tenant farmers represent the genesis for capitalist ground rent from the 15^th through to the 18^th century before capital took off. This is most evident in England whereby conquering this group of small land owners, once dominated by the landed aristocrats in the feudal economy, capital was able to expand particularly from the perspective of agricultural production. There is also the case where the tenant farmers were able to take advantages of certain circumstances in order to expand under the auspices of the landed aristocrat. It is from the peasantry, sharecroppers and tenant farmers that the first class o agricultural capitalist emerged from. This was done because they were able to accumulate substantially through the produce of their own labour and so able to employ labour for exploitation as well as through external circumstances such as the devaluation of gold that occurred with the discovery of the mines in central and South America. This devaluation would affect the tenant farmer, for instance, because the leases were made at a fixed price and so the devaluation of gold would allow for the tenant farmer to accumulate more than he normally would.  

In the towns during this period the work of the independent producer was also instrumental in encouraging capital formation.  There were the small guild of manufacturers that would normally spread from the class of artisans who labored for themselves.  With the establishment of the guilds these independent producers would take on apprentices and exploit their labour power until the apprentice became a master. The scale of production was limited but it still represented a point of expansion when capital was to take off in later years. The usurers and merchants were the first true representatives of capital because they dealt primarily in commercial capital and not full scale industrial capitalism which was yet to expand. They charged exorbitant interest for the money loaned out simply because industrial capital was not fully developed and labour productivity was relatively low. The independent producers were targeted by impotent usurious vultures because they represent the main productive element in the society at the time and so they were most likely to be targeted when loans were issued. Even the monarchs that received loans from these usurers gained could afford to do so because they taxed the independent producers. Even the merchant and the usurer were probably independent producers. Most merchants worked in their wholesale and retail shops and the usurers were primarily money lenders however one must question where the money come from and in medieval times it is most likely that these merchants and usurer inherited their wealth either through the labour of family which was primarily a clan of independent producers or by hard labour which would allow them to accumulate sufficiently in order to employ workers under them.

The colonial expedition is also an example where the independent produce laid the grounds for capitalist expansion.  The first colonists in the Americas and Asia were sent by the governments to settle wild lands and subjugate the indigenous population however when the labour of the indigenous population declined or died out there was an encouragement for citizens of the colonizing country to come and set up shop. While setting up shop these early settlers had to make a living by working the land initially and encouraging the production of certain crops for export to the motherland. The sugar trade was instrumental in the colonizing process for the British and French empires, for instance, and this encouraged the development of capital particularly through the merchants who would advance capital to the colonizers. This expansion of trade would encourage the growth in the slave trade. The Americas benefited from the colonizing process which all began with the independent producer.

In the initial stages of capitalist development the capitalist must expropriate the independent producer in order to expand for they preceded him. The Independent producer can be expropriated through a by out or by coercive means such as the strong arm of the state. When this is done the independent producer must join the ranks of the working class and so sell his labour power or seek to rebuild by trying to regain control over some area of the means of production. This is what occurs in any country that is expanding its capital base.

In an economy where capital does not thrive the independent producers lay claim to much of the economy this is largely the case in agrarian economies where the peasantry dominates the economy. In such a context  the future group of capitalists are likely to emerge from this group on the basis of how much they can accumulate through their own labour utilizing the limited means of production at their disposal. The basis for the expansion of some independent producers into capitalist production is normally dependent on the development of capital elsewhere, either in the local towns or internationally. The peasantry in the feudal economy would grow differently from the peasantry of a colonial economy dominated by the capital of the Imperial power.

Why then is the independent producer still viable in a developed capitalist economy? If capitalism is fully developed then where would room be for the independent producer? The independent producer represents the point of expansion for capital. Capital has to constantly valorize itself in order to continually accumulate. In a developed capitalist economy the independent producer normally created the next big product or service that will allow for this point of expansion. Capital uses the universities and investments in scientific projects to aid in the production of new commodities. The product will still come from individual initiative within a particular social context where a new need must be satisfied. This is the  first basis for the independent producer. The independent producer normally creates a new product that does well in the market and creates a new demand. when this product does well those who have capital invest in the product in order for it to expand its reach into new markets and to improve the production method. The independent producer eventually loses his distinctive edge when he or she becomes capitalist or sells out or has to deal with other shareholders. He or she  eventually becomes known as a founding member  and his or her labour is not sufficient to continue the enterprise and other specialists will enter the field and take over as the independent producer simply looks on and increases his profits. If or she is not savvy it is likely that the individual will be thrown out by business executives.

This concludes my brief discussion on the independent producer.