Does the working class exist?

[Nehru]

This is based on what another poster said on the individualism thread. Isn't the term 'working class' a label we give to people, an abstract framework into which we try to fit people? Is it a hard reality at all?

Those people may not see themselves as the working class; maybe temporarily so but on the way to becoming 'rich', 'successful' etc. In short, working class as one homogenous group doesn't exist; what exists is the individual.

Doesn't this create a problem for communism?

[RGacky3]

This is based on what another poster said on the individualism thread. Isn't the term 'working class' a label we give to people, an abstract framework into which we try to fit people? Is it a hard reality at all?


Yeah its an abstract framework, but so is the term "mammel" so is the term "liquid" but the conditions that are used to classify both mammels and liquid and working class are conrete and of major significance.


Those people may not see themselves as the working class; maybe temporarily so but on the way to becoming 'rich', 'successful' etc. In short, working class as one homogenous group doesn't exist; what exists is the individual.


When your looking at economics, you HAVE to classify things, working class refers to people who sell muscle and brain power for wages, and yes, there are many individuals that do this, they are individuals, but in the economy they are working class.

No it does'nt create a problem for commuism, any more than the fact that "Mammel" is an abstraction creates a problem for biology.

[Post-Something]

This is based on what another poster said on the individualism thread. Isn't the term 'working class' a label we give to people, an abstract framework into which we try to fit people? Is it a hard reality at all?

Those people may not see themselves as the working class; maybe temporarily so but on the way to becoming 'rich', 'successful' etc. In short, working class as one homogenous group doesn't exist; what exists is the individual.

Doesn't this create a problem for communism?

This is a good point, however I think it comes about because of the amount of different uses of the term class. In modern terms we can look at a number of different phenomena and still refer to class. For example:

1. We can refer to the consumption habits of a group of people like the most everyday use of the term is meant.
2. We can refer to the amount of wealth and power the person has, for example by looking at a number of social identifiers like occupation, property.
3. We can look at the level of prestige an individual carries in a society, such as a barrister, doctor or minister.

But in a Marxist sense, class means something very specific, and that's an individuals relation to the means of production.

[danyboy27]

This is based on what another poster said on the individualism thread. Isn't the term 'working class' a label we give to people, an abstract framework into which we try to fit people? Is it a hard reality at all?
If you work and someone make money out of it, you are a worker.
there are the exploiter, and the exploited, its a pretty simple concept.





Those people may not see themselves as the working class; maybe temporarily so but on the way to becoming 'rich', 'successful' etc. In short, working class as one homogenous group doesn't exist; what exists is the individual.

It dosnt really matter how a person see himself, the cold, hard facts are there. if the person x think they can achieve the american dream and get out of povrety by fixing car for his boss,he still is a worker who is exploited for his labor. if a donkey think he is a pig, that dosnt change nothing about the fact that he is a donkey.



Doesn't this create a problem for communism?

no.

[Rafiq]

This is based on what another poster said on the individualism thread. Isn't the term 'working class' a label we give to people, an abstract framework into which we try to fit people? Is it a hard reality at all?

Those people may not see themselves as the working class; maybe temporarily so but on the way to becoming 'rich', 'successful' etc. In short, working class as one homogenous group doesn't exist; what exists is the individual.

Doesn't this create a problem for communism?

I remain unsurprised that such a vehemently idealist assertion would come from a reactionary thread like that, none the less that you, a bourgeois socialist would buy into it.

Classes are defined by their relations to the mode of production, not by what kind of lifestyle or culture they have

[thefinalmarch]

Yes, the word 'proletarian' is a label, but it is a label applied to a social class which clearly and demonstrably exists. It is not an abstract social category we lump people in to for shits and giggles.

“By proletariat [is meant], the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.”
- Engels, The Communist Manifesto 1888 English edition

There exists a body of individuals within bourgeois society which is systemically denied any meaningful participation in the governance and administration of society and economy. Its attempts to seize political or economic power by means of revolutions, insurrections, labour struggles, etc. are heavily suppressed by the agents of the bourgeois state. Collectively, it is exploited and economically enslaved by the ruling bourgeoisie. That body is the working class. Its existence is fact.

Social relationships do not just skip in and out of existence depending on whether or not an individual self-identifies as a proletarian.

[Nehru]

Thanks for all the replies.

I am not denying the existence of (individual) workers. I am just wondering whether the working class (as a whole) exists. Why? Because workers come in many shapes and forms (skilled,unskilled), have different objectives (some workers may simply want to survive at the marketplace,whereas others may want to become the bourgeois/petit bourgeois eventually), different ideas (racism, internationalism, humanism etc.), different circumstances/financial condition, and so on.

So, while they're all individually workers, is it possible to call them the working class as though they are a homogenous entity? Apples, oranges, grapes - we include them in one category called 'fruit' (based on what they have in common) but still do not the differences surpass what's common between them?

[ColonelCossack]

But there is a group of people who are oppressed by the bourgeoisie using wage slavery... therefore, the working class exists.

[Post-Something]

Thanks for all the replies.

I am not denying the existence of (individual) workers. I am just wondering whether the working class (as a whole) exists. Why? Because workers come in many shapes and forms (skilled,unskilled), have different objectives (some workers may simply want to survive at the marketplace,whereas others may want to become the bourgeois/petit bourgeois eventually), different ideas (racism, internationalism, humanism etc.), different circumstances/financial condition, and so on.

So, while they're all individually workers, is it possible to call them the working class as though they are a homogenous entity? Apples, oranges, grapes - we include them in one category called 'fruit' (based on what they have in common) but still do not the differences surpass what's common between them?

Yeah, I mean, you have to realize that this is all a political tool. A tool to bring about revolution and hopefully a new kind of society. What is emphasized about them is there collective interest and bargaining power in society. Other than that, of course they are very different individuals. If you compared the work of a skilled worker, like a coal miner, to an unskilled labourer, the miner would probably take it as an insult.

[Tim Cornelis]

Thanks for all the replies.

I am not denying the existence of (individual) workers. I am just wondering whether the working class (as a whole) exists. Why? Because workers come in many shapes and forms (skilled,unskilled), have different objectives (some workers may simply want to survive at the marketplace,whereas others may want to become the bourgeois/petit bourgeois eventually), different ideas (racism, internationalism, humanism etc.), different circumstances/financial condition, and so on.

So, while they're all individually workers, is it possible to call them the working class as though they are a homogenous entity? Apples, oranges, grapes - we include them in one category called 'fruit' (based on what they have in common) but still do not the differences surpass what's common between them?

That's like asking "do walls exist? I'm not denying that individual bricks exist, but do walls exist?"

The working class isn't defined by their ideology, even a racist worker is part of the working class simply because he sells his labour. A working class isn't defined by what people want (e.g. "survive the marketplace") either.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, the word 'proletarian' is a label, but it is a label applied to a social class which clearly and demonstrably exists.
Maybe this could shed some light on the problem: classification in social sciences and political thought, similarly to taxonomy, proceeds clearly defined criteria and tries to see what common characteristics can it isolate when observing a host of different animals/plants/ and/or people which then serve (characteristics) as the basis of specific groups' formation, which can include both the common features and divergent features.
So, the concept of social class is used to refer to a common feature that are in one way or another are shared by people, and which determine their social existence in one way or another. The Marxist concept of social class is an abstraction, but one based on actual features that can be shown to be common for a certain group of people.
The problem may arise when confronted with the question of why should the relation to the means of production be the dominant determination of class. I for one think that this position is a valid one with more than sufficient explanatory power, and in fact, I think it is also sufficient for becoming a basis of my politics. It is not an abstract framework which is comprised of features which are not significant for the concrete conditions of social existence. You may even that birds, as a class of vertebrates, are not a hard reality if you were to adopt the position of any classification being an "abstract framework" which has nothing to do with reality.

Of course, when we're dealing with the problem of class in human societies, it's not that consciousness of possibilities for changing one's material status (do note that this assessment of possibilities varies greatly with respect to the probability of them being fulfilled), the whole american dream thing or social mobility, can invalidate the notion of class distinction. It still holds true that in order for social mobility to be realized, concrete social conditions must be transcended in one way or another, and these conditions are, at least currently, those which the person faces in her reality.

Guna seems to be implying that there can be no broad working class ("it doesn't exist") if there are concrete individuals who adopt different perspectives and strategies for dealing with conditions they face. It can be said that this statement represents a valuable insight only in a very limited sense. Namely, no Marxist is claiming (at least I hope) that the conditions of every single individual who is a wage earner, and not a capitalist, are exactly the same and that they are homogenous as a group in this sense. It is worthwile to explore how the working class is fragmented, along which lines and what are the possible consequences. But the conclusion drawn, that there only exists "the individual" (who is he/she?) is metaphysical. It cannot explain concrete practices of social organization and concrete individuals' interaction which historically produces the existing social relations (the process also works "backwards", in that these concrete individuals are formed socially, in multiple social relations which influence their conditions of life).

All in all, the way that the problem is posed ("the class does not exist" - meaning that it's an empty abstraction - "only the individual exists"), is severly flawed. A better way to (ab)use this basis would be to ask the question of justification with respect to different ways of conceptualizing, classifying human beings and the cincrete, historical question of working class fragmentation with all its social, political and economic consequences and implications.


Apples, oranges, grapes - we include them in one category called 'fruit' (based on what they have in common) but still do not the differences surpass what's common between them?
How would you determine whether the differences surpass the commonly shared features? If you would stick to examining the members of this category alone, you would have no viable tool to determine the scale and importance of the differences. Of course, you could selectively pick out the criteria which can be used to produce an impression of irreducible differences. But that would harldy tell you anything the concrete effect this category has on human nutrition (since singling out the class of fruits can be best justified according to their function as edible stuff).

But you would profit (pun intended) immensly from counterposing apples, oranges, and grapes with pork, veal and lamb meat. Here, the differences in quality between classes with respect to their effect on nutrition would surpass those between members of the same class.

[Hit The North]

Thanks for all the replies.

I am not denying the existence of (individual) workers. I am just wondering whether the working class (as a whole) exists. Why? Because workers come in many shapes and forms (skilled,unskilled), have different objectives (some workers may simply want to survive at the marketplace,whereas others may want to become the bourgeois/petit bourgeois eventually), different ideas (racism, internationalism, humanism etc.), different circumstances/financial condition, and so on.

So, while they're all individually workers, is it possible to call them the working class as though they are a homogenous entity? Apples, oranges, grapes - we include them in one category called 'fruit' (based on what they have in common) but still do not the differences surpass what's common between them?

Perhaps it would help to make the following distinction:

'class-in-itself' - the objective grouping of individuals on the basis of their relationship to the means of production

'class-for-itself' - the subjective realisation among members of the class-in-itself, that they have a common interest and act as a class pursuing those interests.

For Marx, relationship to the means of production is only part of the story in understanding the role of social classes in history. The complex and ever-expanding division of labour means that the working class is not likely to be homogeneous, as you point out. This is one factor that stands as an obstacle to classes-in-themselves realising their mutual interests and acting as a class-for-itself.

One of the tasks of revolutionaries in the working class is to help workers overcome the divisions, by drawing the correct lessons from our struggle, by arguing that one worker's emancipation can only be won on the basis of the emancipation of all workers.