The Proletariat

[Thirsty Crow]

"The proletariat no longer exists".
That's a statment I've heard quite often when talking about the possibility social/political change.
The underlying implication is that the prolatariat, as the primary political subject, simply doesn't exist, due to political reasons (the collapse of state socialism) and socioeconomical reasons - the (in)famous intelectualization/spiritualization of labour, that is, the changes in the professional composition of the labour force in the West.

My question is the following: how could a sinergy and solidarity between the classical proleteriat (industrial workers) and the "cognitariat" be realized?
Furthermore, I would like to ask someone to explain the consequences of the before mentioned process in relation to the meaning of the term "proletariat" and suggest a study/studies which explicate/s this problem.

I'm not really sure if this is the right place to ask such questions.If not, I apologize.

[New Tet]

There is no problem. The proletariat exists, now in greater numbers than ever before.

[Thirsty Crow]

There is no problem. The proletariat exists, now in greater numbers than ever before.
Okay, that's one argument I use often.
But the argument stands only if we take the overall human labour force, doesn't it? I mean, there were significant shifts in the composition of labour in the developed West.

[New Tet]

Okay, that's one argument I use often.
But the argument stands only if we take the overall human labour force, doesn't it? I mean, there were significant shifts in the composition of labour in the developed West.

Nonetheless, the profit/wage relation between capital and labor remains largely unchanged.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

proleteriat (industrial workers)
By marxist definition, the proletariat is composed by anyone who sells his working power (labour) without having any property upon the means of production.The picture of factory or labour workers is not representative of the proletariat, including only a portion of them.The shipyard worker is a proletarian, along with the pizza boy, the counter at the supermarket and the secretary.Hell even cops and journalists are typically proletarians but their inherrently counter-revolutionary actions make them part of a small special group of people along with diplomats and other such jobs but unfortunately I don't remember how Marx had named them atm :(

Anyway, that being said, the confusion you are facing atm is caused by the mix of marxist economic division of classes, which is based on the criteria of the property the worker has upon the means of production and the classic american division of economic classes, which is based on the criteria of wage numbers and education of the individual.Socioeconomical changes (the influence of human relations movement, various small reformative actions of the system, flexible forms of labour etc etc) have indeed made the things a bit more complicated but this is, in my opinion, just a way of capitalism to hide oppression under the carpet.It is indeed confusing when members of a class from one of the two theories overlap several of the classes of the other one, but do not be taken away.Wage labour is inherenntly exploitive no matter what fancy gimmicks the capitalists invent to make it seem more humane.Anyone suffering from it is for us a possible vessel to the revolution even if the relationships between worker and boss have camouflaged themselves a bit in relationship with the 19th century.

So the next time you hear someone stating that ''the proletariat no longer exists.'' there is only one answer: ''Fuck off and open your eyes'':)

[Muzk]

I have people saying there are no proletarians anymore too, mainly social democrats, they say the social "security net" makes it impossible to die without working. That this doesn't change the fact that we still don't have capital, isn't paid attention to.( And that some others have to work for the ones not working ) They kind of use all kinds of shitty arguments just to bring socialism down, and say communism has failed, and will always become some kind of totalitarian murderous Stalin dictatorship... tough times, yes.

[Thirsty Crow]

Nonetheless, the profit/wage relation between capital and labor remains largely unchanged.
That's it!
BUT: How can we expect that the working people who earn more than other working people will express direct and true solidarity in their struggle?
For example, I am a student, and will probably become a "member" of the higher professional subclass of the working class taken in general (the criterion being the profit wage relation you mentioned). How then am I expected to realize the core of my situation which directly connects my life and existence to that of the factory worker or a waiter in my country or any other?

Honestly, I am very troubled by such a problem for several reasons: the totalitarianism of the concept of lifestyle(s) which is forced on every single individual ("My professional status MUST be coupled by a specific lifestyle including luxury commodities and various other commodities which grant me a specific identity"). This is one of those reasons.

[syndicat]

in radical political economy, class is a social power relation between groups. Marx talks about "the social relations of production." Although it is true that ownership of the means of production is in capitalism the dominant form of power over social production, and thus over workers, it isn't the only source of class power over the working class.

There is also a relative concentration of decision-making authority into managerial hierarchies, and a concentration of key kinds of expertise needed for decision-making into certain "professions" that work closely with management...lawyers, engineers, HR experts, management consultants, etc. This creates the control bureaucracy or techno-managerial class (AKA coordinator class) in corporate capitalism.

Note that cops are not a part of the working class. They are part of the control bureaucracy. They are like supervisors...supervisors of the streets. They act as supervisors for workers who drive such as taxi drivers and truck drivers, they play a property management role as when they evict squatters and tenants, and they work to enforce power of dominating classes in strikes.

But the working class does include lower level "professionals" who have no significant control over other workers...newspaper reporters, dental hygenists, RNs, school teachers, librarians, technical illustrators etc. This group is part of the skilled section of the working class, along with plumbers, electronic techs, aircraft and diesel mechanics.

The poorer and more insecure part of the working class has actually grown in recent years. The working class a whole, both lower and upper (skilled) segments, are about 3/4 of the population in the USA.

The actual trend is not towards more skilled labor...as the thesis of the "cognitariat" supposes...but towards Taylorist/Fordist de-skilling and monitoring, intensified pace of work, increased job insecurity, increased amounts of part time and temp labor.

With the massive decline in real wage rates combined with intensified work pace and monitoring of workers in USA, there has been an increasing proletarianization and impoverishment going on.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In terms the marxian definition relating to the subjugation of labour by those who own the means of production, we can indeed say that the proletariat today is bigger than ever in a Capitalist mode.

Of course, the issue is slightly more complex; because of education and the advent of new information media such as the internet, people are of course more informed about events - indeed, if somebody has the will they can inform themselves about almost anything, to an almost limitless degree.

We must not fool ourselves, though, into thinking this is something new. It is certainly something new in that, it is true that 100 years ago, not everybody had the information tools that most people can access today. However, we must remember that there were always artisans/labour aristocrats (whether or not we believe in the theory that precedes this term, it was around for quite a few years before Lenin's theory and certainly denoted a very real part of the working class), and that, despite western workers, for example, perhaps being more informed and materially better off than those in less developed nations, they are still part of the proletariat because of their relationship with the means of production and the fact that they are still wage slaves, largely.

[Psy]

That's it!
BUT: How can we expect that the working people who earn more than other working people will express direct and true solidarity in their struggle?
For example, I am a student, and will probably become a "member" of the higher professional subclass of the working class taken in general (the criterion being the profit wage relation you mentioned). How then am I expected to realize the core of my situation which directly connects my life and existence to that of the factory worker or a waiter in my country or any other?

Honestly, I am very troubled by such a problem for several reasons: the totalitarianism of the concept of lifestyle(s) which is forced on every single individual ("My professional status MUST be coupled by a specific lifestyle including luxury commodities and various other commodities which grant me a specific identity"). This is one of those reasons.
You forget you first need to be hired into the professional subclass during a period of high unemployment and underemployment. When Generation X entered the job market starting in the 80's they quickly learned just because they were skilled professionals didn't mean their labor was worth more then a general laborer, as you had highly skilled University grads only able to find low paying jobs.

The number of underemployed (workers working below their skill set) has exploded since the 1980's as every year there has been less and less skilled jobs and more and more skilled workers. Thus it is not an issue as in another decade most students would go right to the unemployment line after graduation and soon after that students will stop bothering becoming skilled workers at if why get into huge debt if there are no vacant skilled jobs in demand in any of the industrial capitalist nations.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's it!
BUT: How can we expect that the working people who earn more than other working people will express direct and true solidarity in their struggle?
For example, I am a student, and will probably become a "member" of the higher professional subclass of the working class taken in general (the criterion being the profit wage relation you mentioned). How then am I expected to realize the core of my situation which directly connects my life and existence to that of the factory worker or a waiter in my country or any other?

Honestly, I am very troubled by such a problem for several reasons: the totalitarianism of the concept of lifestyle(s) which is forced on every single individual ("My professional status MUST be coupled by a specific lifestyle including luxury commodities and various other commodities which grant me a specific identity"). This is one of those reasons.

You must bear in mind the difference between strata (which you have identified) and class.

I can go to university and be what might be termed an 'artisan', and there may be somebody who has left school at 16 and gone to work at the local factory, where they will remain on waged labour all their working life. Different strata, certainly. Different lives. But, and this is the key point, we are surely all outcast, and joined in struggle - educated or not, comfortable lifestyle or not - by the fact that we are denied the potential and full fruits of our labour by the profit motive. This is something we all share in common as workers, and is independent of our own personal situation, unless we choose, on our conscience, to join the Capitalists. But I suspect that neither you nor I are in cahoots with the Rockerfellers of this world.;)

[Post-Something]

"The proletariat no longer exists".
That's a statment I've heard quite often when talking about the possibility social/political change.
The underlying implication is that the prolatariat, as the primary political subject, simply doesn't exist, due to political reasons (the collapse of state socialism) and socioeconomical reasons - the (in)famous intelectualization/spiritualization of labour, that is, the changes in the professional composition of the labour force in the West.

My question is the following: how could a sinergy and solidarity between the classical proleteriat (industrial workers) and the "cognitariat" be realized?
Furthermore, I would like to ask someone to explain the consequences of the before mentioned process in relation to the meaning of the term "proletariat" and suggest a study/studies which explicate/s this problem.

I'm not really sure if this is the right place to ask such questions.If not, I apologize.

I think you've touched on a very important point, one that many Marxists have come to realize almost too late.

Why have so many Marxists earned their living from being intellectuals? Whats the relationship between cultural capital and social class? Does Marxism only represent the interests of the working class in our society?

Like many good questions, these are still unresolved and ongoing. One of the biggest steps forward in the debate though, which I'd recommend you'd look into if interested, was made by a guy called Alvin Gouldner. He wrote a number of books which deal with the topic you're talking about to some degree or another.

What I will say as a queue, and anyone who's read Marx will agree, is that Marx kind of pulls a fast one when he says history is the story of class struggle in the manifesto; Master - Slave, Lord - Serf, Bourgeoisie - Proletariat. When Marx actually does his analyses in other works, it's always a struggle between an old regime, and a new regime; for example, newly emerging Bourgeois class against the old Feudal regime. So ask yourself who the real struggle is between in this era - capitalists and workers, or capitalists and this new stratum of engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc whose education is based on university, and who are closer to traditional academics than anyone else. Ask yourself if these two groups have the same intersts at all? After all, it seems fair to say that in the last 200 years, revolutions rarely involve the proletariat; in fact, revolutions were usually mobilised by Marxist intellectuals who defined themselves as proffessional revolutionaries.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My question is the following: how could a sinergy and solidarity between the classical proleteriat (industrial workers) and the "cognitariat" be realized?
Furthermore, I would like to ask someone to explain the consequences of the before mentioned process in relation to the meaning of the term "proletariat" and suggest a study/studies which explicate/s this problem.

I'm not really sure if this is the right place to ask such questions.If not, I apologize.

If you want a current example of how solidarity can exist between different groups within the larger proletariat (and even some professionals), look at the protests in California against tuition fee hikes and budget cuts.

These protests have been largely defined by solidarity between unions (instructor unions, service and janitorial unions) and the students. The ruling class has a tendency to create solidarity in opposition to them as much as the ruling class actively tries to manufacture divisions and competition between different oppressed groups. So in California, the local elietes are trying to "fix" the state's economic problems on the backs of the entire working class. This means students have been given crazy tuition increases at the same time they are being stripped of services and educational programs. At the same time, across all levels of public education, teachers and staff are being laid-off and given furlough days and seeing wage-freezes and cuts.

If you look at elementary public education, teachers and parents often have aligned class interests against the state. Both groups suffer because of the teach-to-the-test model forced on teachers, both suffer from larger class sizes and less extra programs for after-school care or lunch programs or tutoring programs.

In hospitals it's the same. Medical workers from nurses to doctors have been organizing and agitating for a real national health system for a long time. HMOs and the insurance companies and plans to make nurses check citizenship papers are largely seen as the problem by these workers and a barrier to actually doing a good job.

[Thirsty Crow]

If you want a current example of how solidarity can exist between different groups within the larger proletariat (and even some professionals), look at the protests in California against tuition fee hikes and budget cuts.

I know exactly what you mean since I've taken part in student protests in Croatia (which happened some two weeks ago and during spring - occupations and protests). The possibility of solidarity which was clearly exhibited is fantastic. On the other hand, it was and is quite depressing to see other young students like me completely ignorant and even not willing to participate in a decision-making process based on the model of direct democracy. Solidarity is an extremely fragile little being.
@DemSoc: surely, we are all outcast. I feel it and know it. But, how to explain that simple fact to a fellow student of mine who just wants to graduate, get a well paid job, work and enjoy the privilege they've attained?
Maybe the answer lies in the facts that Psy refers to. However, these facts must be accompanied by a focus on the specifities of regional and local factors, I believe. For example, in my country, the market of skilled labour in the professional areaof information technology and computers is expanding swiftly. Opinions like "Don't study humanities!" are being voiced in one form or another by expert technocrats who have a significant influence. The result is utter and total annihilation of any social responsibility on the part of the university and the entire system of education. I firmly believe that the study of humanities and social sciences must be a basis for a comprehensive project of emancipating education which would overflow the classic barriers of institutionalized education as means of discipline for future fruitless labour.
Personally, I see myself as an educator in a very "non-contemporary" sense of the word. I'd like to help people develop their own attitudes and knowledge.
I mean, how to battle superstition ann egotism in its newest form?
As you all can see, I'm a bit confused. Well, "a bit" is an understatement in fact :lol:

@Post-Something: your question, who are the opposing sides in this "new" struggle, is reasonable. But, if the professionals - engineeers, doctors and lawyers you mention - simply struggle in order to constitute a new ruling class, maybe a "more enlightened" ruling class - I refuse to take part.

[Post-Something]

@Post-Something: your question, who are the opposing sides in this "new" struggle, is reasonable. But, if the professionals - engineeers, doctors and lawyers you mention - simply struggle in order to constitute a new ruling class, maybe a "more enlightened" ruling class - I refuse to take part.

Well, I agree that whatever would come about would still be flawed, but simply by engaging in critical discourse, by going to college or university, you are taking part.

Anyway, it's all debateable..

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, I agree that whatever would come about would still be flawed, but simply by engaging in critical discourse, by going to college or university, you are taking part.

Anyway, it's all debateable..
I meant that I would refuse to take part in a revolutionary transformation of society enforced from up high (the enlightened ruling class). In other words, I do not wish to be a member of the enlightened ruling class.

[AK]

Maybe they meant the 19th Century Marx's-Time Proletariat no longer exists. It still does. It just merely adapted to the current conditions brought about by advances in technology and different types of jobs (such as working on a computer). The proletariat isn't explicitly working in factories anymore.