Class, Productive and Unproductive Labour - Journal of Alternative ...
Class, Productive and Unproductive Labour - Journal of Alternative ... Class, Productive and Unproductive Labour - Journal of Alternative ...
Class, Productive and Unproductive Labour: Divisions in the Global Working Class?Communist Manifesto can be seen as one of the first suchtheories, with Marx and Engels (2011) writing of thecapitalist age that “National differences and antagonismbetween people are daily more and more vanishing, owing tothe development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce,to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of productionand in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.”Empire by Hardt and Negri is one of the most prominentcontemporary examples of such thinking. Hardt and Negrisuggest that a qualitative change has occurred withincapitalism. Specifically, they propose that the prior age ofrival imperialist powers has been replaced by an era withonly one power (Hardt and Negri, 2000:9). As a result ofthis, they consider the world as being divided into two globalopposing social forces, the empire and the multitude, withthose outside the capitalist class forming the multitude.Commenting on the alignment of global social forces, Hardtand Negri (Ibid:393) suggest “Empire creates a greaterpotential for revolution than did the modern regimes ofpower because it presents us, alongside the machine ofcommand, with an alternative: the set of all the exploitedand subjugated, a multitude that is directly opposed toempire, with no meditation between them.” Implicit in theapproach of Hardt and Negri is the assumption of identityalong working class lines. In their eyes therefore, differencesbetween workers either do not exist, or are irrelevant to theirapproach which is centred on a global ‘multitude’ ofimmaterial workers.In terms of non-Marxist analysis, Freeman, argues firstlythat there is a global labour pool which is in competitionwith each other for the existing amount of capital in the formof investment in wages. He thus describes waged workers asbeing in an identical situation or as he puts it “on the sameeconomic page (Freeman, 2006:1)”. From a Marxistperspective, Robinson and Harris (2000:17) take a similarview, suggesting “global class formation has involved theaccelerated division of the world into a global bourgeoisieand a global proletariat” as a result of globalization.Robinson and Harris add an additional stipulation in20
Dr. Timothy Kerswellorder to define who makes up the global proletariat, that ofbeing involved in the globalized production process. As willbe discussed later in this article, defining who is actuallyinvolved in production is a contestable matter. Further thanthis, there is the issue of who is involved in globalproduction. Given the polarizing argument of Robinson andHarris, what is implicit in their analysis is that everyone whoisn’t being drawn into the global bourgeoisie is being drawninto the global proletariat, which in the end leads to thesuggestion that all waged workers have an objective identityof interest.This position is echoed by Negri (1973:126-9) whosuggests that "…we can now say that the concept of wagelabourer and the concept of productive labourer tendtowards homogeneity”, leading to "the new social figure of aunified proletariat." Summarizing this position, Wright(2002) comments that: “In short, all moments of thecirculation process, and even reproduction, were seen to beproductive of value; the distinction between productive andnon-productive labour was obliterated.”In discussing how Marxist theoreticians have generallydefined class, Wright (2005:12) suggests, “It is commonwhen people think about variations in the rights and powersover various factors of production to treat these rights andpowers as having a simple, binary structure: you either ownsomething or you do not.” The origin of such a positioncomes from Marx and Engels (2011), who himself envisagedthe capitalist age as dividing the world into two opposingclasses, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.In attempting to define how the proletariat comes intobeing, Marx (2011) suggests “the labourer instead of being inthe position to sell commodities in which his labour isincorporated, must be obliged to offer for sale as acommodity that very labour-power, which exists only in hisliving self.” The reason that the labourer is obliged to selltheir labour power is, according to Marx, that they do notown means of production. By contrast, the bourgeoisie musthave means of production as well as the ability to sustain21
- Page 1 and 2: Journal of Alternative Perspectives
- Page 3: Dr. Timothy Kerswellresponse to the
- Page 7 and 8: Dr. Timothy Kerswellthat this asser
- Page 9 and 10: Dr. Timothy KerswellThe orthodox de
- Page 11 and 12: Dr. Timothy KerswellThe first polit
- Page 13 and 14: Dr. Timothy Kerswellexchanging comm
- Page 15 and 16: Dr. Timothy Kerswellproductive in g
- Page 17 and 18: Dr. Timothy Kerswellcapitalisticall
- Page 19 and 20: Dr. Timothy Kerswellin the process
- Page 21 and 22: Dr. Timothy KerswellIn summary, Tab
- Page 23 and 24: Dr. Timothy Kerswellwith larger sec
- Page 25 and 26: Dr. Timothy Kerswellwhether it is c
- Page 27 and 28: Dr. Timothy Kerswellsecond hand sur
- Page 29 and 30: Dr. Timothy KerswellThe reason why
- Page 31 and 32: Dr. Timothy Kerswellpolitical allia
- Page 33: Dr. Timothy KerswellOlin Wright, Er
<strong>Class</strong>, <strong>Productive</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Unproductive</strong> <strong>Labour</strong>: Divisions in the Global Working <strong>Class</strong>?Communist Manifesto can be seen as one <strong>of</strong> the first suchtheories, with Marx <strong>and</strong> Engels (2011) writing <strong>of</strong> thecapitalist age that “National differences <strong>and</strong> antagonismbetween people are daily more <strong>and</strong> more vanishing, owing tothe development <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie, to freedom <strong>of</strong> commerce,to the world market, to uniformity in the mode <strong>of</strong> production<strong>and</strong> in the conditions <strong>of</strong> life corresponding thereto.”Empire by Hardt <strong>and</strong> Negri is one <strong>of</strong> the most prominentcontemporary examples <strong>of</strong> such thinking. Hardt <strong>and</strong> Negrisuggest that a qualitative change has occurred withincapitalism. Specifically, they propose that the prior age <strong>of</strong>rival imperialist powers has been replaced by an era withonly one power (Hardt <strong>and</strong> Negri, 2000:9). As a result <strong>of</strong>this, they consider the world as being divided into two globalopposing social forces, the empire <strong>and</strong> the multitude, withthose outside the capitalist class forming the multitude.Commenting on the alignment <strong>of</strong> global social forces, Hardt<strong>and</strong> Negri (Ibid:393) suggest “Empire creates a greaterpotential for revolution than did the modern regimes <strong>of</strong>power because it presents us, alongside the machine <strong>of</strong>comm<strong>and</strong>, with an alternative: the set <strong>of</strong> all the exploited<strong>and</strong> subjugated, a multitude that is directly opposed toempire, with no meditation between them.” Implicit in theapproach <strong>of</strong> Hardt <strong>and</strong> Negri is the assumption <strong>of</strong> identityalong working class lines. In their eyes therefore, differencesbetween workers either do not exist, or are irrelevant to theirapproach which is centred on a global ‘multitude’ <strong>of</strong>immaterial workers.In terms <strong>of</strong> non-Marxist analysis, Freeman, argues firstlythat there is a global labour pool which is in competitionwith each other for the existing amount <strong>of</strong> capital in the form<strong>of</strong> investment in wages. He thus describes waged workers asbeing in an identical situation or as he puts it “on the sameeconomic page (Freeman, 2006:1)”. From a Marxistperspective, Robinson <strong>and</strong> Harris (2000:17) take a similarview, suggesting “global class formation has involved theaccelerated division <strong>of</strong> the world into a global bourgeoisie<strong>and</strong> a global proletariat” as a result <strong>of</strong> globalization.Robinson <strong>and</strong> Harris add an additional stipulation in20
Change language