Contemporary reassessments of the nature of the Proletariat

[redcoyote89]

This past wednesday I had the great fortune to sit in on a lecture at UCLA featuring Slavoj Zizek. At the lecture Zizek brought up a topic that I myself have been struggling to assess; the current identity of the proletariat within the modern capitalist paradigm.

Zizek stated that today in the first world capitalism, the proletariat has been divided into roughy three spheres.

1. The orthodox working class( manual labor
2.The new intellencen white collar proletariat
3. And the lumpen proletariat

My question is simply does anyone here know of any other contemporary analysis on the modern proletariat?

[AvanteRedGarde]

Maoist-Third Worldists argue that the vast majority of workers in the First World receive more than the value of their labor, making them "working class mass" of exploiters. Maoist-Third Worldists consider the overwhelming majority of the exploited working class (i.e. the proletariat) to be located within the Third World. This certainly helps us avoid the problem of having to continually subdived the proletarian based on what whether they are are from rich countries or poor countries.

[ZeroNowhere]

receive more than the value of their labor
...All workers receive more than the 'value of their labour'.

[redcoyote89]

Now im talking solely within the 1st world, sorry i forgot to make that clear.

Anyway, Zizek's point weighed on the idea that the these new spheres or types of proletariat who's interest are no longer perfectly aligned. For example, he used the current issue here in the united states regarding immigration, where the two groups, those of immigrants and those being the American working class are often pitched against one another as the state and the media often argue their interests conflict.

[el_chavista]

does anyone here know of any other contemporary analysis on the modern proletariat?

There was a "submission article" sub forum where Mr Jakob Richter posted a document named "The class struggle revisited". It is a modern view of classes, including the petty bourgeoisie as a "coordinator class" (white collar proletariat according to Zizek). Ask him if you pleased.

...workers in the First World receive more than the value of their labor...

If this were so then there were no plusvalia left to be aprropiated by the capitalists.

[redcoyote89]

can someone here explain who would fit into this coordinator class? Right now my concept of it is pretty abstract and obtuse.

[Pogue]

can someone here explain who would fit into this coordinator class? Right now my concept of it is pretty abstract and obtuse.

I suppose it'd refer to foremen, lower managers, supervisors, etc. I think they need to be clasified alongside police as people who earn a wage that is often quite low or average and do a 'manual' job but clearly are completely opposed to the working class and its movement.

[el_chavista]

can someone here explain who would fit into this coordinator class? Right now my concept of it is pretty abstract and obtuse.
"..the word “coordinator” is best applied to mid-level managers of large enterprises, as well as all non-owning managers of small businesses. In both cases, the means of production under their factual control are limited in scale, and they have a more direct relationship with workers."

[Hoxhaist]

there should not be a hierarchy among nations, all people are exploited by capitalists in 1st world and 3rd world, the exploitation just appears differently

[Bilan]

As for the changing nature of the proletariat, I think the Situationist Internationale wrote about it.

[Floyce White]

Redcoyote89, while I never gave any lecture at UCLA, I wrote a series of essays on the nature of classes and of working-class struggle from 2001-05. The essays are located at http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

The proletariat never changed, it just became better managed. Abundant lifestyles in Western countries (largely guaranteed through easy access to debt) was just another mechanism to manage and constrain the social contradictions of capital. Sociological distinctions (whether you live in a housing estate or listen to classical music) and distinctions by trade (manual, white collar or intellectual worker) have always been abstract and false. Even in Marx's time there were more cleaners working in the houses of aristocrats and bourgeois enterprises than people working in the factories. If the theory of the proletariat is wrong now, it was equally as wrong when Marx first developed it.
The situation has always remained the same, if you have to sell your labour to live and have no control over the means of production you are proletarian. Work and commodity production will always remain our enemy, no matter what you do.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

that the these new spheres or types of proletariat who's interest are no longer perfectly aligned. For example, he used the current issue here in the united states regarding immigration, where the two groups, those of immigrants and those being the American working class are often pitched against one another as the state and the media often argue their interests conflict.

With regards to ethnic competition for employment in the US, that is a situation hat has existed for over a hundred years (and pre-dates the Russian revolution).

[redcoyote89]

With regards to ethnic competition for employment in the US, that is a situation hat has existed for over a hundred years (and pre-dates the Russian revolution).

I see, well im obviously still a novice in regards to class analysis. I appriciate the incite very much. Ill check out those essays. Thanks to all those who took the time to reply.

[redcoyote89]

I still have some other questions regarding the topic but im in a hurry to get to class so ill post them later.