You are on page 1of 2

mont hlyreview.org http://monthlyreview.

org/2012/12/01/what-makes-the-working-class-a-revolutionary-subject

What Makes the Working Class a Revolutionary Subject? :: Monthly Review


Michael A. Lebowitz more on Labor, Marxism & Socialism, Social Movements

Mich ael A. Lebowitz is professor emeritus of econ omics at Simon Fraser Un iversity in Van couver, Can ada, an d th e auth or of Beyond Capital (Palg rave Macmillan ), Build It Now, an d The Socialist Alternative (both on Mon th ly Review Press). Th is is th e preface to th e forth comin g Iran ian edition of Beyond Capital. Wh at makes th e workin g class a revolution ary subject? Not Heg elian mysticismth at it is th e un iversal class or th e vulg ar copy of th e Absolute Spirit. Nor is th e workin g class a revolution ary subject because of its ph ysical location th at it is strateg ically placed to stop th e wh eels of in dustry. From th e sublime to th e crudeth ere can be little surprise th at th ese explan ation s con vin ce few. Of course, th ere are some wh o h ad better explan ation s as to wh y th e workin g class was revolution ary but wh o n ow say th at th e workin g classs time h as come an d g on e. For in stan ce, some sug g est th at on ce upon a time, capital con cen trated workers, allowed th em to come tog eth er an d to org an ize an d strug g le; today, th oug h , capital h as decen tralized workers an d turn s th em ag ain st each oth er in a way th at preven ts th em from strug g lin g tog eth er. On ce upon a time, th e workin g class h ad n oth in g to lose but its ch ain s but n ow it h as been absorbed with in capitalism, is a prison er of con sumerism an d its articles of con sumption own an d con sume it. Th ose wh o con clude th at th e workin g class is n ot a revolution ary subject because capitalism h as ch an g ed th e workin g class reveal th at th ey do n ot un derstan d th e ABCs of Marxism. The working class makes itself a revolutionary subject through its strugglesit transforms itself. Th at was always th e position of Marxh is con cept of revolution ary practice, wh ich is th e simultan eous ch an g in g of circumstan ces an d self-ch an g e. Th e workin g class ch an g es itself th roug h its strug g les. It makes itself fit to create th e n ew world. But wh y do workers strug g le? Un derlyin g all th e strug g les of workers is wh at Marx called th e workers own n eed for developmen t. We kn ow th at Marx un derstood th at wag e strug g les in th emselves were in adequate. But n ot to en g ag e in th em, h e recog n ized, would leave workers apath etic, th oug h tless, more or less well fed in strumen ts of production . In th e absen ce of strug g le, Marx arg ued th at th e workers would be a h eartbroken , a weak min ded, a worn -out, un resistin g mass. Strug g les are a process of production : th ey produce a differen t kin d of worker, a worker wh o produces h erself or h imself as someon e wh ose capacity h as g rown , wh ose con fiden ce develops, wh ose ability to org an ize an d un ite expan ds. But wh y sh ould we th in k th is is limited to wag e strug g les? Every strug g le in wh ich people assert th emselves, every strug g le in wh ich th ey push for social justice, every strug g le to realize th eir own poten tial an d th eir n eed for self-developmen t, builds th e capacities of th e actors. An d, th ose strug g les brin g us up ag ain st capital. Wh y? Because capital is th e barrier th at stan ds between us an d our own developmen t. An d it is so because capital h as captured th e fruits of all civilization , is th e own er of all th e products of th e social brain an d th e social h an d, an d it turn s our products an d th e products of workers before us ag ain st us for on e sole purpose, wh ich is its own g ain , profit. If we are to satisfy our n eeds, if we are to be able to develop our poten tial, we must strug g le ag ain st capital an d, in doin g so,

we workin g people create ourselves as revolution ary subjects. But wh o are we? Wh at is th is workin g class th at is th e revolution ary subject? You will n ot fin d th e an swer in Das Kapital. Marxs Capital was n ot about th e workin g class except in sofar as th e workin g class was an object. Wh at Capital explain s is th e n ature of capital, its g oals an d its dyn amics. But it on ly tells us about th e workin g class in sofar as capital acts ag ain st th e workin g class. An d, in sofar as it does n ot presen t th e workin g class as subject, it also does n ot focus on th e way in wh ich capital strug g les ag ain st th is subject. So, we h ave to look elsewh ere in Marx for h is commen ts about h ow th e capitalist class main tain s its power by dividin g an d separatin g workers (specifically Irish an d En g lish workers). An d, alth oug h Marx explicitly commen ted th at th e con temporary power of capital rests upon th e creation of n ew n eeds for workers, th ere is n o place wh ere h e explored th is question . Th us, th is critical question of th e n ature of th e con temporary workin g class is on e for wh ich th e an swers will n ot be foun d in a book. We must develop th e an swers ourselves. Wh o is n ot-capital today? Wh o is separated from th e mean s of production an d must approach capital as a supplican t in order to survive? Surely, it is n ot on ly th ose wh o sell th eir labor power to capital but also th ose unable to sell th eir labor power to capital n ot on ly th e exploited but th e excluded. An d surely, it in cludes th ose wh o, in th e con text of a massive reserve army of th e un employed, work with in th e sph ere of circulation of capital but are compelled to bear th e risks th emselvesi.e., th ose wh o strug g le to survive in th e in formal sector. Th ey may n ot correspon d to th at stereotype of th e workin g class as male factory worker, but th at stereotype was always wron g . Certain ly, we n eed to beg in with th e recog n ition of th e h eterog en eous n ature of th e workin g class. As Marx kn ew, differen ces with in th e workin g class make it possible for capital to con tin ue to rule. But, as Marx also kn ew, in th e process of strug g le we build un ity. An d, we can build th at un ity by recog n izin g as our common g oal th e n eed for our own developmen t an d by recog n izin g th at th e free developmen t of each is th e con dition for th e free developmen t of all. Capital h as been win n in g th e battle of ideas by con vin cin g us th at th ere is n o altern ative, an d th ose wh o dismiss th e workin g class as revolution ary subject rein force th at messag e. We can fig h t th e battle of ideas, th oug h , by stressin g our rig h t for self-developmen t. As Marx an d En g els kn ew, for workers th is appeal to th eir rig h t is on ly a mean s of makin g th em take sh ape as th ey, as a revolution ary, un ited mass. We h ave a world to win th e world we build every day.

You might also like