To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" Subject: [Marxism] two questions on Marx

["Dieter Elken" <dieterelken@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

1. "Why did Marx rely on a definition of the proletariat as factory workers?"

 

Marx did not define the proletariat as the class of factory workers: 

 

He defined capitalist classes in regard to relations of property. The 
bourgeosie is the class of owners of the means of production, the rentiers as 
the owners of land and the proletariat as those without owning means of 
production, owning nothing else than their force of labour and therefore being 
forced to sell it. See Engels footnote to the English edition of the Manifesto 
of the Communist Party from 1888.

 

Marx and Engels thus gave a sociological definition of  the proletariat, 
including the young, blue and white collar workers, unemployed, pensioners etc. 
All are dependent on the market for wage earners and the ability of active 
workers to fight for appropriate wages and appropriate social conditions 
regulating the market. 

 

Robert Wood is right if he insists that the industrial proletariat is still the 
most significant part of the working class. But it has to be noted that the 
proletariat is a class which developes with capitalism, it changes its 
structure, its composition, its qualifications etc. To insist on old secondary 
definitions which were more or less appropriate during the life times of Marx 
an Engels and define the proletariat as being THE class of factory workers 
would be neither consistent with Marx' method nor with reality. 

 

2. Marx and Engels did not deduce the revolutionary role of the working class 
(proletariat) from its role of  being the most productive and by far most 
central agent of production and capitalist accumulation as such. The 
revolutionary mission is deduced from the fact that the development of 
capitalism with inevitability would lead to a situation where most human beings 
will be proletarians. Therefore a situation will be created which would be 
characterized by the quantitative domination of a class which has the POTENTIAL 
and objective INTEREST to free itself and with itself mankind by abolishing 
capitalist relations. Marx and Engels analysed the ongoing class struggle and 
saw the potential to organize the proletariat within these struggles to turn 
the proletariat into a united force, being able to realize its situation and 
act consciously to overcome its exploitation und oppression - even if 
capitalism would not have completed its role as destructor of all precapitalist 
social institutions. They thought that even "normal" capitalist conditions 
would foster class struggles. During their lifetime they expected the facory 
workers to lead the revoltuion.



3. Slavery did not have the potential to develope into the dominant mode of 
production as soon as capitalist relations became dominant. Only the 
accumulation of capital demanded an ongoing modernization and development of 
productive fordces which would eliminate precapitalist modes of production by 
means of market competition and military means. Even if productive in niches of 
social production - slavery could not coexist with a capitalist market forever, 
which had the need for "free" wage workers. On the other hand the interest of 
slaves was to become "free". They revolted against their chains but were able 
to become free of slavery without abolishing oppression at all.  



Greetings

Dieter Elken

Strausberg/Germany
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism