First,
we endorse the general observations in the material put forward by the comrades
of the PCOF and October. This document gives, in our opinion, a solid basis to
consider important aspects concerning the working class of today.
In the following, we wish to draw attention to some
specific points that are not emphasized in the document "The working class
today". Our remarks must not to be regarded as final conclusions, but
rather as considerations we feel need to be investigated and discussed further.
1.1.
New appearances of commodity production and the implications regarding
the class analysis.
Capitalism is, as stated in the document from the
French and Spanish comrades, imposing itself on all sectors of society. Health,
culture, relations traditionally belonging to the family sphere etc. are all
being turned into commodities, i.e. products and services put up for sale.
Especially in the most developed countries, the
so-called service sector is therefore rapidly expanding, and is employing vast
numbers of labourers. Some of these labourers belong to the
The problem put forward is
1) what may actually be
described as commodity production?
2) how should these different strata be regarded from a
class perspective?
To look at, it does seem that just about anything is
turned into a commodity, including social and cultural relations that formerly
were not considered as such.
The massive privatisation in the sectors of health and
education is apparently turning the whole process of reproduction of the labour
force into a commodity. These sectors have from a Marxist point of view always
been regarded as non-productive, in the sense that the labourers in these
sectors have been paid for through surplus value generated from the productive
sector in combination with heavy taxation on the broad masses of people. Now,
these sectors appear to be generating great profits for private capital, despite
the decrease in state financing.
If we understand Marx
correctly, he was generally of the opinion that whatever generates profit for
the capitalists must be seen as productive labour from the point of view of
capitalism. On the other hand, he points out that what we today refer to as the
public service sector, is financed from the surplus value created in the
productive sectors of the economy.
If
we look at the health sector, this is of importance in order to define which
part - if any - of the employees in the health sector belong to the working
class, and moreover, whether some of them even might belong to the productive
sector of the working class (we think they do not, until the opposite is
proved).
Some theories, mainly revisionist ones, insist that
these sectors are of interest to the capitalists because of the high proportion
of manual labour necessary for them to function (it is very limited how much you
can automatize health care), hereby avoiding the general tendency of a shrinking
rate of profit. Therefore, they say, capitalism can live on for ever by
expanding its scope of activity to every sector of culture, education and
health. We are in need of profound theoretical arguments to oppose such
theories.
Let's take sports as another example. In this field,
especially in football, enormous profits are generated, and sports have become a
de facto industry of great proportions. Football players are bought and sold
like luxury slaves for tens of millions of dollars, while the exclusive rights
for broadcasting football events are paid for in hundreds of millions of
dollars.
The profits from this "business" is evident.
However, to us it seems equally evident that a football player or a team as such
can in no way produce exchange value or surplus value. In the sense of political
economy, sports are completely non-productive.
Nevertheless, vast sums of money and great profits
arise from the sports arenas. How do we explain this?
As far as we can see, it turns out that the real value
(or surplus value) is created not in the arenas, but in the "spin-off' from
the events, i.e. in the building of stadiums, in the production of TV signals
and transmission and so on. Therefore, there is a difference in the appearance
of the commodity and the actual commodity. In other words, while the football
game appears as a commodity, the real commodity lies in the productive
facilities transforming it into a matter of consumption.
The same thing applies to the sex industry, where one
hardly can speak of any productive effort from the prostitutes or pornographic
"actors". The real profits lie in the film and magazine
These two examples, where the vast profits are only
exceeded by the arms industry and drug business, prove the moral decay of
capitalism in its present stage. But they also show the need of drawing a line
of demarcation when we generally speak of "commodity production".
Does this have any impact on the question of class
analysis? Yes, it does. If it is so that the "industries" mentioned
above are productive, this implies that football players and prostitutes are
wage earners, labourers and perhaps even part of the working class. The
prostitutes in Germany have, for example, demanded that they are referred to as
"sex workers", and not as hookers. Many leftist and revisionist
currents accept terms like these in their "class analysis", which
incorporates almost everyone as "wage earners".
Such a conclusion is in our opinion absurd, both from
the view of criteria for defining the
1.2.
The increased organic composition of capital and the creation of surplus value
prior to the process of mass manufacturing.
Is the thesis that the fundamental tendency of capital
is the substitution of complex work by simple one and the substitution of living
work by dead work valid in all fields? The automatization and use of robots in
production are proof of the latter. It is also true that the term of
"simple work" is relative, depending on the level of culture and
education in a specific country at given time.
Still, the question should be
raised whether this applies to present-day industry. In the advanced countries,
it certainly seems clear that brain work is of equal importance to manual
labour. Thelabour market in these countries is becoming clearly divided into two
sectors, one labour force for complex, mainly intellectual, work, and another
for simple, mainly manual, work.
When we regard the situation from the view of political
economy, it also seems clear that value and surplus value in the process of
production increasingly is being created in the process prior to the actual mass
production (where automatization greatly has reduced the need of manpower). This
may have implications beyond the general tendency of growth in constant capital
and the relative decrease of variable capital.
What is clear today, is that science has become an
integrated part of production. Formerly too, there have been engineers and
technicians, designing products and putting up plants for manufacturing.
However, their contribution to the total mass of produced (exchange) value was
relatively minor. Tens of thousands of workers dominated the production line.
In many industrial sectors today, this appears to have
undergone a change. Of course, we here speak of great differences between
branches of industry. But let us take an example:
In the software industry (like Silicon Valley) vast
resources and hundreds of employees spend their time designing and trying out
products targeted for mass consumption (as well as more limited business
solutions). This process, which we must note takes place prior to the mass
manufacturing, is highly productive. When the software is released from the
programmers and designers, a considerable amount of the surplus value is
component in the product before the phase of mass production is entered. The
production line for the market is generally highly automatized, where computers
and robots copy the program onto CDs for final retail and distribution. The need
for workers in the line of mass production is limited.
Of course, this high-tech industry is not yet typical
for industry as a whole. But many of the same tendencies can be seen in the
automobile industry and other places, where design and planning prior to the
actual mass production have become a decisive and sometimes even dominating part
of the process of production itself.
These observations on our part may not be accurate and
profound, but we think that some of
1.3.
Labour aristocracy
Another reason for digging into these problems, is the
need of a clearer understanding of the social basis of reformism within the
working class itself. As has already been put forward by several parties of the
Conference, the layoffs in industry in the developed capitalist countries, has
also affected and diminished the traditional labour aristocracy, in numbers as
well as in influence. But the "bribery" of a better-off section of
workers still prevails, and the question arises whether it can be said that a
"new" labour aristocracy is developing in other branches and sectors,
either as a supplement or as a substitution for the traditional outlook of this
strata.
We pose the question, without yet having definite
answers.
(In connection with the new edition of Lenin’s work
on imperialism, it is relevant to mention Lenin’s quotation of the reformist
economist Hobson, who pointed out the future possibility of the workers of
Western Europe deteriorating into a mainly non-productive mass of relatively
well-paid workers and servants, mainly occupied in delivering services to the
parasites of the ruling class who have extracted their profits from Asia and
Africa. In some regions of Europe, these phenomenon can surely be observed
today.)
1.4.
The female working class
The increasing role of women as an active section of
the working class must not be neglected. The women have in many cases proved to
be an active force in the struggle against capital, sometimes more militant than
their male co-workers. This is understandable; the women are even more oppressed
and are compelled to take responsibility for their families and children as well
as being labourers. Even in those countries where the slogans of "women
liberation" have been sung for years on end, and where women's rights are
relatively acknowledged, like in Norway, the difference in wages between male
and female labourers and employees still persists.
These circumstances snake the women willing to go in
the forefront raising demands of equal pay and demanding a shorter working day.
The problem is that the
women and the sectors where they predominate (like in the health sector, child
care etc.) lack experience in trade union organization and struggle. Organizing
the women is in itself an issue of importance, as it is known that half of the
female labourers only work part-time, a fact that makes it difficult to
organise and develop an advanced trade union consciousness.
The comments and considerations above do not give any
final conclusions. These are questions that just have been raised in our native
discussions, and we are far from having discussed them thoroughly, not to speak
of having any final answers. We offer theese issues to the participants of the
conference in case they might be considered relevant for the evolving
discussion. Of
Oslo,
September
2001
Revolusjon, Marxist-Leninist organization of Norway