From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Oct 20 2004 - 08:42:56 EDT
Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Re: CP India-Marxist Pushes Hi-TecRakesh, Previously, I offered the following definition given by M & E in _The Communist Manifesto_: "By proletariat is meant the class of modern wage-workers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live." You made a request for clarification and I responded. You then asked: "So anyone who in order to live has to sell labor power in exchange for a wage is a wage worker or proletarian in Marx's sense?". You have since, off-list, restated that question in modified form as: whether anyone who not owning means of production exchanges labor power for a wage is a wage laborer or proletarian in Marx's sense? Before replying, I wish to state that if you have objections to the definition by Marx and Engels, please state what they are and offer an alternative definition and we can proceed on that basis. I can think of some -- basically trivial, from the standpoint of the essential nature of the capitalist mode of production -- circumstances in which individuals who exchange their labour-power for a wage might not be considered to be a proletarian (or, fully, a proletarian). a) There are individuals who belong to more than one class. E.g. peasant farmers may be forced by economic circumstances to become part-time agricultural proletarians. In such a circumstance, one might say that this individual belongs 'full-time' to one class and 'part-time' to another. b) Or, it could be that by choice a member of the capitalist class has a 'night job' as a wage-worker. E.g. someone who is 'independently wealthy' (and belongs to either the capitalist or wealthy landowning class) might obtain a job as a actor for a Broadway company and thereby be paid a wage. In such a circumstance, then one might say that this individual belongs to an 'alien' class but nominally has a foot in the door of the working class. c) It could be that a member of the capitalist or landowning classes -- for accounting or tax reasons -- pays him- or herself a wage. In such a case, that is merely trickery and subterfuge and in no way determines which class that person belongs to. [NB: in b) and c) these are circumstances where one is not forced into selling LP for a wage in order to live. So, they are possibilities that arise because of the re-phrasing of Rakesh's question.] d) It could be that individuals are compelled, not by the fear of joining the industrial reserve army or the fear of being fired and being forced into obtaining a lower-wage and benefit job, by direct physical force or the threat of physical punishment into selling their LP in exchange for a wage. Additionally, those same individuals might not be allowed -- by the use of brute force -- to go into the labor market and offer her/his labour power for sale to other capitalists. E.g. suppose there is a prison where inmates are told that they _must_ work for a wage and with those wages the inmates can then purchase commodities with which to survive at a prison store. In such a circumstance, then these individuals might be thought of as slaves rather than proletarians. The only possible differences might be: -- when/if a prisoners sentence ends or if s/he escapes, then s/he can attempt to obtain a job as an actual proletarian. -- unlike a slave, the prison doesn't actually 'own' the inmate and the inmate can not be sold once and for all to anyone else in exchange for money. In other words, because the inmate is not the private property of the prison (or the state) then the prison (or state) has limited property use and transfer rights. An essential reason why these workers can be considered to be de facto slaves is that the *system of control* _required_ in this scenario is typical of slavery. ----- btw, it could be that some individuals who _do_ own and control means of production are nevertheless forced into becoming proletarians. E.g. an artisan may own means of production that can be used to produce a commodity that is no longer demanded (e.g. harpoons for whaling) and/or associated with a skill that is obsolete, and/or the means of production may itself because of technological change be obsolete. In such circumstances, then these individuals once they obtain jobs as wage- workers could be considered to be proletarians. Or, more commonly, a family may own land and other means of production with which they used to produce agricultural commodities. Competition from large farms and agro-business may require that they become wage-workers, but they might still retain title of the land and the (inefficient) means of production.] ----- Undoubtedly, all of the above happen. In no way, though, could they be seen as justification for rejecting the definition of proletarian by M & E in _The Communist Manifesto_. But, as I wrote previously, if you have reasons for rejecting or modifying that definition, let's hear them. In any event, I do _not_ really want to further discuss the basically trivial cases described above. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 22 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT