Service Sector Employees And The Working Class
[Since last few decades, number of employment in the Service Sector has been increased substantially & this section of the workforce is often taking an active role in some struggles. It has been a matter of discussion among the Marxists whether this section of workforce can be called as part of the proletariat; not only opinions are varied and disputed among the Marxist-Leninists, in the name of Marxian Studies, lots of confusion are surfacing in the discussions on the issue. So, we felt it urgent to formulate a concrete and well-thought position on this question. And, for the sake of an in-depth investigation, a team was formed on behalf of FAPP few months back. This article is the product of investigation of that team. We hope, this article will serve as a tool for deeper understanding on the subject. - Ed Board, FAPP]
A notion seems to prevail amongst different sections of the society. The 'classical' worker, usually conceived to be involved in industrial production of commodities, has become nearly obsolete in the present capitalist system. Those who believe in this idea also claim that the number of workers engaged in industrial production is rapidly dwindling and consequently, we should review and revisit the relevance of the Marxist-Leninist analysis of working class leadership in the revolutionary transformation of the society. According to their logic, how can a section of the society, so overwhelmingly small act as the leader of social revolution and shape the course of history? On the other hand, another group of people have argued that although the number of industrial workers has diminished in contemporary time, the number of people involved in a myriad of services as opposed to conventional industrial work, has increased substantially and such people are part of the modern working class. According to them, the employees of the service sectors should be considered as part of the proletariat just like other industrial workers in the context of their role for emancipating the society from capitalist exploitation. In response to the former section the latter group believes that despite the decline in industrial workers the fight against capitalism will continue through the modern working class consisting primarily of the service sector employees.
In the above backdrop it becomes imperative to understand whether the service sector employees can be considered as a part of the working class from a Marxist-Leninist analytical standpoint. Needless to mention, the issue in itself is far from being of mere pedantic denomination. It has important implications in terms of deciding day-to-day political strategy for organizing the working class movement. In this article we have attempted to address this issue. Additionally, at the end we have also discussed whether the number of industrial workers is rapidly decreasing and whether the role of the working class as a leader of social revolution is dependent on its numerical majority.
Some fundamental theoretical aspects - why is the proletariat revolutionary?
Are the employees of the service sector an integral part of the proletariat? What is the yardstick to judge the proletarian character of any section of the working population? Is this characterization only from an economic standpoint? In order to address these questions we must have a clear idea about the proletarian class itself. In particular, we should know why the proletariat is the only consistently revolutionary class in a capitalist society. This answer should give us the yardstick to judge whether the new formations of working people in modern capitalist society are potentially revolutionary or not. Our approach, therefore, is to understand the general and specific characteristics that endow the working class with this very special historical role - the role of the revolutionary class. Primarily based on this yardstick we will try to identify whether any specific group like the service sector workers can be considered as proletarian. In this framework we will also try to understand whether the modern working class possesses the same revolutionary significance that objectively defines their leading role in the struggle to overthrow capitalism.
Who are the proletariat?
In Marx's words "Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital."[1](Emphasis ours) Therefore, the simplest understanding of a 'labourer' in a capitalist society is one who produces surplus value for the capitalists and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. From the economic standpoint, the working class in capitalist era is supposed to comprise of people who sell their labour power to the private owners, earn wages for themselves and do not possess any ownership of any means of production. This particular relation between private property and a wage labourer in a capitalist society presents the proletariat as the antithesis of private property.Quoting Marx: "Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the antithesis, self-satisfied private property.The proletariat, on the contrary, is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby it's opposite, private property, which determines its existence, and which makes it proletariat.It is the negative side of the antithesis?The proletariat executes the sentence that private property pronounces on itself by producing the proletariat, just as it executes the sentence that wage-labor pronounces on itself by producing wealth for others and poverty for itself."[2]
The role of proletariat in the abolition of private property
What is there in this particular proletarian position that bestows the proletariat with the ability and power to abolish private property? The very relation between the proletariat and private property compels the proletariat to annihilate private property: The proletariat, for its existence, has to produce for capital. The continuous accumulation of this capital manifests as private property. Thus the creation of private property necessitates the existence of the proletariat. On the other hand, the existence of proletariat is associated with the creation of wealth for others and poverty for itself. If the proletariat wants to change its own impoverished condition, it has to change the capitalist production relation since this relation pushes the proletariat and the entire class towards more and more impoverishment. The abolition of this condition therefore is tantamount to the abolition of proletarian class and the production relation that gives rise to private property. The antagonism between private property and proletariat is therefore inherent in the very relation between them. The antagonism manifests as violent clashes when centralization of the means of production and socialization of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. At this stage "?This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated."1
Contradiction between socialized production and capitalistic appropriation
The progress of capitalist society converts all production to more and more socialized production, that is, production which is only possible through the joint action of hundreds or thousands of proletarian producers. In course of this transformation, all kinds of small producers are gradually obliterated. Based on the labour of millions and millions of proletariat the production becomes socialized. The means of production also undergo a transformation. The machinery becomes such that it is only operable through the joint action of all the producers. This is a very important feature which sows the seeds of the next society in capitalism, and prepares the proletarian for the transformation. The proletarian feels most acutely the contradiction of private ownership with this massively socialized production. As a part of this gigantic socialized production process,s/he can only aspire to and prepare for social ownership of these socialized productive forces. As an aside, it is this very school of socialized production which in general prevents the individual proletarian to aspire to own these productive forces individually, and rather gives birth to the aspiration of social ownership of these productive forces.
The very nature of socialized production compels an individual worker to rely on collective work rather than individual accomplishments and capabilities. Completion of some work is no longer dependent on individual achievement. Large scale combination of working people in factories and industries also increases their ability to organize and their striking power. Consequently, the proletariat as a class acquires the strength to strike the capitalist production system. It acquires the ability to control large-scale production like power, rail, communication and even industries involved in production of modern arms and ammunitions. Hence, the bourgeoisie effectively hands over the striking power to the proletariat, by means of which the proletariat as a class can most effectively strike against the capitalists.
A particular characteristic of the proletariat associated with socialized production
Due to the above characteristics of the working class (dependence on socialized labour) they generally do not have the potential of being allured by upward mobility to join the managerial class. It may be noted here that we are discussing about their overall class character and not that of any isolated individual worker. Their class position continuously drags them towards more and more impoverishment, towards the social underbelly. "Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself."[3]As Marx explains: "?the realization of labour appears as negation to such an extent that the worker is negated to the point of starvation. The objectification appears as a loss of the objects to such an extent that the worker is deprived of the most necessary objects of life and labour. Moreover, labour itself becomes an object of which he can make himself master only by the greatest effort and with incalculable interruptions. Appropriation of the object appears as alienation to such an extent that the more objects the worker produces the less he possesses and the more he comes under the sway of his product, of capital."[4]The ever increasing mass of capital in the hands of the capitalists correspondingly increases the impoverishment of the workers. The worker is faced with the contradiction that the more s/he produces the poorer s/he becomes. It is impossible for individual workers to fight against this rule of capital, impossible for them to ensure the necessary material means for life and labour without struggle. The proletariat is compelled to fight unitedly as a class. For this reason the proletariat is different from any other section of the society.
Engels discussed the above aspect in his book -The Condition of The Working Class in England: "The law which reduces the value of labour-power to the value of the necessary means of subsistence, and the other law which reduces its average price, as a rule, to the minimum of those means of subsistence, these laws act upon them with the irresistible force of an automatic engine which crushes them between its wheels."[5] Therefore, this law implies that the proletariat is continuously dragged towards the lowest stratum of the society. And this particular characteristic induces the proletariat to incessantly revolt against the capitalist system. At the primary stage such revolts are directed against their existing socio-economic condition, but soon they are pushed to get organized against the overall power of capital. This process as it proceeds, pushes the worker to revolt and ultimately to "expropriate the expropriators." Continuous impoverishment is an expression of the contradiction between proletariat and capital. Hence, the proletariat cannot remain content with their existing economic condition. They have to continually fight to restrict degradation of the minimum requirement for their subsistence. The impoverishment of the workers is therefore, an important school where the proletarian is prepared for the socialist transformation.
Some other characteristics related to the revolutionary potential of proletariat
a. It is well known that workers of large-scale factory industries are historically considered as the most resolute leaders of the proletarian movement.[6] The highly socialised nature of the production makes the large-scale factory workers incapable (except as exceptions) of aspiring to individual ownership of means of production or becoming a petty commodity producer. This is one of the reasons why the workers of large-scale industries constitute the most resolute and potent force for leading the socialist revolution. The process of capitalist production also disciplines, unites and organizes the proletariat through the very process of the ever increasing socialization of the means of production. This school prepares the proletariat for the upcoming battle for the socialist transformation of society.
b. A worker is divorced from all participation in the design of the product, all decisions regarding how and how much will be produced. They are denied of any participation in the decision making process in capitalist production. Consequently, s/he becomes alienated from the product, the process of production, and therefore from him/herself. This contradiction too pushes the workers towards ending the capitalist order and ushering in social control of the means of production.
c. The capitalist production process obliterates all distinctions based on caste, race, religion, gender, etc within the proletarians as it reduces all to the status of wageworker in the eyes of the capitalist. A worker is merely a seller of labour-power and the capitalist is the buyer. It is the common fate of all working people, of any religion, colour, gender, race or caste, to sell their labour power and be exploited by the capitalist. It is in this school that the unity of the proletariat as a class is forged and prepared for the socialist transformation.
Hence we see that in addition to being a wage earner producing surplus value for the capitalists and deprived of any ownership of any means of production, the proletariat by virtue of its objective position, also possess other attributes which bestows him/her with the revolutionary potential. The proletariat is therefore, the only class which is compelled to change this system in an attempt to free itself from abject exploitation.As a part of this class, an individual worker cannot aspire for individual freedom;s/he has to free her/him-self as a class from her/his historical position. Here again we should remember Marx's word of caution: "It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today."2 (emphasis ours) The proletariat thus, is not a mere social or economic category of people in such-and-such income group and such-and-such occupations, etc., but rather a real, historically developed entity, with its own self-consciousness and means of collective action. More importantly, the relation between an individual worker or a group of workers and the class is not of non-dialectical nature, in which an individual with this or that attribute is or is not a member of the class. Rather, individuals are connected to a class by multiple threads through which they participate in the general social division of labour and the struggle over the distribution of surplus value.[7]
Productive and unproductive labour:
Many previous works on understanding the working class have so far remained disproportionately focussed on the discussions on productive and unproductive labour. Productive and unproductive labour was dealt in details by Marx to explain the process of capitalist accumulation: "The difference between productive and unproductive labour is important as regards accumulation, since one of the conditions for the reconversion of surplus value into capital is that the exchange should be with productive labour alone."[8] Nevertheless, a brief discussion on productive and unproductive labour is presented to relate this distinction with our understanding of the revolutionary proletariat.
Briefly, productive labour is "labour which is directly exchanged with capital"[9] i.e., labour which produces surplus value i.e. the labour which the capitalist buys as his/her variable capital for the creating exchange values. Unproductive labour on the other hand is that labour "which is not exchanged with capital, but directly with revenue, i.e., with wages or profit"[10]
The labour of all kinds that is utilized for satisfaction of personal needs (including household work) is therefore, unproductive. The labour of a tailor who works independently and stitches cloths for others, or that of a private tutor, or of a physician who attends patients privately, are all examples of unproductive labour, since their labours are exchanged with revenue and not with capital. Such labours obviously produce no surplus value. However, when exactly the same kind of labour is utilized for capitalist production, for example, a person stitching clothes in a garment factory, or a teacher teaching in a school owned by a capitalist, or a doctor serving in a private hospital and earning wages, are all performing productive labour, since these labours are directly exchanged with capital and hence are utilized in generating surplus value.
While discussing the process and costs of circulation of capital, Marx had to deal this issue in detail. It is obvious that transformation of the forms of capital from commodities into money and from money into commodities is impossible without selling and buying of commodities. This entire process involves labour of different kind including labour for packaging, storage, book-keeping, etc., but such kinds of labours neither produce any new product nor create any additional surplus value. Thus, capitalist production, necessarily involves expenditure of labour power and labour time that neither creates value nor product. What Marx refers to as "faux frais of commodity production,"10 is performed by wage earning people having no ownership of any means of production and performing necessary work in the collective process of surplus generation, yet redundant and unproductive from the perspective of creation of value.
Capital goes through three phases in its process of reproduction: money capital, productive capital and commodity capital. The first and third phases represent the 'process of circulation of capital,' and the second phase, the 'process of production of capital.' Productive capital, in this schema, is not opposed to unproductive capital, but to capital in the process of circulation. Marx distinguishes labour hired by 'productive'capital or more precisely by capital in the phase of production, from labour which is hired by commodity or money capital, or more precisely capital in the phase of circulation. Only the first type of labour is 'productive,' not because it produces material goods, but because it is hired by 'productive' capital, i.e. capital in the phase of production. The productive character of labour is an expression of the productive character of capital. The movement of the phases of capital determines the characteristics of the labour which they hire.
Productive labour is associated with productive capital, in the process of creation of surplus value. The same action can be productive or unproductive labour i.e. may or may not generate surplus-value, i.e. could be part of production or of circulation, depending on the social form of the activity. Labour with the same content can be either productive or unproductive.[11]Adding to the examples cited before, a plumber working in a factory and earning wages, is rendering productive labour, while the same plumber when comes to fix household pipelines, will render unproductive labour as in the later case the payment is made from revenue and is not an investment of capital for generating profit.
From the above discussion on productive and unproductive labour we may summarize the following: a productive labourer is a wage-earner without any ownership of any means of production, producing commodities; specifically, surplus-value for the capitalists. Unproductive labour, by contrast, does not produce surplus-value. Productive or unproductive character of labour cannot be discernedfrom the nature of its product or from the nature of the work performed. Productive labour does not necessarily lead to the production of material goods or objects.
But the question is how does this distinction relate to the proletarian character or the revolutionary potential of the proletariat? It would be wrong to blindly classify productive workers as proletarians while a non-productive worker as non-proletarian, for this distinction is purely an economic stratification to understand capitalist accumulation. Understanding the proletarian potential of a particular section of the workforce involved either in rendering productive or unproductive labour, therefore, rests on the other characteristics discussed before that objectively directs the working class to lead the struggle against private property.
Productive and unproductive labour and the proletarian character
It is wrong to try and classify proletariat based on economic criteria only. As the leader of the socialist revolution the primary characteristics of the proletariat is on the basis of its objective revolutionary potential. Mere categorization of workers as productive or non-productive does not define the revolutionary proletariat. In order to understand the proletarian potential we need to look into the specific details of their relationship with capital and judge on the basis of the yardstick of revolutionary potential.
In this context, it is straight forward to realize the absence of revolutionary potential within workers involved in personal services, not because they are rendering unproductive labour but because the necessary conditions for imbibing the revolutionary characteristics are mostly absent in such cases. For all cases, private practitioners - doctors to sweepers, where a labourer renders personal service, i.e. whenever their labour is exchanged with revenue, arguably the most important criterion - contradiction with capital is absent, i.e.the antagonism between private property and the proletariat is not fully realized in such a relationship. Without delving into further details, this section of labourers, rendering personal services can be excluded from the revolutionary proletariat.
However, such simplistic conclusions cannot be drawn for workers rendering unproductive labour while being part of the capitalist production system. The so-called unproductive workers who play an essential role in the process of circulation cannot be clubbed as into a single entity as far as their revolutionary potential is concerned. For example, the managerial section, the supervisors, clerks and executives, who are wage-earners and divorced of any ownership of means of production, constitute a section of the workforce with minimal revolutionary potential. This is because the contradiction with private-property and this particular section does not manifestas an antagonism that leads towards a struggle to oust the rule of capital. Such sections are hired by the capitalists to innovate and implement the exploitative machinery on the lowest strata of the workers. By virtue of the specific kind of relation they have with the private owners, this section is usually ripe with aspirations for individual upward mobility which definitely is a major impediment for the struggle against the capitalists. Thus such groups are generally found to align with the private owners in order to satisfy their individual aspirations which clearly delineate them from the proletariat.
Another important category in this regard is the workers involved in production in the state-owned factories. Apparently, they are not producing surplus value for the capitalists and hence are not producing productively. But are they not producing commodities that are exchanged in the market just like any other commodity? In a capitalist production system, the mere presence of state-owned factories does not ascribe them with any special status that allows operation outside the ambit of capital. Although, the workers involved in such production are not producing surplus for a particular capitalist, yet they certainly constitute a force with revolutionary proletarian fervour. The railways - the largest employer in India, ship building works, aviation industry, etc. - all fall under this category. Historically too, the struggles of the workers of these sectors, point towards their revolutionary potential.
At this stage, we will not proceed further in categorization of the revolutionary proletariat, but would like to point out again that the proletariat is not a mere economic category of people having certain economic attributes. It is a class that has some objective social and political characteristics in addition to the economic attributes. Individuals and groups are linked to the class via multiple threads. This relationship of individuals or groups with the class is of course dialectical, and the class as a whole is revolutionary.
Some general thoughts on labour associated with service work:
Understandably, 'services,' as it is understood today, was inconceivable during Marx's time. Services, at that point of time in history usually implied personal services, which was dealt by Marx in some details. He used the term 'services' essentially to mean a particular kind of activity: "Service is in general only an expression for the particular use value of labour, in so far as this is useful not as a material object but as an activity. Do utfacias, facioutfacias, faciout des, do utdesaahere ["I give that you may make", "I make that you may make", "I make that you may give", "I give that you may give]......"16
In Grundrisse, while discussing certain types of non-capitalistic services which were predominant, Marx states: "The exchange of objectified labour for living labour does not yet constitute either capital on one side or wage labour on the other. The entire class of so-called services from the bootblack up to the king falls into this category... In bourgeois society itself, all exchange of personal services for revenue - including labour for personal consumption, cooking, sewing etc., garden work etc., up to and including all of the unproductive classes, civil servants, physicians, lawyers, scholars etc. - belongs under this rubric, within this category. All menial servants etc., by means of their services - often coerced - all these workers, from the least to the highest, obtain for themselves a share of the surplus product, of the capitalist's revenue."[12]
Although, Marx essentially talks about personal services in this discussion, there are couple of other important features to be noted as well. First, such kind of labour does not constitute capital on one side and wage labourer on the other. When someone consults a physician or lawyer or appoints a servant, s/he is consuming use value but no value is created in the process. Money, if exchanged in the process of acquiring services, acts as revenue and this exchange "does not posit money as capital, nor, therefore, labour as wage labour in the economic sense."14 Second, it should be noted that Marx mentions "...up to and including all of the unproductive classes" and cites civil servants and scholars as examples. Neither scholars nor civil servants render personal services and they draw salaries, yet Marx designates them as 'unproductive classes' simply because they do not produce commodities or surplus value.
The bourgeois definition of service and the analysis of labour
According to the bourgeois economists, service defines a wide variety of activities that usually do not result in the production of material objects or good. Considering, this definition of service,[i] the heterogeneity of activities included therein is quite striking. The service sector, as classified in national accounts and in the non-Marxian economics, includes activities with completely different relationships to the production, realisation, appropriation, and distribution of surplus-value. It spans from capitalist to non-capitalist work, and include both commodity-producing and circulatory activities. What is common to services is arguably less important, from a Marxian perspective, than the differences among the various types of service activities.[13]
Let us consider a couple of examples. Generation and distribution of electric power is considered as a service by bourgeois economists. However, the production and distribution of electricity is inextricably associated with the creation and appropriation of surplus, albeit not in the form of any material object. Workers associated in these processes are producing electricity as a commodity and are organized and exploited in capitalist terms. Naturally, such workers possess all the criteria necessary for classification as revolutionary proletariat.
Transportation is another important sector that is usually regarded as a service by capitalists. Transportation of commodities in most cases is necessary to provide them in a form available for consumption. According to Marx: "[T]he transport industry forms on the one hand an independent branch of production and thus a separate sphere of investment of productive capital."10 Coal is no more of use to the consumer at the pithead than it is at the bottom of the mine. Thus the transport industry exploits its workforce as much as mine owners do miners. Transport of goods is therefore, as much productive process as actual production and the workers involved in such a process are definitely part of the proletarian class.
Following the above discussion we see that a substantial section of the so-called 'service sector' employees (in accordance with the bourgeois definition) are actually exploited in a capitalist way. Besides facing the direct contradiction with private property, such workers are very much part of the socialized production and have the necessary attributes of the proletariat. Besides power and transport there may be a few more sectors with similar characteristics but for the purpose of the present discussion we will not consider these sections in greater details. To our understanding, these sections constitute an integral part of the revolutionary proletariat.
However, in addition to the above, there are sections including several newly emergent groups of working people, who are performing some role in the "faux fraisof commodity production" i.e. their labour is not being exchanged with productive capital. Do they constitute a part of the proletarian class as well? We shall now delve into this point with some examples.
Proletarian character and the service workers
The population associated with software and related activities, the so-called IT employees have attracted a lot of attention in the past few decades. A large number of people employed in this sector, mostly the section lying absolutely at the bottom of the hierarchical set up of this sector, constitute the IT workers who are exploited just like any other industrial worker. Most of these wage-earning workers do not produce any material commodity, but produce commodities none the less, and thus work for self-expansion of capital. Consequently, the contradiction with capital, the antagonism with private property is very much present within this section. They too are part of a gigantic social production system that does not discriminate workers on the basis of caste, creed, gender, etc. and are divorced from planning and design of their producti.e.the software that they develop. Although, such workers are usually involved in development of computer programs, a vast majority of them generally perform some monotonous action in the entire process and have no role in the planning and design procedure. The average wages of such workers, in most cases, is also very low and hardly ensure the minimum required for subsistence. There seems to be no reason why such groups of people should not be considered as proletarians alongside conventional industrial workers.
Sections closely resembling this lowest stratum of software workers are employees who along with software development also supervise the work of the lowest stratum. Aspiration for upward mobility and individual ambition is usually found to be prevalent within this section. The objective reasons for this aspiration are associated with the nature of this work. First, by virtue of possessing specific skills and training, this section of IT employees can aspire to set up their own software companies, wherein they can employ people and act as small owners. Second, the wages of this section are mostly linked to the surplus they can extract by supervising and exploiting the lowest stratum, which is often referred as performance based income.The very nature of their job makes them adept in exploiting groups of workers. Finally, the affordability of computers and basic software required to launch such ventures also fuel such aspirations. In a typical manufacturing industry, even the well paid managerial sections can hardly dream of setting up their own companies, since the costs of machineries are prohibitive and small-scale production is almost always non-profitable. However, in the software or IT sector, small groups with few computers and software can perform parts of a large program, which in turn facilitate the formation of smaller companies thereby providing an objective basis for the individual aspirations of the employees of this sector. Such characteristics of the well-to-do software employees in turn are expected to affect the character of the impoverished lowest stratum as well. Unlike other industrial workers, the workers here are frequently exposed to migration of their immediate supervisors to small business ventures. Such an existing state of affairs has also kept this industry largely fragmented, particularly in countries like India. Despite having other conditions favourable for imbibing proletarian character within the lowest stratum of the software workers, their objective role as the leader of the social revolution seem to be relatively at a disadvantageous state. Nevertheless, their specific role as a category with regards to the proletarian movement will only be better understood in the actual roles they assume in the real struggles of the future.
A similar situation exists in the health sector. There are employees in hospitals and nursing homes who perform different kinds of work involving maintenance and operation of medical instruments, so-called menial jobs like cleaning, transportation, loading-unloading goods, etc. These workers are usually small wage earners and constitute the most exploited section in the health industry. Whereas, the doctors, managers and nurses, serving the same industry as wage earning workers are better off in terms of salary and living conditions. Moreover, the later sections usually participate in the process of exploiting the lowest stratum and ensuring more profit for the capitalist owners. Such sections are therefore, far removed from the proletarian class. The lowest category on the other hand, has many characteristics resembling the revolutionary proletariat. But, in countries like India, they are yet to have a large organized character, which is not conducive for shaping them as leaders of the revolution.
The categorization of teachers of schools, colleges, universities has often been discussed in this respect. Based on some isolated quotations from Marx's writings some have even tried to theorize that teachers should be classified as proletarian from a Marxist analysis. What they failed to understand is that Marx dealt with teachers and distinguished between teachers teaching in a privately owned school and private tutors, in order to explain productive and unproductive labour, not in an attempt to ascertain the class position of the teaching community. The teachers do possess many characteristics common with the proletarian class but there seems to be an important difference. Teachers hardly require any 'means of production' for the act of teaching, at least under the present state of development of the society as a whole. The intellectual ability and skills of teaching possessed by an individual teacher can bestow him/her with the ability to thrive as a successful teacher, even without the cooperation from his/her fellow colleagues. The nature of this work is such that there is no machinery under the present circumstances that it is operable only through the joint action of all the producers (teachers). Consequently, a teacher can aspire for individual accomplishments and upward mobility, which sets them aside from the proletariat. Moreover, the job of a teacher, in most institutions guarantees a reasonable and stable income, which acts as a major hindrance for this section to revolt against the rule of capital. The nature of the job also keeps teachers fragmented in relatively smaller establishments, which again is not favorable for assuming a leading role in the proletarian struggle. According to our understanding, therefore, the teaching community has several inconveniences for being the part of the revolutionary proletariat, at least under the existing conditions.
There are many sections within the above discussed categories that will readily join hands with the proletariat in different struggles to raise their voices against capitalist measures. But the struggle of the proletariat cannot remain confined to mere protest against capitalist onslaughts. Proletariat's final goal is to overthrow capitalism and establish a classless society. Only that class which has the ability to pursue incessant struggle in this direction qualifies as the revolutionary proletarian class. Different sections of the working population will join and ally with the proletariat at different stages of this struggle. For example, in countries like India a large section of the peasantry has to unite with the proletariat to free itself from the shackles of remnant feudalism. That does not mean peasantry possesses the revolutionary potential for overthrowing private property. Similarly, we are bound to encounter other sections of the society, who will be highly vociferous in the present struggle against capitalist onslaughts, but that does not necessarily mean that these sections possess the potential to remain with the proletariat in the struggle to oust capitalism.
Those who profess that service sector employees by virtue of being wage earners divorced of any ownership of means of production are proletariats, are actually confused about the proletarian position. We would like to present another case for such theorists. It is well known that the service sector has proliferated during the last few decades particularly in the developed countries. The role of the finance sector in this context has been of cardinal importance. A substantial number of people are employed in this sector. Do they constitute a section of the proletarian class? Leaving aside other factors, we simply consider the fact that the existence of this sector is related to speculation and maneuvering of market and capital. Such sectors will cease to exist after vanquish of capitalism. All such sectors will be rendered redundant and obsolete with the overthrow of capitalism. Can the employees of this sector having acquired skills to work for this sector ever assume a resolute position against capitalism and fight for its complete abolition, knowing well that their jobs and expertise will become meaningless in a post-capitalist society?
Finally, let us conclude this section by a quote by Lebowitz: "The working class makes itself a revolutionary subject through its struggles?it transforms itself. That was always the position of Marx? his concept of 'revolutionary practice,' which is the simultaneous changing of circumstances and self-change. The working class changes itself through its struggles. It makes itself fit to create the new world."[14] The existence of different categories within the workers, and even the industrial workers, was recognized in post-revolution Russia. Proletariat of large-scale manufacturing industries were considered to be the most resolute fighters for socialism. Even the workers of big industries having small land holdings in villages were considered to be at relative disadvantage as the interests associated with land objectively hinder their role in leading the movement towards socialism. The objectivity of the proletarian class compels the class to overthrow private ownership and capitalism. It is rather a limited perspective to confine this objectivity to all wage-earning people without any ownership of means of production and involved in the production of surplus value. In the contemporary times, when the entire goal of socialism seems to have taken a complete back seat it is important to look forward to the real proletarian class for revival of the struggle for a classless society.
Working class majority
It is often remarked that with the emergence of 'services' as a major feature of contemporary capitalism, the very existence of industrial proletariat is now threatened.Classical industrial proletariat, according to them, is an endangered species. Before dealing with some necessary statistics to understand the validity of such apprehensions and claims, let us focus on a more fundamental question ? is it necessary for the working class to be a majority in terms of numbers to lead the socialist movement? We all know that the previous transformations in society from feudalism to capitalism or from slavery to feudalism were led by minority groups. Why then is it necessary for the proletariats to form a majority in terms of numbers in order to lead the struggle towards socialism?
A quote from the Communist Manifesto, in this context, has often been discussed: "All previous historical movements were movements of minorities? The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole super-incumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air." A detailed discussion on this particular aspect warrants a separate study and is somewhat outside the scope of the present article. Nevertheless, in a nutshell, we would like to point out that Marx-Engels viewed the proletarian class as a class of the immense majority keeping in mind the historical development of this class. Just prior to this remark, they discussed how the various other classes present in a typical feudal society and in societies that evolved after establishment of capitalism, gradually gets obliterated and gives rise to two dominant classes ? the capitalists who are absolute minorities and the proletariat who are overwhelming majorities. Who will disagree with this? However, the question perhaps is different - is the intermediate strata consisting of sections who are neither fully proletarian in character, and of course not capitalists, increasing in such proportions that the existence of industrial proletariat is now endangered? There is hardly any doubt that the number of people involved in such professions have increased during the last fifty years, but does that mean this section will keep on proliferating and obliterate the industrial workers? Or is this a particular phase in history, where such relations are thriving, and further progress will polarize them as proletariats and capitalists? As we have mentioned, these aspects warrant a separate discussion. At this stage we simply want to point out, it is not a necessary condition for the revolutionary industrial proletariat to be a majority in terms of numbers as compared to the total population of the society, in order to lead the struggle against capital. Nevertheless, at least for the sake of the debate it may definitely be ascertained that the proletariat and the 'super-incumbent strata' forms a huge majority compared to the capitalists and their allies, which is indeed in stark contrast with the previous two transformations of the society.
Historically too, the two cases where the working class at least temporarily assumed political power by overthrowing the capitalists, industrial proletariats were minorities in terms of absolute population. In Russia, the proletariat constituted only 10% of the total population and yet they were successful in establishing the rule of the working class over the capitalists, albeit temporarily.
Is the working class shrinking?
It is unfortunate that most theoretical ventures to 'prove' the shrinking theory of the working class are based on statistics collected from the manufacturing industries of the developed worlds. Conspicuously they are silent about the fact that during the last fifty years or so the capitalists and the imperialists have planfully shifted the manufacturing industries to the so-called developing/under-developed nations like China, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brazil, India, etc., simply because of the availability of cheap labour in these countries. In an ILO sourced report published in an article by John Smith we find that while the industrial workforce in the advanced countries has stagnated or even fallen as it stands at less than 150 million in 2010 as compared to almost 200 million in the 1980s, the same figure in the developing / underdeveloped countries has risen steeply from about 220 million in 1980 to more than 550 million in 2010.What has happened is not a decrease in the volume of manufacturing firms or jobs worldwide, but rather a massive relocation of manufacturing jobs and firms to the underdeveloped nations. In no way has the industrial proletariat decreased in number; rather a larger section of the world is seeing a rise in the number of industrial proletarians.
Those who are submerged in their dreams of obliteration of the working class want us to remain in dark regarding the above processes. Based on discussions about manufacturing workers of developed nations they are trying to put forward one central argument ? the working class has lost its ability to fight against capitalism. They would also claim that decentralization of industries has led to a situation where big industries, which have remained the mainstay for proletarian struggle, are now non-existent. Consequently, proletariat of big industry is no longer present. Hence, we need to focus on this aspect before drawing our conclusions.
Proletariat and big industry:
It is well known that Lenin emphasized on the workers of large-scale factory industries since they are the most resolute leaders of the proletarian movement.6 It is the highly socialised nature of the production which makes the above mentioned large scale factory workers incapable (except as exceptions) of aspiring to individual ownership of means of production or becoming a petty commodity producer. Lenin's opinion in this regard is summarized below:
1. "...Capitalist relationships arise in the small industries too (in the form of workshops employing wage-workers and of merchant's capital), but these are still poorly developed and are not crystallised in sharp oppositions between the groups participating in production. Neither big capital nor extensive proletarian strata as yet exist. In manufacture we see the rise of both. The gulf between the one who owns the means of production and the one who works now becomes very wide......In large-scale machine industry all these retarding factors disappear; the acuteness of social contradictions reaches the highest point. All the dark sides of capitalism become concentrated."18
2. With respect to the objectivity that gives advantage to the workers of big industries he opined:
a. Factors which retard the development of extreme contradiction between the proletariat and the capitalist, like ties with the land, adherence to tradition in production and manner of living, disappear in large-scale machine industry. Consequently, the conditions are more favourable for workers to assume a proletarian position. Even small land holdings create conflict of interest between workers, since specific interests evolve around land holding. This hinders organization of the proletariat.
b. Hundreds and thousands of workers working together objectively provide the advantage for joint discussions about their own problems. It also facilitates in taking united programs. And of course, this helps an individual worker to realize that his/her condition and interests are similar with the others.
c. Large industry enhances mobility among the workers which facilitates mixing and organizing. Workers of one factory can easily understand the problems of another which creates camaraderie amongst workers of different factories.
Consequently, the proletariat of large-scale manufacturing industries are potentially the most advanced brigade of the proletariat since the contradiction with capital exists in the sharpest form here and the very nature of functioning of these industries increases their ability to become organised and their striking power.
Prior to Lenin, both Marx and Engels have indicated towards the special significance of the proletariats of big industry. Engels, in the Preface to the Condition of the Working Class in England, clearly mentions: "It is evident that big industry does not reach the same level of development in all districts of a country. This does not, however, retard the class movement of the proletariat, because the proletarians created by big industry assume leadership of this movement and carry the whole mass along with them, and because the workers excluded from big industry are placed by it in a still worse situation than the workers in big industry itself."[15] Similarly Marx has hinted: "Large-scale industry concentrates in one place a crowd of people unknown to one another. Competition divides their interests. But the maintenance of wages, this common interest which they have against their boss, unites them in a common thought of resistance?combination.... Combinations, at first isolated, constitute themselves into groups ... and in face of always united capital, the maintenance of the association becomes more necessary to them [i.e., the workers] than that of wages.... In this struggle?a veritable civil war?all the elements necessary for coming battle unite and develop. Once it has reached this point, association takes on a political character."[16]Thus, we see that while Engels had emphasized on the leading capability of large-scale industry workers, Marx had pointed out the role of workers associated with such large-scale production in building political associations.
Given the importance of large-scale factory organizations, we are finally faced with the question - are the large-scale factories disappearing? It is a separate discussion to address whether capitalists and imperialist are shifting to decentralized small production units and abandoning big industries. Nevertheless, we will first point out few examples. China Mobile employed around 138,000 workers in 2008, which increased to about 438,000 in 2015. Similarly, the workforce at Lenovo increased from 23,000 employees in 2008 to 60,000 in 2015. Hon Hoi Precision Industry, popularly known as Foxconn, according to official statistics employs 1.3 million workers worldwide in 2015 as compared to 0.8 million in 2010.[17]According to Wikipedia, Foxconn's largest factory is in Longhua Town, Shenzhen, where hundreds of thousands of workers (varying counts include 230,000; 300,000; and 450,000) are employed at the Longhua Science and Technology Park, sometimes referred to as 'Foxconn City,' covering about 1.16 square miles (3 square km), and including 15 factories. Another of Foxconn's factory 'cities' is in Zhengzhou, where a reported 120,000 workers are employed as of 2012.17 China National Petroleum Corporation and State Grid Corporation of China two state-owned integrated companies in China, employ respectively, 1.6 and 1.5 million people in 2015.[18] We are not trying to prove anything with these numbers. Rather, we simply want to raise a question ? in the face of such statistics will it be justified to claim that large-scale factories have vanished? The largest employers in the world continue to be the US and Chinese armies.However, the scale at which the above manufacturing giants continue to employ people, even in 2015, is something never witnessed in history. Of course, the multinationals plan and break up their workforce in number of factories and units and try to spread them across the globe. But does this mean big industries are becoming non-existent, or, is it re-organization of big industries in new forms? More spreading should facilitate mixing and mobility, lesser adherence to local tradition, etc. which in turn are some of the advantages that large-scale industries promise to provide.
In order to understand the general characteristics of capitalism we usually look at countries like US, UK, Germany, etc. Apparently, newer industries with very small workforces have proliferated in such countries during recent times. Implementation of advanced technology has definitely lessened the requirement of human workers in manufacturing factories. But has it led to the disappearance of big industries on a global scale? Along with marvellous technological developments, we are also witnessing that in an attempt to exploit the cheap labour available in the underdeveloped nations, huge capital is being invested. Thousands of workers are employed and thousands are retrenched - about 1.3 million workers of Foxconn are producing nearly all the well-known computer and mobile hardware components. Which should be considered as the trend of contemporary imperialism? As mentioned before, a detailed discussion on this is outside the scope of this article.Hence, we will conclude by drawing attention to modern industry.
In an article titled 'Capitalism, development and global commodity chains' G. Gereffi discusses about certain aspects of modern industrial establishments.[19] He has argued that contemporary industrialization is the result of an integrated system of global trade and production which are linked by core corporations. Industrial establishments operating at different levels and belonging to several countries are associated with the production of a commodity. During this phase, industries and their ancillaries have been set up in particular areas. Since production is mostly related to export, within a given region, nations tend to establish particular export niches. This has given rise to industrial zones constituting several units and ancillaries. Such zones usually involve larger number of workers and span over larger geographical areas compared to the earlier single large-scale industries. Different industries ranging from petroleum products, automobile, textile are now organized in this fashion. The very process of this production chain is establishing such a link between the interdependent units that if a single unit in this circuit ceases to work, it may affect the entire multinational production chain. From this perspective at least, the workers involved in such production seems to have acquired more striking power against the production system. The volume of economic activity of these zones is also much more compared to the previous big industries. Workers' strike in any one of the units seemingly is affecting the entire chain. The recent strikes of the workers in the industrial zones that have emerged along coastal China probably bear testimony to this feature.
Some concluding remarks
Both at the national as well as the international level the proletariat today, is struggling to rise after the defeat of the first historic march towards socialism. It seems that a new trend of the proletarian struggle is gradually emerging through the resistance movements of the workers of the industrial areas in different countries.However, in the wake of the crisis of the international socialist movement, the proletarian class remains fragmented and disorganized. Leave alone any international organization, to the best of our knowledge, there is no real proletarian party in any country. In most cases even the economic struggles of the workers seem to be carried out without any solid organization of the workers. Primary task of the communists under such a situation should undoubtedly be focussed on aligning with the proletarian struggles taking place in the industrial areas. But, the above trend is too feeble to attract attention. The communists are mostly unable to identify this trend. On the contrary, they are drifting more and more away from ideas of revolution and socialism. Under such a situation, communists or Marxists, who are concerned about the changing forms of proletariat, are indeed landing up with serious problems. They can easily see a huge mass of people worldwide who are raising their voices against the onslaught of capital, but, they are unable to locate the proletariat in these struggles. Naturally, their attention is being drawn by the non-proletarian sections participating in these struggles. Hence, we hear about the civil society versus the corporate interests. We hear about the contradictions of capital with different sections of population but never about class struggle. One who raises the question of overthrow of the rule of capital and of revolution is labelled as a hardliner. This is because they cannot see the future of proletarian movement. The gradual shift from the socialist struggle has placed them in the quandary of a general 'broad' anti-capitalist struggle. Hence, they are defining the proletariat according to their own wish. Neither do they care about the existence of the industrial proletariat. In many cases the voices of these self-proclaimed Marxist theoreticians are resonating with that of the bourgeois intellectuals. Such intellectual confusions will probably continue to exist till the proletarian struggle resurges. We hope the present discussion will help them to find a definite direction towards understanding the proletariat. Meanwhile, we can assert that proletariat will continue to exist as long as capitalism exists and they will cease to exist when capitalism will be vanquished once and for all. Till then let the intellectuals fight against each other across ill-defined boundaries.
[i]The United Nations (UN), in its policy on the classification of economic activities in countries' national accounts, defines services as: outputs produced to order and typically consist of changes in the conditions of the consuming units realized by the activities of producers at the demand of the consumers. By the time their production is completed they must have been provided to the consumers. The production of services must be confined to activities that are capable of being carried out by one unit for the benefit of another. Otherwise, service industries could not develop and there could be no markets for services. It is also possible for a unit to produce a service for its own consumption provided that the type of activity is such that it could have been carried out by another unit. (Source: System of National Accounts 1993 Geneva: United Nations).
According to U.S. Census Bureau, service sector is the portion of the economy that produces intangible goods.
[1] K. Marx, The Production of Absolute and of Relative Surplus-Value, Capital, Volume One
[2] K. Marx, Holy Family, Chapter IV, "Critical Criticism" As the Tranquillity of Knowledge, Or "Critical Criticism" As Herr Edgar
[3] K. Marx, Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation, Capital, Chapter Thirty-Two: Volume One
[4] K. Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
[5]F. Engels, England in 1845 and in 1885
[6] V. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Edition, Moscow, 1964, Volume 3, pp. 384-453
[7] A. Blunden (Ed), Encyclopaedia of Marxism, Glossary of terms (proletariat), Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org), 1999-2008
[8] K. Marx, The Process of Production of Capital, Draft Chapter 6 of Capital, Results of the Direct Production Process, 1864
[9] K. Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, Part I, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1956, p. 153
[10] K. Marx, Genuine Costs of Circulation, Capital, Volume Two, 1863 - 1878, Edited for publication by Engels in 1885, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1956, translated by I. Lasker
[11]K. Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, London: Penguin, 1976.
[12] K. Marx, Notebook IV, The Grundrisse
[13] F. Tregenna, Services in Marxian Economic Thought, 2009, CWPE 0935
[14] M. A. Lebowitz, What Makes the Working Class a Revolutionary Subject? Volume 64, Issue 07, 2012
[15] F. Engels, Preface to the Condition of the Working Class in England, 1845
[16] K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosopy, 1847
[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn, accessed 6th March 2017
[18] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/23/the-worlds-biggest-employers-infographic/#527cfb7686b5
[19] G. Gereffi, Capitalism, development and global commodity chains, in Capitalism and Development, Ed. L. Sklair, London Routledge, 1994, Ch 11, pp. 211-230
All quotation of K. Marx, F. Engels and V. Lenin are cited from the internet archive works available at Marxists Internet Archive: https://www.marxists.org/
Comments:
No Comments for View