• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Formal and real
subordination
and the
contemporary
proletariat
89
Formal and real subordination andthe contemporary proletariat:Re-coupling Marxist class theoryand labour-process analysis
David Neilson
Having seemed to offer so much in the 1970s, neo-Marxist class theory went into significant decline inthe decades that followed. This paper begins with acritique of
E.
O.Wright's 1980s detour via a reworkingof central aspects of Marx's class theory. Specifically,Marx's concepts of formal and real subordinationprovide the basis for a re-coupling of labour-processthemes with a class analysis of contemporarycapitalism.Introduction
T
aditionally, Marxist class theory defines theproletariat as 'the class of modern wage labourers,[who] having no means of production of their own,are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live'(Marx
&
Engels, 1952:40).This definition focusing on 'formalsubordination', appended by Engels in a footnote to the 1888English edition of the
Communist
Manifesto,
became theorthodox view, and is reinforced to the present day by thecontinuing spread of waged
work.
However, in the
CommunistManifesto
prognosis, and as developed further in
Capital
Volume I, the formal proletariat of wage-dependent workersbecomes a circumstantially homogeneous or well-formed
'class-in-itself'
encompassing the 'immense majority' only asa result of 'real subordination' driven by industrialisation.The persistence of work and life experiences among the'proletariat' that diverge significantly from those of reallysubordinated industrial factory workers raises problems bothwith the 1888 definition and the
Communist Manifesto
 
90
Capital &
Class
#91
prognosis. In the 1970s, neo-Marxist scholars becameparticularly concerned with the increase in 'middle class'wage-earner positions that were ambiguously located betweenlabour and capital (Poulantzas,
1975;
Carchedi, 1975;Wright,1976). On the one hand, these were waged positions andtherefore proletarian; but on the other hand, such 'workers'performed capitalist functions. Erik Olin Wright's conceptof'contradictory class locations' became the mainstream neo-Marxist solution.While the original formulation drew explicitly on labour-process theory, Wright's (1985, 1986, 1989) second-generation analysis conflates the class concept with a narrowdistributional reading of exploitation that marginalises thethemes of work and subordination. Bob Carter (1995: 35)succinctly identifies a corresponding and 'growing divide'between labour-process analysis and class theory:It is the contention here that the emergence of a revitalizedclass analysis during the 1970s represented a crucialdevelopment in social theory. The central innovation wasthe perception of the integral relationship of changes inthe labour process to changes in class structure.Subsequently, the increasing separation of theseperspectives has left Marxist class theory abstract andformal, a spectator rather than a crucial interpreter of theincreasingly rapid changes to work processes. Labourprocess analysis, on the other hand, has become(over) sensitive to the myriad changes but unable to relatethem to wider class theory.This paper contends that, inconsistent with Marx's own work,Wright's second-generation analysis has fueled this divideby constructing the field of class theory in ways thatsystematically remove labour-process themes. Wright'sapproach is challenged here through a re-examination ofMarx's class concept and his thesis of proletarianisation,bringing labour-process themes back into the foreground ofan empirically adequate Marxian class theory. Wright'sapproach is examined first, and provides a critical point ofdeparture for identifying a Marxian class concept andanalytical method that can be applied to test Marx'sproletarianisation thesis. Next, Marx's lifetime publishedwritings that support the dominant proletarianisation thesis—particularly the
Communist Manifesto
and
Capital,
Volume
 
Formal
and
real
subordination
and the
contemporary
proletariat
91
I—are briefly summarised.
The
thesis
is
that
the
spread
of
formal
and
real subordination will generate
a
well-formedproletariat that encompasses
the
immense majority.From this basis,
a
more critical inquiry into
the
proletarianisation thesis
can be
undertaken,
and
this task
is
begun
in the
third section
of
the paper
in an
examination
of
the tension within Marx's work
itself.
Consideration
of
Marx's overarching intellectual project,
and of
specificarguments that
he
touches
on,
especially
in the
Grundrisse,
significantly qualify the proletarianisation thesis by indicatingstages beyond real subordination that imply proletariandiversity
and
division. Finally,
the
tools
of
class analysisdeveloped
in the
earlier sections, combined with
a
revisedMarxian proletarianisation prognosis,
are
deployed
in
orderto test Marx's thesis
in
relation
to
contemporary forms
of
proletarian subordination
and
class division. The distinctionbetween
a
formal proletariat
and a
well-formed proletariatis strikingly raised
in the
contemporary world
by the
continuing '"embarrassment"
of
the middle class' (Wright,1986:
114).
However,
the
investigation
of
this distinctionwithin
the
context
of
neoliberal globalisation
and the
spreadof waged work into
the
service sector also revealsfragmentation amongst non-middle-class sections
of the
contemporary proletariat.
Defining class contra Wright
According
to
Wright,
the
concept
of
exploitationdistinguishes Marxist class theory from other class analyses,while oppression diverts class analysis towards non-MarxistWeberian approaches (see Wright, 1986: 116-17; 1989:
4-6,
41,
313).
Such
a
rigid assignment
of
concepts, reflectingWright's ideological struggle
to
validate
a
Marxist approachagainst attacks from Weberian class analysts, actually leadshim away from Marx's class theory towards
an
abandonmentof power
and the
conflation
of
class with exploitation.Wright (1989:
58)
adapts Bhaskar's famous realistdistinction (1978) between generative mechanisms
and
eventsto
the
relation between class structure
and
class formation,but fails
to
apply
the
distinction
to the
relation betweenexploitation
and
class structure. Rather than viewing classstructures
as
events generated
by
mechanisms such
as
exploitation, Wright argues that class
is
exploitation. As Wrightneatly states, class
is
'defined
in
terms
of ...
exploitation'
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...