The Working Class

[Edelweiss]

Is the working class, as described by Marx ("those individuals who sell their labor and do not own the means of production"), still existing in western, industrial nations? I mean I think it's obvious that the borders between working class and bourgosie are pretty much blurring, and although there seems to be another trend again within the last years, the working class has become more and more wealthy and bourgois, and even has became indirectly owner of means of production themself by obtaining stocks in a pretty big dimension. Also, income of high ranking, but loan dependent, employers have become astronomical dimensions. Much of the "classic" working class, and the direct and unrestricted exploitation, seem to have moved to 3rd world countries, whereby the middle class has beocome a fixed part within western, industrial societies, unlike Marx predicted.
Is the "fetish" that many communists making around the working class still justified? I know this is not a new thesis, but nevertheless worth to be discussed again.

[redstar2000]

There are indeed a number of threads on this subject. So, maybe a fresh approach would be illuminating.

Let's assume that the proposition is correct: there is no working class in a Marxist sense in the advanced capitalist countries.

Europe, North America, Japan, etc. are collectively the "world bourgeoisie"...and all those other places are collectively the "world proletariat".

I think that if this were true then it would render proletarian revolution impossible.

Why? Because the "world proletariat" could not physically reach the accumulated wealth of the "world bourgeoisie" in order to seize it...it's too far away.

The world proletariat could (temporarily) seize control of an oil field or a rubber plantation or a copper mine...but it couldn't seize control of Wal-Mart or Toyota or Microsoft or Citibank, etc. And when the imperial troops arrived, they'd lose control even of the wealth in their own countries.

There's no question that the "world proletariat" could cause temporary economic difficulties for the "world bourgeoisie"...the equivalent of strikes and boycotts could take place.

But to deliver a decisive blow against the "world bourgeoisie", the "world proletariat" would have to mount a massive invasion of the homeland of the "world bourgeoisie"...and that doesn't seem possible to me.

Can you imagine an "army" of 50 million proletarians from Latin America storming northwards to invade North America? How would they be equipped and supported? How would they eat along the way?

I leave out the matter that the "world bourgeoisie" have many "weapons of mass destruction" and the "world proletariat" have virtually none. If such a thing were ever attempted, the slaughter would make the murders of the 20th century look trivial.

There's a line of reasoning in science that says when you begin with a hypothesis and find that it leads to absurd conclusions...it's highly probable that the hypothesis is wrong.

Consequently, I think the idea that there is no working class (proletariat) in the advanced capitalist countries is incorrect.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Edelweiss]

My opnion would be that the working class is still very much existing in western countries, but nevertheless the class structure has changed tremendously since Marx wrote the manifesto. If we still assume the class structures of about 150 years ago, like many communists are still doing, the communist/anarchist movement is a teethless tiger, becauce our actions are simply based on wrong assumptions. I think we have to react to the changes in the class structure, and adopt Marxist theory to it. So IMO we shouldn't base all our actions on "the good of the working class" anymore, not only because of the growing number of unemployed (and practically almost fixed amount, it seems the capital has totally accepted a certain amount of unemployed within society, there does't seem to be the sligtest interest anymore to gain full employment) in western countries, but also because we have to realize that the working class also can develop reactionary tendencies which Marx probaply never would have thought to be possible. Let's face the uncomfortable truth that all fascist movements have been strongly backed by the working class, all fascist movements, and especially the German one, had strong (pseudo)anti-bourgeois elements, although they also have been backed by the industry, the bourgeoisie, in a mutual, nearly paradox manner. So what I'm basicly advocating is that we hould stop making a fetish or a myth around the working class, we should stop romanticizing the working class, and start with a down-to-earth and realistic view.
And now nail me for my blasphemy. :D

[Hegemonicretribution]

I would say that staying strictly to the definition the working class is as prominant as ever before. However there is less of a socio-economic difference. That is that there is extremely well paid manual labour out there, and even traditional "working class" positions are wealthy enough not to feel oppressed.

Those that are the most oppressed are those least willing to shed their chains, that is the impoverished unemoployed. This is a people that concentrate on a day to day existance, rather than planning for their promotion from there low level.

There are no longer the clear cut definitions of the past. The class blurring has been positive in some ways, increasing standards of living and reducing, at least middle level inequality. However the people are still exploited, it is just that they see no reason to change this themselves, and why should they? They benifit from teh current life, there is no need to risk it on some radical system. Even if they could be convinced that they could benifit themselves, that would simply start a revolution on a basis of greed and self gain. If it was argued the other way, then why start a revolution because there is contempt for those that the taxes of their less than rightful wages pay for.

The West, at least, needs a new line of attack, a promotion of responsibility, and a higher willingness to be pragmatic.

I think that the concept of the groups that Marx highlighted existing on a world scale is an amazingly accurate description. However I therefore feel that change, as was predicted, would have to start in the West. In the same way that many left wing theorists themselves could be classed as bourgeois, it is the current day working class bourgeois that needs to get the ball rolling.

[Zanzibar]

Not really. In both American and Canada the gap between the rich and poor is [b]getting bigger[/i]. All gains made my the unions and progressive elements in post World War Two North Amrica are fading away quickly.

Many still starve. Many can't make the rent. Many are thousands of dollars in debt. In a sense they are under the thumb of the bourgeoisie now more then ever. In exchange for a few trifels, a credit card, the bougeouise has managed to trap many works. Givening them part of what they want, but enslaving them for life. How many people do you know "working for the banks?"

At anyrate, I am here to assure you the truely poor do exist in North America. I make less then 10k a year. And own nothing to my name.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:23 PM
I mean I think it's obvious that the borders between working class and bourgosie are pretty much fathering away,



.
I agree that they are much farther away now than ever before in the history of modern civilization. Bill Gates alone at 40+ billion dollars worth, compared to the average 40,000 of American citizens. Of course he is just one person, but there are plenty of billionaires hot on his heels. Take the top 4 billionaires and distribut their wealth, each person in America (230 Million) could all recieve 20,000 dollars each. I am of course not arguing, just enforcing what you said.


and although there seems to be another trend again within the last years, the working class has become more and more wealthy and bourgois
I can only speak on America of course not all of the western world. But in America this class has worked more and recieved less since the mid 70's. Their buying power has gone down and they earn less, but the productivity has increased.

They aren't in fact more wealthy, inflation sees to that, whenever a major group of people can afford more, the prices on goods go up in comparison. They have nicer things than before, more gadgets, coffee makers are cheaper and cheaper means of production arise. But over all, they don't have any "extra money". After rent (which increases) Bills (increases), Health Insurance (100 to 500 a month), Transportation and insurance, there is little left over. The basic needs are increased, (like having to have a car to get to work, buy specific clothes).


and even has became indirectly owner of means of production themself by obtaining stocks in a pretty big dimension.

They can't get stocks in a big dimension to control, even indirectly the means of production. Take safeway for instance, it is a semi-large grocery store chain in the US.

The largest single group owning it.
FMR Corporation (Fidelity Management & Research Corp)
Owns about 42 million shares worth $978,480,095.

Single largest single owner.
MACDONNELL, ROBERT I. 1,265,000 shares worth 27,830,000.

% of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 3%.

Individuals only make up 3% of the ownership. That is a lot of individuals to just make up that tiny fraction. That is pretty much how all buisness are controlled at this point.

The working class might profit by buying into stocks. It would be the same with gambling at a casino. They really are saying, "I am giving you this 1000 dollars in hopes that you borrowing it can use it to make yourself more profitable and turn my 1000 value into 1200." In fact they are really, really saying, "you control the means of production so well, I am betting on your ability to do it so well, you will make me some money."


Also, income of high ranking, but loan dependent, employees have become astronomical dimensions. Much of the "classic" working class, and the direct and unrestricted exploitation, seem to have moved to 3rd world countries, whereby the middle class has beocome a fixed part within western, industrial societies, unlike Marx predicted.

The middle class "Production class", has moved across seas and is now creating a larger poverty class in other countries. Instead a 80% has nothing class in these countries, they are paid enough to create a 40% has enough for food and shelter and nothing else class. Essentially splitting apart extreme poverty to extreme poverty and just the poor.

The middle class in the western world is gone, it will be a thing of the past very soon. Service industry jobs at a below livable wage 10.00/hr. and below are increasing.

Because of the increasing lower class, there is a shrinking of trained proffesionals, like plumbers, electricians, auto repairmen, proffesionals that provide services will decrease because the lower class can not afford to use them as much or at all. So that class is going to shrink and service mainly the upper class of the proletariat, the doctors and lawyers, who are working directly for the capitalist and investor class.

Even accountants, a stable middle class type job is being shipped over seas.

Where we are right now in US history could best be described as the robber baron period in the early 20th century.


Is the "fetish" that many communists making around the working class still justified? I know this is not a new thesis, but nevertheless worth to be discussed again
I have always thought of the working class as everybody below the Doctor/Lawyer/managment proffesions. Right now below $100,000 a year. A good rule of thumb for right now.

I think the same way you are viewing them, "More money, more investment opportunities, an apparence of being indirectly a part of the means of production." is how they view themselves.

One of the biggest dissillusions is that the market delibertly withholds certain things from the general public. "Plasma TVs" right now is a perfect example but if you look through out time it has always been something else, CDs, DVD players, Computers, Air Conditioning, Record Players...

It is withheld for a long period of time as is the look of "being successful". Like owning a plasma TV would be something that would impress others. After about 5 to 10 years they are made available to the masses at a price they can slightly afford. Upon buying them, the illusion of being successful, impressive, is purchased as well. The plasma TV for 10 years because the 4 bedroom house American Dream.

The working class in the western world, is anybody who doesn't have a well established future, an uncertain end result of their work. They will work 8 hours a day, uncertain of job stability, untill they retire or die. They don't have a certain defined retirement.

Working class, is what many communist envision as the guy making cars or being in the coal mine. Working class is really a class of people working to survive in society. Constantly under the gun of unemployment, shrinking economy, small middle class that won't need as much of your services, collapsing stock market deystroying retirment funds. Living paycheck to paycheck with no insurance or guarantee of survival. People completely effected by the market winds.

When they added the minumum wage law in America they removed the true "Exploitation of workers" as described by Marx. They no longer barter against each other for survival. I'll do it for 1.00 an hour, well I will do it for 75 cents an hour..so on and so on.

It was the true exploitation of the capitalist system, set up a way to make it so you don't directly exploit them, they do it to themselves.

So in short, in America
There is very little of middle class.
There is a larger more stable lower class (post exploited class)
THere will always be an unemployed class to keep people turn over in the above class.

The middle class of America has moved to other nations to setup the richer poor, still making products cheap enough that the lower class in America can afford them.

The upperclass is almost unchanged.

The investor and capitalist class will increase slightly due to market fluxuations (Depressions and recessions).

[Pete]

My viewpoint is similar to those already presented, and from a young Canadian's perspective, so judge it baised in that manner.

The Working Class still very much exists, though it seems many people wish, and therefore think, they belong to the "Middle Class." The Middle Class, in my opinion, would be those people who can pay for rent (morgage), pay for food, pay for clothing, transportation, a good amount of luxury items (such as extracontinental vacations, weeks at expensive ski resorts, more than the required number of vehicles, larger than needed housing, ect).

Using that as my guide the number of middle class families is greatly decreased (yet surprisingly this year at school I am encountered by a much greater number of them), and most of those who claim to be middle class are in fact working class. The Working Class would be those people who can pay their rent (morgage), pay for food, clothing, transportation, and minor luxuries (TV, computers, maybe a week or two camping as vacation, ect), nothing excessive. Under this model many of those I grew up with would fall into this catergory, though they feverently would claim to be middle class, as that is the romaticized ideal of our times.

Now the question is what about families? I will use my own as a guide. My parents are both employeed, one as a bervement councillor, the other as a disposible low level manager (he spent a quater of the last year unemployed). Combined the make probaly 80 - 90 thousand dollars a year. Now, if it was only them and me this would place them in the upper working class, but as they have four other children, two still living at home, two still recieving minor assistance (government doesn't care much about family size when it comes to dishing outloans) and one completely independant, they are quite clearly in the low to mid working class. As my older sister and my self break away their position in society will rise, and eventually when my little brother and little sister are standing by them selves my parents will be living off thier pensions (though I doubt the pension plan will be able to hold out the baby boom) and quite clearly still have a 'working class,' albeit retired, life style. My family has two cars (one for each parents, my dad usually works out of town as he gets fired every 5 or so years, and the other for my mom to get to work and to take us to the doctors ect), two TVs (one was a gift), and three computers (all hand me downs in the 'take it or I'll trash it catergory, we save everything), and a house built for a family of 6, which it at one time held.

Many people are in a similar situation, with thier handmedown obsolete electronics, the means to get by and a little more, and yet they claim to be middle class so as to make themselves feel better. Quite clearly my family, and many of those other families, do not possess the means of their own production and are constantly either between jobs, or working at wages that do not suit their labour.

Moving on to single people I see a greater disparity. I have one friend who tries to live the lifestyle one would put to the televised middle class, yet she works two jobs and if she wasn't living with her parents still, she would be unable to even have a social life. Many people are in a similar situation, or worse as they are not supported by parents, working two or more jobs because they can't recieve a living wage at one. These people are clearly in the working class, though thier emplyoment is usualy in the service 'industry.'

In short, the working class is very much alive today, they are only 'brainwashed' into thinking they are middle class when they are not.

As for what Redstar was talking about, I have had similiar musings over the past few months, and it seems to make sense that hte 'global borgeoise' and the 'global proletariat' do exist, yet how to reconcile the situation I do not know. Change has to come, whether from the global north or the global south it is unsure, but if we look at the past century it is obvious that revolution in the third world will ultimately fail if it isn't coincided with revolution elsewhere.

I also concur with the point on an unemployed class, but I'd also like to put in the idea of an underemployed class, where those in this class are not making enough to get by comfortably enough to be in the 'working class' because of lack of a living wage.

-Pete

[Invader Zim]

It seems that the working class has not "vanished", but evolved in the west. The traditional workers of the 1800's are largely extinct. Up to the mid 20th century most people worked in Primary and secondary industries doing manual labour. With the decline of European industry (in particular) very few people now work in industry, rather they work in tertiary industry such as finance and administration, and as such have replaced the blue collar with the white collar. they have high wages, good clothes and a generally high standard of living, they live in the "middle class" suburban districts, and are effectively middle class or "bourgeoisie" (a dead, now none existent class in reality yet people still like to refer to the "bourgeoisie") as Marx would have probably done. So it is arguable that largely that the working class is almost "dead" in the west, and that the middle classes are the new workers.

However that depends on how you define class in modem society. A small business owner, who runs a small firm specialising in say, developing spreadsheet software, for example. This man aged 45, brings in an average bordering on large income from his business say £45,000 pa, lives in a three bedroom house in a nice suburban district, wears a suit and drives a 5 door hatchback costing just over £10,000 and his children go to grammar school. He would undoubtedly be defined as middle class. Yet he was the son of a minor, and he himself was a minor until he lost his job after the 1984 minors strike, very much a working class background, and I would imagine if asked he would claim to be working class.

He has a next door neighbour, who is the same age, drives a similar car, has a similar wage and his kids go to the same school, yet he works for a bank, as a systems analyst, and sells his labour. He is the lowest in that rung of employment, and has 100 people senior to him, and no one junior, he works hard on a computer for 8 hours a day, reports to his boss and goes home. In effect he's just a clerk, and working class, yet lives a middle class life style, exactly the same as his middle class neighbour, how do they differ in class? They clearly don’t, which suggest that the perceived idea of class in this society is just plain wrong. So no the working class doesn’t exist, but neither does the middle class. The only class of old which does exist is the upper class, but they are now millionaires and celebrities.

[Felicia]

Yes, the working class exists. I know from personal experience.

Lets just say that I used to work for a paper plant, as a labourer (yeah, lol) and in this plant we'd work crazy hours, long hours (sometimes 15-16 hours a day) I made minimum wage (6.25 in my province) and in one instance, I worked about 13 days straight in a row, all day saturday and sunday. Which is ILLEGAL. But being a socialist, I concented to working and helping them so that they could get the work done in less time. And there's nothing more disappointing than the person who leaves after 12 hours (when they can legally leave) and leave others short handed to get the work done. And in my province "full-time" work is 35 hours a week or more (according to the labour board). However I and the employees that I worked with sometimes worked 60 hours per week, and were still considered "part-time" employees, therefore not recieving "full-time" benefits.

The job sucked, and this company has a horrible reputation for working people to the bone. And I agree with that reputation. I've seen more than anyone's fair share of things that were against labour laws. Not to mention we didn't have a union.

Anyway, that's my two cents from my personal experience, take from it what you will.

[Edelweiss]

A few corrections: In my first sentence me stupid German has used a totally wrong vocabulary, which turned around the my intended meaning of the sentence, I meant to use "mean I think it's obvious that the borders between working class and bourgosie are pretty much blurring", instead of "farthering away". Sorry about that...

Also, I should have noted that I'm mainly speaking about the situation in western Europe, where the Social Democratic welfare state is still existing (not for long anymore probaply though...). In Europe, the middle class has been constantly grown since the 19th century, Marx predicted the direct opposite. The phenomenon of middle class jobs to be outsourced to countries like India, is still a very marginal phenomenon, also the social Net of the welfare state prevents a fall into the lower class in most cases. The loans where stable, and so far always adapted to the current inflation rate, thank to strong unions, and nation wide wage agreements. So overall to say that the working class has become more wealthy and burgeois (especially in their life style and consciousness) in Europe is correct, I think we can hardly deny that. That the working class is indirectly owning any means of production is of course an illusion, I was playing devils advocate here a bit...
So I'm still advocating a less romanticiszed, less idealized view on the working class for the reasons given above, and I'm still advocating an adaption of Marx's theory to the current class structure, ec's term of the "unemployed class" seems to be a very good beginning to me, and should be a fixed part in marxist analysis of the current society IMO.

[Saint-Just]

I classes exist in western capitalist societies. I think there is a working class, however I think it is smaller. The middle class is far larger now. I think a good measurement of working class is how many people are in relative poverty, in a country such as the UK that is about 20% I believe.

[Larissa]

"I think it's obvious that the borders between working class and bourgosie are pretty much blurring"...

The "working-exploited class" indeed existis down here, you should come and see it by yourself. (Actually, I'm working hard on this issue and I must admit that sometimes I feel sort of hopeless)

[Pete]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 30 2004, 08:13 AM
I classes exist in western capitalist societies. I think there is a working class, however I think it is smaller. The middle class is far larger now. I think a good measurement of working class is how many people are in relative poverty, in a country such as the UK that is about 20% I believe.
What is your definition of the working class, and what is your defintion of the middle class? I think to address this question you need to address my question first, as I do not believe marx's classes fit today, nor do I believe that they fit perfectly back then either.


Good to hear from you Larissa! Remember you have support up here, and everything you do will effect more people than those you come to face to face with :) Keep it up comrade Moma :)

-Pete

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Pete+Jan 30 2004, 03:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pete @ Jan 30 2004, 03:35 PM)
Chairman [email protected] 30 2004, 08:13 AM
I classes exist in western capitalist societies. I think there is a working class, however I think it is smaller. The middle class is far larger now. I think a good measurement of working class is how many people are in relative poverty, in a country such as the UK that is about 20% I believe.
What is your definition of the working class, and what is your defintion of the middle class? I think to address this question you need to address my question first, as I do not believe marx&#39;s classes fit today, nor do I believe that they fit perfectly back then either.

-Pete [/b]
I agree that Marx&#39;s definitions do not entirely fit today in western capitalist societies. I do not think there is a simple definition for working-class. I would generally agree with how you defined the working-class. I do think that the middle class is larger regardless of whether some people who appear to be working-class classify themselves as middle-class.

[monkeydust]

Obviously, as many have pointed out already, the number of working class, poor families in Western Europe at least has decreased, overall, as standard levels of living have increased. However there are still many who could be called working class.

I think that classes have become somewhat fragmented, it&#39;s much harder to group everybody under clear cut definitions of &#39;middle class&#39; or &#39;working class&#39;. Yes, there are many on low income still, however many of these do not fit the traditional working class definition, in that they&#39;re not all blue collar workers. These poorer groups don&#39;t (as much as they have formerly) offer manual labour as often as &#39;working classes&#39; did say, 100 years ago.

I also think that todays &#39;working class&#39; is fragmented geographically, on a national, as well as an international level. Whereas at the end of the 19th century working classes were grouped together in small, shoddy living quarters nowadays, more live in accomadtion interspersed with middle class people.

Today, people actually can further their prospects to an extent, at least in Western Europe. What this means is that someone need not remain working class their whole life, as they would have previously. You no longer get generations of people being working class, people move between classes to a greater degree.

What I think all this means is that as the working class is harder to define it struggles to define itself. There is no longer &#39;class conscienceness&#39;, no longer do many &#39;working classes&#39; feel working class. In other words those being opressed, don&#39;t know that they are.

As a consequence to this, I think that the probability of the modern working class trying to change it&#39;s circumstances as a whole is greatly reduced, and is decreasing even more. The modern working class, is no longer the proletariat that Marx and Engels envisaged, it will not struggle to fight it&#39;s oppresors as it doesn&#39;t recognise it&#39;s oppresors as a whole.