Is a new class emerging?

[Bardo]

In the previous centuries, the proletariat, the peasantry and the bourgeoisie set the lines and conditions for class struggle. But what is to be said of modern western (and other emerging) economies? Surely, there still is a large proletariat, alienated from their labor, selling their productive value and creating surplus for the bourgeoisie. There is still a vast peasantry in much of the world, but in the more developed parts of the world, this really isn't the case. Farmers are now either petite-proletariat or even bourgeois farm owners.

My question is concerning the number of people who fall into neither of these categories. The people who simply have no productive participation in the economy whatsoever, the unemployed, the disabled. Particularly in western countries like the US and much of Europe, there is a class of people emerging that is not only alienated from their own labor, but are alienated from the productive process entirely. With automation, outsourcing etc, I expect this group continue expanding.

Does Marx (or anyone really) have anything to say about this group, or is this a newer phenomena that wasn't applicable until somewhat recently?

[IBleedRed]

I'm not an expert but my response would be that this emerging class that you talk about, those that are alienated from the productive process altogether, are in that condition because of the capitalist system. They are not removed from the capitalist system altogether.

This trend, which going to seriously hinder millenials as they start to enter the workforce and the "real world", is a good example of the irrationality of capitalism. It has become more profitable, and more politically secure, for the capitalist to subsidize the lives of non-workers via welfare than to employ them and pay them a living wage. The problem is that this won't work when we're talking about a massive portion of the population unable to work, or underemployed and increasingly relying on the state in order to scrape together a living. As I said, I'm not an expert and I'm also very interested in the answer that some of the more seasoned veterans have to give.

[Comrade #138672]

Do you mean the so-called "precariat"?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-things-precariat-t148669/index.html?t=148669&highlight=precariat
http://www.revleft.com/vb/precariat-popularized-british-t180011/index.html?t=180011&highlight=precariat

[Brutus]

I think you mean the lumpen-proletariat

[Niccolo]

I think you mean the lumpen-proletariat

Yep.

Term used in bourgeois sociology is underclass, and I think that fits this constantly expanding group perfectly.

[blake 3:17]

Great British Class Survey finds seven social classes in UK

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/03/great-british-class-survey-seven


& it's more complicated than that.

[G4b3n]

You are referring to the lumpenproletariat. Marx ultimately considered them to be an obstacle in terms of revolutionary capacity. However, Marxists have claimed otherwise. The Black Panthers considered the lumpenproletariat to be a historically progressive class as automation would inevitably lead to more workers becoming "lumpen" and thus this would drive up the revolutionary capacity of the class as the quantitative measurement increased.

[Geiseric]

Migrant workers I'd consider working class. If you are paid any wage for commodity production you are working class. If you rent or work your own capital you are petit bourgeois. If you make money from investment you are full on bourgeois. Everyone is capable of being any of those at different parts of their lives.

[Redistribute the Rep]

This is not an emerging class, Marx and ohers referred to it as the lumpenproletariat. He and Engels generally viewed this class as being counter revolutionary and susceptible to reactionary thought. This is because they do not partake in the wage labor system and therefore lack class consciousness.

[IBleedRed]

You are referring to the lumpenproletariat. Marx ultimately considered them to be an obstacle in terms of revolutionary capacity. However, Marxists have claimed otherwise. The Black Panthers considered the lumpenproletariat to be a historically progressive class as automation would inevitably lead to more workers becoming "lumpen" and thus this would drive up the revolutionary capacity of the class as the quantitative measurement increased.

The lumpenproletariat might become increasingly militant and politically active, but the problem is that they don't possess direct economic power the way the proletariat do. The working class used to be able to strike fear in the hearts of capitalists because striking would bring production to a halt - workers are indispensable. Lumpenproletariat are not indispensable.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think that lumpen activism would need different strategies in order to make the class revolutionary.

[Manic Impressive]

Unemployed workers make up the reserve army of labour. I don't know which countries this would not be true in but certainly in the UK and US they follow the ideas of Jesus and Lenin with one small modification 'thou who doth not (look for) work, neither shalt he eat'. Meaning if you are not directly engaged in attempting to sell your labour then they will quite happily watch you starve to death. Meaning they (we) are still proletariat.

Imagine this analogy, say you are a slave owner, and for some reason or another you don't have enough labour for your slaves to carry out, meaning that some of them will sit by idly while the others do what work you need doing. You would still let those slaves sleep in the accommodation you provide, and you would still feed them as they represent future value to you either as commodities or through their labour. You might give them half rations, if you were being efficient.

But would you have created a new class? Would they still be slaves?

What we have today to carry on the analogy is more like state ownership of these slaves. Instead of one man being responsible for feeding and housing their workforce it has become the states job, merely another state subsidy to business. Workers who are not working still represent value to the ruling class as they may be needed to work in the future. They have not changed class just because they are not currently working.

"There is still a vast peasantry in much of the world"
Is there really? Would you mind specifying where? It is important to note that peasant=/=agricultural worker. To qualify as a peasant you have to meet certain criteria such as having a landlord not an employer and such as NOT producing any surplus value, not working for a wage, etc, etc.

[Comrade #138672]

Migrant workers I'd consider working class. If you are paid any wage for commodity production you are working class. If you rent or work your own capital you are petit bourgeois. If you make money from investment you are full on bourgeois. Everyone is capable of being any of those at different parts of their lives.(Emphasis added.)

Is that so? While there may be some social mobility between the petit-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, and perhaps between the proletariat and the petit-bourgeoisie in some cases, classes are generally pretty much fixed. Proletarians usually remain proletarians.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There are plenty of stories of poor individuals rising to prominence under capitalism, it's a mistake to pretend that it doesn't happen. The real issue with it is that the possibility of this happening is over exaggerated by the press/popular wisdom.

[The Feral Underclass]

In the previous centuries, the proletariat, the peasantry and the bourgeoisie set the lines and conditions for class struggle. But what is to be said of modern western (and other emerging) economies? Surely, there still is a large proletariat, alienated from their labor, selling their productive value and creating surplus for the bourgeoisie. There is still a vast peasantry in much of the world, but in the more developed parts of the world, this really isn't the case. Farmers are now either petite-proletariat or even bourgeois farm owners.

My question is concerning the number of people who fall into neither of these categories. The people who simply have no productive participation in the economy whatsoever, the unemployed, the disabled. Particularly in western countries like the US and much of Europe, there is a class of people emerging that is not only alienated from their own labor, but are alienated from the productive process entirely. With automation, outsourcing etc, I expect this group continue expanding.

Does Marx (or anyone really) have anything to say about this group, or is this a newer phenomena that wasn't applicable until somewhat recently?

You think unemployed people and the disabled are a new phenomena? Huh?

[Sea]

I'm not sure you what you mean by petite-proletariat regarding farmers (maybe you mean petite-bourgeois?) and of course it's rather rude to refer to the disabled as lumpen in exact terms, but these things are not new to capitalism.

They are growing during the age of neoliberalism, but these categories were even larger in Marx's own time!
There are plenty of stories of poor individuals rising to prominence under capitalism, it's a mistake to pretend that it doesn't happen. The real issue with it is that the possibility of this happening is over exaggerated by the press/popular wisdom.That's the thing. The poor that rise are just individuals, and the poor as a whole remains the poor. And of course, if capitalism didn't create poverty in the first place, that would not happen anyway.

[Slavic]

Unemployed workers make up the reserve army of labour. I don't know which countries this would not be true in but certainly in the UK and US they follow the ideas of Jesus and Lenin with one small modification 'thou who doth not (look for) work, neither shalt he eat'. Meaning if you are not directly engaged in attempting to sell your labour then they will quite happily watch you starve to death. Meaning they (we) are still proletariat.

What we have today to carry on the analogy is more like state ownership of these slaves. Instead of one man being responsible for feeding and housing their workforce it has become the states job, merely another state subsidy to business. Workers who are not working still represent value to the ruling class as they may be needed to work in the future. They have not changed class just because they are not currently working.

To follow up on this. The unemployed are essential to industry not just as a labor reserve but also as a hedge against rising labor wages. The greater the surplus of reserve labor the more leverage companies have to restrict wage increases. The rational being that the labor reserve could fulfill the job requirements at either the same or lower wage then that of the current employee.

With the relative absence of labor unions in this century, more employees are employed as individuals with their wages negotiated almost exclusively by the employer. Due to the large labor reserve, employees are forced to compete and lower their wages in order to become employed. Employers have the luxury of having a surplus of replaceable labor which they can utilize if their labor costs rise. Layoff workers when labor costs are high, then rehire later at lower negotiated wages. This happens all the time when unemployment is high in particular industries.

Kind of old but still relevant, at least to my region.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/atlantic/about-atlantic-city-casino-workers-protest-poverty-wages-in-front/article_b4bb7c2a-d5b8-11e0-94f1-001cc4c002e0.html

Resorts casino in Atlantic City changed ownership. The new owners fired and required all former employees to recompete for their jobs at entry level wages, essentially a %30 wage decrease. They were able to get away with this because unemployment in the area that year was upwards of 14% and they would easily fill those jobs with the labor reserve.

[G4b3n]

The lumpenproletariat might become increasingly militant and politically active, but the problem is that they don't possess direct economic power the way the proletariat do. The working class used to be able to strike fear in the hearts of capitalists because striking would bring production to a halt - workers are indispensable. Lumpenproletariat are not indispensable.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think that lumpen activism would need different strategies in order to make the class revolutionary.

I was referring to views held by the Black Panthers, not necessarily my own. From personal experience, lumpenproletarians typically become seduced by bourgeois culture and affluence in their attempts to simply sustain existence while it is easier for consistent workers to grasp a sense of solidarity with other workers. When your livelihood is derived from selling drugs, stolen goods, or what have you, it is difficult to see your struggle as a collective struggle, it really limits it to an individual level.

This is not to say that the lumpenproletariat is completely devoid of revolutionary capacity, while they may have little to no economic influence as you mentioned, they can raise some hell when shit goes sour.

[Redistribute the Rep]

The lumpenproletariat might become increasingly militant and politically active, but the problem is that they don't possess direct economic power the way the proletariat do. The working class used to be able to strike fear in the hearts of capitalists because striking would bring production to a halt - workers are indispensable. Lumpenproletariat are not indispensable.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think that lumpen activism would need different strategies in order to make the class revolutionary.


This is true. It will be harder for them to achieve class consciousness and become a revolutionary force because they do not directly experience exploitation by the capitalist class through the wage labor system.

[blake 3:17]

You think unemployed people and the disabled are a new phenomena? Huh?

Unemployment is a pretty recent thing. In the primary capitalist countries the unemployment rate was less than 1% most of the time until the 1920s.


There were labor shortages during WW I.[23] Ford Motor Co. doubled wages to reduce turnover. After 1925 unemployment began to gradually rise.[104]
The decade of the 1930s saw the Great Depression impact unemployment across the globe. One Soviet trading corporation in New York averaged 350 applications a day from Americans seeking jobs in the Soviet Union.[105] In Germany the unemployment rate reached nearly 25% in 1932.[106]
In some towns and cities in the north east of England, unemployment reached as high as 70%; the national unemployment level peaked at more than 22% in 1932.[107] Unemployment in Canada reached 27% at the depth of the Depression in 1933.[108] In 1929, the U.S. unemployment rate averaged 3%.[109] In 1933, 25% of all American workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed.[110]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#Industrial_Revolution_to_late_19th_ce ntury

[blake 3:17]

The lumpenproletariat might become increasingly militant and politically active, but the problem is that they don't possess direct economic power the way the proletariat do. The working class used to be able to strike fear in the hearts of capitalists because striking would bring production to a halt - workers are indispensable. Lumpenproletariat are not indispensable.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think that lumpen activism would need different strategies in order to make the class revolutionary.

It is a much harder organizing in places with no centre. I would challenge you on the idea that the lumpenproletariat are dispensable. Capitalist logic dictates that in certain ways and some people are seen as disposable, but it is stupid and silly to see people excluded from waged labour as incapable or unable to resist.

Poor people are not stupid and are perfectly capable of resistance to oppression and exploitation. I find it distressing that revolutionaries feel the need to disparage that resistance.

There's no need to make being poor cool or revolutionary or any BS like those of us excluded from earning a living wage do fight back.

For communist tactics in North America the single best book is http://libcom.org/library/poor-peoples-movements-why-they-succeed-how-they-fail-frances-fox-piven-richard-cloward

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think you mean the lumpen-proletariat

Comrade, I don't think casual labour qualifies as lumpenproletarian. A feature of the latter is being out of the workforce for so long.

[Ritzy Cat]

I don't think we can really deviate from the two original classes, prole & bourg. You own capital and you make money off of it, or you essentially "donate" your labor to earn a living. You're either one or the other, there's no need for any more distinction.

[Bardo]

You think unemployed people and the disabled are a new phenomena? Huh?

Of course I do. Everyone is aware that disability and unemployment didn't exist until around 1970.

Seriously though, by "recent phenomena" I'm referring to the constantly expanding group of people alienated from the productive process all together. Not a temporary swelling of the labor market in an emerging industrial power, but an expanding, permanently reserved workforce in a post-industrial economy.

It appears the term I was looking for is Lumpenproletariat.


I don't think we can really deviate from the two original classes, prole & bourg. You own capital and you make money off of it, or you essentially "donate" your labor to earn a living. You're either one or the other, there's no need for any more distinction.

But isn't the proletariat a class alienated from the labor they perform? Can someone who is detached from the productive process, as in someone who doesn't sell their labor to the bourgeoisie OR own capital, be considered a proletarian in the same way that an industrial worker is a proletarian?

[The Feral Underclass]

Unemployment is a pretty recent thing. In the primary capitalist countries the unemployment rate was less than 1% most of the time until the 1920s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#Industrial_Revolution_to_late_19th_ce ntury

You appear to have missed the entire proceeding section that discusses unemployment dating right back to the Tudor period, as well as the section you quote which discusses unemployment at the end of the 18th century.

Please remember that America and world history are not the same thing.

[Ritzy Cat]

But isn't the proletariat a class alienated from the labor they perform? Can someone who is detached from the productive process, as in someone who doesn't sell their labor to the bourgeoisie OR own capital, be considered a proletarian in the same way that an industrial worker is a proletarian?

I don't think a requirement for a proletariat is to be an industrial worker. You don't have to be an industrial worker in order to sell labor.

I see what you are trying to say here, but I still think we should think of this "reserved workforce" in terms of the two main classes, proletariat and bourgeoisie. If that workforce were to supposedly begin taking its role in society, what exactly would it do? Would it sell its labor or its capital?

[audiored]

My question is concerning the number of people who fall into neither of these categories. The people who simply have no productive participation in the economy whatsoever, the unemployed, the disabled. Particularly in western countries like the US and much of Europe, there is a class of people emerging that is not only alienated from their own labor, but are alienated from the productive process entirely. With automation, outsourcing etc, I expect this group continue expanding.


You might want to check out a book called The Falling Rate of Learning and the Neoliberal Endgame [David Blacker]. He discusses the idea of eliminationism. It is basically the process of only only eliminating public institutions but also what you point out: alienation (he uses the work elimination) from the productive process entirely. The author was recently interviewed on the From Alpha to Omega podcast.

[G4b3n]

I don't think we can really deviate from the two original classes, prole & bourg. You own capital and you make money off of it, or you essentially "donate" your labor to earn a living. You're either one or the other, there's no need for any more distinction.

These notions have existed in Marxist theory since the days of Marx. Material conditions are more complex than just bourgeois and prole.

[Revolver]

Comrade, the new class concept is distinct from lumpenproletariat. As you rightly intuit, it is the permanent displacement caused by automation, not simply the impoverished underclass prone to criminality or participation in the informal economy. Its ranks swell with every labor-displacing advancement in technology, and it can encompass a much wider range of social classes (here distinguishing between production-relation classes and professional/manufacturing/agrarian kind of measures). There's a good article by Chris Hedges (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/colonized_by_corporations_20120514) that touches on this from 2012, but I think he also makes the mistake of separating the "poor" new class from the educated/mobilized new class.