PROLETARIAT

DEFINITION OF PROLETARIAT –Sukomal sen
Since the days of Marx, things have changed enormously and as has been pointed out, the technological revolution has also led to a revolutionary change in the labour process. For the present generation of Marxists this change has to be properly understood and things are to be judged and examined in the light of the basic formulations of Marx and Engels.
The working class has always had to undergo a particular pattern of labour-process depending upon the structure of capitalist accumulation and technological developments of the instruments of labour. In Marx's day a huge number of wage-labourers belonged to the domestic industry. Even in industry, `machinofacture', the distinctively capitalist method of mass production based on the large-scale use of machinery which Marx analysed in depth in Capital (volume one) was limited for much of the nineteenth century to a few advanced sectors, notably the Lancashire Cotton trade. A vast amount of capitalist enterprise was organised on the basis of manual rather than steam-power technologies. In fact, Machinofacture was generalised, not during the period of the Industrial Revolution itself, but in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the development, especially in the United States, of mass assembly-line production.
The working class did never possess any fixed structure or compo¬sition. Rather, this structure and composition had changed as the needs of capital accumulation have altered. Periods of crisis can be seen at times of reorganisation and restructuring, as ineffi¬cient sectors are run down, bankrupt capitals taken over, and new sectors and more efficient capitals take their places. The working class itself participates in this process as some are destroyed and others created.
In the present era of scientific and technological revolution combined with capitalist globalisation of economy, the capital¬ists are more and more using labour saving devices. Electronics, cybernetics and automation have provided the capitalists with these drastic labour saving devices.
As Marx has said, with the universalisation of education, the merchant capitalists get a ready-made mass of job-seekers who can be employed as commercial wage-workers doing the work of accoun¬tancy, buying and selling etc. Like wise, high level of technical education in computers and automation have also provided the service sector industries the opportunity for recruiting techni¬cally skilled workers for performing the desired job. It means the industrialists need various types of workers doing various types of jobs -- some manual workers, some mechanists, some clerical, some computer-operators, some supervisors and so on. In fact, Marx also visualised this proliferation of the workers in various types of work, all in the interest of the capitalists.
In Capital (volume three), in the chapter on Classes, Marx per¬haps tried to explain this situation but the manuscript remained unfinished.
Marx posed the question and sought to answer, "What makes wage- labourers, capitalists and landlords constitute the three great social classes?
"At first glance -- the identity of revenues and sources of revenues. There are three great social groups whose number, the individuals forming them, live on wages, profit and ground rent respectively, on the realisation of their labour-power, their capital, and their landed property.
"However, from this standpoint, physicians and officials e.g. would also constitute two classes for they belong to two distinct social groups, the members of each of these groups receiving their revenue from one and the same source. The same would also be true of the indefinite fragmentation of interest and rank into which the division of social labour splits labourers as well as capitalists and landlords -- the latter, e.g., into owners of Vineyards, farm owners, owners of forests, mine owners and owners of fisheries." 35 (emphasis added.) Unfortunately, the manu¬script breaks off here and Marx did not complete his observations on the nature of fragmentation and splits of the labourers.
But Marx mentioned `interest and rank' which causes `infinite fragmentation of social labour' which `splits labourers'. In fact, in modern manufacturing industry including service industry the splitting of labourers depending upon skill required and rank is obvious.
In another place Marx said, "The real lever of the overall labour process is increasingly not the individual workers. Instead, labour-power socially combined and the various compelling labour-powers which together form the entire production machine participate in very different ways in the immediate process of making commodities... some work better with their hands, other with their heads, one as a manager, engineer, technologist, etc, the other as overseer, the third as manual labourer or even drudge. An ever-increasing number of types of labour are included in the immediate concept of produc¬tive labourer, and those who perform it are classed as productive workers, workers directly exploited by capital and subordinated to its process of production and expansion." 36 (emphasis added).
So, if what Marx said above is considered in the light of what Marx said in regard to `splitting of labourers', then it is pertinent to conclude that all those who form part of what Marx called `Collective Labour', the complex division of labour in¬volved in producing commodities, are productive workers, even if they do not work with their hand. Moreover, in the light of Marx's analysis of the commercial wage-worker, there is no evi¬dence to suggest that Marx regarded only productive workers in manufacturing industry as forming the proletariat.
In fact, the distinction between productive and unproductive labour is therefore, between labour which contributes to the self-expansion of capital and labour which does not. Marx's main example of the latter is that of domestic servants, the largest single category of workers in Victorian Britain, employed out of the revenue of the middle and upper classes. But one point Marx did not mention that these poor strata of the people who engaged themselves as domestic servants had no other means of livelihood and so they were forced to sell their labour-power. While Marx said of splitting of labourers whatever complex form it may assume, it follows from Marx's analysis of capitalism that socio- economic compulsion to sell one's labour-power is the obvious characteristic of the proletariat. Accordingly all wage-labour¬ers are subject to the fundamental constraints of the capitalist relations of production -- non-ownership of means of production, lack of direct access to the means of livelihood, non-accessibil¬ity of land or insufficient money to purchase the means of live¬lihood without more or less continuous sale of labour-power. These categories will include not only commercial clerks and lower government employees and other numerous number of scattered daily labourers (including domestic servants) since they have no other means of livelihood except selling his or her labour-power.
Here it may be pertinent to heed what Rosa Luxemburg said in her The Accumulation of Capital, Chapter XVI on The Reproduction of Capital and its Social Setting about the sources from which the rural and urban proletariat is recruited. She pointed at the source, "the continued process by which the rural and urban middle strata become proletarian with the decay of peasant economy and of small artisan enterprises, the very process, that is to say, of incessant transition from non-capitalist to capi¬talist conditions of a labour-power that is cast off by pre- capitalist, not capitalist, mode of production in their progres¬sive breakdown and disintegration."37 This analysis is valid not only for 19th century Europe; it is equally valid in the condi¬tions prevailing in India today.
Another point has to be considered in this respect. Marx provided a general definition of service when he said, "A service is nothing more than the useful effect of a use-value be it of a commodity, or be it of labour." He then made an interesting comment on skilled and unskilled labour: "in every process of creating value, the reduction of skilled labour, average social labour e.g. one day of skilled labour to six days of unskilled labour, is unavoidable." 38
A worker who is employed for producing goods renders a service to the capitalists. And because of this service a tangible and vendible object takes shape as a commodity. But when the useful effects of labour do not result in a vendible object then it creates a different situation. Harry Braverman's explanation of these circumstances appears quite logical. He states, "When worker does not offer this labour directly to the user of its effects, but instead sells it to a capitalist, who re-sells it on the commodity market, then we have the capitalist form of production in the field of services." 39
Arguing in detail that service is also a productive labour gener¬ating surplus value in the capitalist relation of production, Braverman makes the following illuminating observation:
"In the history of capitalism while use of one or another form may play a greater role in a particular area, the tendency is towards eradication of distinction among its various forms, particularly in the era of monopoly capitalism, it makes little sense to ground any theory of the economy upon any specially favoured variety of labour process. As these varied forms came under the auspices of capital and become part of the domain of profitable investment, they enter for the capitalist into the realm of general or abstract labour, labour which enlarges capi¬tal. In the modern `Corporation' all forms of labour are employed without any distinction, and in the modern conglomerate Corpora¬tion some divisions carry on manufacturing, others carry on trade, others banking, others mining and still others `service' process. They live peacefully together, and in the final result as recorded in the balance sheet the forms labour disappear entirely in the forms of value." 40 (emphasis added)
The question sometimes arises that since the workers' wages and amenities are rising, of course due to their resistance struggle, whether the workers who are better paid or whose standard of living has risen, still possess a revolutionary potential.
Marx dealt with this question before he wrote Communist Manifes¬to. In his Wage Labour and Capital, Marx observed,
"When productive capital grows, the demand for labour grows; Consequently, the price of labour, wages, goes up. ...
"A noticeable increase in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. The rapid growth of productive capital brings about an equally rapid growth of wealth, luxury, social wants, social enjoyments. Thus, although the enjoyments of the worker have risen, the social satisfaction that they gave has fallen in comparison with the increased enjoyments of the capi¬talist, which are inaccessible to the workers, in comparison with the state of development of society in general. Our desire and pleasure spring from society; we measure them, by society and not by the objects which serve for their satisfaction. Because they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.
"In general, wages are determined not only by the amount of commodities for which I can exchange them. They embody various relations". 41
These words of Marx are quite significant in understanding the present situation when due to workers' struggles and various other factors, the wages and other amenities of the workers have gone up and their standard of living is not also at the same level as it was in the mid-nineteenth century. Capitalism leads to a wider disparity in economic terms between the owners and the wage-workers. The workers may achieve a higher wage level or amenities, but in comparison to that the wealth and prosperity of the owning or propertied class are rising in geometrical progres¬sion.
Particularly, in this era of capitalist globalisation and the triumph of finance capital, this disparity in income is reaching an unprecedented height. Even the protagonist of globalisation, the World Bank in their successive reports has expressed concern at this rapidly widening disparity and that more and more people getting impoverished and jobless and World Bank apprehend an increasing dissatisfaction among the toiling and poorer sections against the ruling regimes.
So it is not a question of how much rise has taken place in the wage level; the question actually centers round whether the toiling sections are getting their due proportion of the income generated in a country. This sense of deprivation and disparity actually gives impetus to working class militancy.
Considering all these facts and formulations, today's manufactur¬ing workers, skilled service sector workers, commercial workers in the mercantile firms and financial institutions like banks, insurances and the clerical and subordinate workers in the serv¬ice to the capitalists in the phenomenally expanded government sectors, the scattered and individual daily workers -- all natu¬rally come within the definition of the wage-workers while the industrial wage-workers form the core of the proletarian class.
Even the domestic workers who have no other way of sustenance than selling their labour-power, though they do not produce any value and not organised against capitalist exploitation but a highly deprived and exploited lot, are also getting proletaria¬nised within the broader definition of the term. But if one sticks to the definition of proletariat to the manual industrial workers only in the pattern of nineteenth century, then the proletariat will be reduced to a small and declining nineteenth century stereotype only and this definition will not be compat¬ible with the reality of the present situation when manual work¬ers in traditional industry are sharply declining giving place to service workers and commercial workers including part-time and casual workers.
All these factors taken together prove the untenability of the fashionable notion that the proletariat is a fast declining class or even disappearing and a `new middle class' is appearing on the scene with high level of wages and amenities who do not possess any militancy of struggle or revolutionary potential.
************************