Tweet
when yuh ready fi the real deal, instead of 'wasting time' in here.. yuh won't find this in any column in the Gleaner or Observer:
Dear Folks,
In my initial response to Don Robotham's article 'Time to defeat the lumpen' The Sunday Gleaner, September 30, 2007) I stated:
"One of the basic requirements for engaging in any form of scientific discourse is to clearly define the categories/terms that you are using in your analysis. Professor Robotham has been on an anti-lumpen crusade for some time now but nowhere in any of his numerous articles, that have been dedicated to "saving Jamaica" from the scourge of lumpenization, has he ever taken the time to define exactly what he means by this term. And this is a man, folks, who used to consider himself, a Marxist scholar/scientist! Let us ask the supposedly "learned" professor this very basic question. How can the Jamaican population effectively confront this "evil" in their midst, without being provided with ,at least, a working knowledge of the nature of the beast that they are supposed to be fighting? Certainly he should be aware that it is the responsibilty of the general to intellectually prepare his officers and his troops for war."
Robotham did attempt to rise to the challenge in his follow-up article, 'The influence of the lumpen' published in the Sunday Gleaner on October 7, 2007. However, his definition and analysis of social classes in Jamaica, including the lumpen-proletariat, remains theoretically impoverished and does not provide much insight into the concrete specificities of the profound social crisis that is facing the various classes and strata at this particular moment of the country's history. I will critique some of the formulations (by way of definitions) that he has offered, later. But first, I think that it is essential to carry out the preliminary task of scientifically defining the social categories we term--proletariat and the lumpen-proletariat--and locating their historical origins, within the political economy of the capitalist mode of production. In order for us to do real theoretical justice to the task in front of us, our analysis will have to involve a constant movement from the universal to the particular and from the abstract to the concrete, in historical time and socio-economic space. So, please bear with me as I attempt to walk you through this very complex process.
Locating the birth and development of the proletariat and the lumpen-proletariat and a discussion of their contemporary features.
Between the 15th and 18th centuries major changes occured throughout various regions--within Europe-- that laid the material and political foundations for the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. What were the essential features of this process? Vast numbers of the population that had been, hitherto, tied to the land for centuries, were being forcefully removed from the land and compelled to relocate into developing urban centers where their energies could be more effectively exploited, in the context of developing factories. In other words, increasingly large sections of the peasantry, who worked the land on behalf of a landlord class, were being transformed into a new class, who could only survive by selling the only commodity that they possessed---their capacity to work/their labor-power. The social class that purchased this labor-power was also a relatively new class--the class we call the industrial bourgeoisie, a component of the capitalist class. Where did the industrial capitalists come from? They largely emerged out of the ranks of the merchant capitalists ( those primarily engaged in the buying and selling of commodities, as opposed to organizing the process of producing commodities) and also from the ranks of the master craftsmen (these were skilled individuals who owned their own tools and did organize the work of a few apprentices who worked for them). This is particularly the case within Britain and France.
How do we, then, define the proletariat/the working class? Whether or not an individual belongs to the proletariat/working class is not determined by the size of their income or occupation but by how they earn their income. Do they own the tools with which they labor, or do they have to sell their labor-power to a group of people who owns the tools, in order to get access to life necessities? These are the types of questions we have to ask to ascertain social class membership. Based upon our readings of history, we know that the tools become more and more complex as capitalism develops and this reduces the social time that is required to produce the commodities ( including other tools). This essentially means that as capitalism develops, the ownership of the tools become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. This means that the vast majority of the population becomes proletarianized. If you look at what has been happening in the Health Industry (within the US, for instance), the point that I am trying to get across will become clear to you. The rise of the Heath Maintence Organizations (HMOs) has served to accelerate the proletarianization of doctors. Rising insurance costs along with the cost of medical equipment (tools) have undermined the relative autonomy that doctors used to enjoy for most of the history of their profession. As medical tools continue to be revolutionized, nurses and physician assistants can now be used to do some of the procedures--at a much lower cost--that were formerly the sole preserve of the physician. It is, therefore, no accident that doctors are increasingly joining labor unions to bargain for salary and better working conditions. Many are now even questioning the wisdom of incurring major debt, in order to attend medical school. Similar developments are occuring in the legal industry. So, gentle-people, I hope you can now begin to appreciate why it is not analytically useful to lump individuals who have a certain level of income into the various categories of upper middle class, middle-class and lower-middle class. As capitalism develops, the class structure becomes more simplified, while the occupational structure becomes more complex. This reflects the development of the productive forces and the growing technical division of labor.
A more scientifically useful way to understand the income diversity within the working-class, is to recognize that as the tools become more complex, they render some skills obsolete and, as part of same process, create new demands on the working class to acquire new skills if they want to be linked to the new tools. Those who aquire the new skills, and are able to operate effectively in the new technical and social environment, will no doubt command a greater income than other sections of the working class. This doesn't make them middle-class; this makes them relatively highly-paid members of the working-class. However, most of these workers, intuitively or consciously, know that this can be a very transient/temporary position, in light of the unrelenting technical innovations that are occuring in all sectors of modern industry and the capacity of capital to access skilled labor all over the world.
Indeed, Marx and Engels pointed out that the bourgeoisie cannot survive or reproduce the material basis for its social existence, as a social class, unless they constantly revolutionize the tools/ means of production. Folks, this last point is particularly significant for developing a deeper appreciation and understanding of the enormous challenges facing all of the social classes in Jamaica and the Caribbean region, as a whole. For instance, the Caribbean bourgeoisie might own the tools that are used in their factories and offices but-- partly owing to their colonial economic history---this particular section of what is now a global capitalist class, is not directly engaged in the production of modern tools. This process requires a large surplus (a reserve army) of highly-skilled and proletarianized scientists and engineers. Caribbean-based institutions (which include schools and households) are not organized to produce or socially reproduce the quantity or the quality of this skilled reserve of labor-power that is required by capital to be competitive, in global terms. And, from the standpoint of the reproduction of the modern worker: acquiring new skills and sustaining them in order to reproduce one's labor-power--- under the conditions of the current revolution in science and technology-- requires, at a very minimum, a stable household. Today, this type of household usually consists of two-income earners with post-secondary education and training and, at the very maximum, three children. The joint managers (spouses and partners) of these households are compelled to organize the structure of daily life in a fashion that allows for the most efficient use of time, energy, and all of the material, spiritual and intellectual resources that can be accessed through their social interaction with the broader world. Incidentally, these objective social demands that are being placed upon the professionalized sections of the working-class in contemporary capitalist society, are the basis on which the gay community is demanding both the right to have stable marriage arrangements and legal equality for their partners.
We now look at the group termed, the lumpen-proletariat: As the name suggests, this group is a relatively close relative of the proletariat (they are from the same gene pool) and also came into historical existence as the feudal system of social relations was in the process of social disintegration. They are, therefore, also a product of the emerging capitalist mode of production. In this sense, we can, perhaps, call the lumpen-proletariat---the fraternal, as opposed to the identical twin of the proletariat. These were a group of the people who were largely in rebellion against the regimentation and social demands of a proletarianized existence. These were/are individuals who could not be absorbed by the then and now existing capitalist industry. What were their options in regards to getting access to the necessities of life?..... Becoming prostitutes, vagabonds, mercenaries, buccaneers and pirates. In an interesting way, it is not possible to fully understand the birth and development of Caribbean society and culture, without a clear grasp of the role that the lumpen-proletariat or the declassed social elements played in this process. Let us now look more closely at this history.
Marx and Engels referred to the period between the 15th and the mid-18th centuries as the period of "the primary or the primitive accumulation of capital". This is the period that included the enclosure acts in Britain (the forceful removal of the peasantry from the commons); the beginnings of the African slave trade and the development of plantation slavery in the Caribbean and Latin America; and the dispossession of the native populations of the Americas. All of these dialectical integrated processes prepared the material foundations for the transition from feudalism to industrial capitalism. While some sections of the proletariat labored in the developing factories, the group we refer to as the lumpens were busy ripping off the gold and silver mines of the Americas in direct collaboration with the merchant class. Let us not forget that the British and French ruling classes (comprised of landlords, aristocrats and merchants, during this period) relied very heavily upon the lumpen-proletariat to prey upon and snatch the wealth from their rivals' ships on the high seas. For their work on behalf of the crown and the merchants, former members of the lumpen-proletariat, such as Henry Morgan etc, were knighted; and given a Governorship and massive amounts of land in Jamaica. Many, who were imprisoned under the vagrancy laws in Britain, were given a second chance in life if they accepted the option of working on a slave ship and participating in dragging more enslaved Africans to the plantations in the Caribbean. The point that I want to make clear here (and which I will later elaborate on) is that the lumpen-proletariat did not only play a key role in the primitive or primary stage of capital accumulation but remained and will remain, like the proletariat, an integral part of the process of capital accumulation. Proceeding from the thoroughly misguided notion that a lumpenized section of the proletariat is an anomaly-- and not an organic product of the process of separating large sections of the population from the ownership of the tools-- Preacher Don seems to think that he can preach away or exorcise the social contradictions that the capital accumulation process engenders, along the way. He hopes to lead the campaign of "defeating the lumpen economically". Only somebody who has never seriously studied the many-sided aspects of technical innovations, under the conditions of capitalist accumulation, could mouth such simple-minded slogans.
In the sections to come, I will discuss the economic necessity of the 'surplus population' ( the reserve army of labor) for the functioning of modern capitalist industry, in the context of globalized capitalist competition and illustrate how this process is connected to the continued growth of the so-called 'lumpen-proletariat', the permanently unemployed and underemployed segments of the working-class and what this implies for social stability/instability in Jamaica.
Dear Folks,
In my initial response to Don Robotham's article 'Time to defeat the lumpen' The Sunday Gleaner, September 30, 2007) I stated:
"One of the basic requirements for engaging in any form of scientific discourse is to clearly define the categories/terms that you are using in your analysis. Professor Robotham has been on an anti-lumpen crusade for some time now but nowhere in any of his numerous articles, that have been dedicated to "saving Jamaica" from the scourge of lumpenization, has he ever taken the time to define exactly what he means by this term. And this is a man, folks, who used to consider himself, a Marxist scholar/scientist! Let us ask the supposedly "learned" professor this very basic question. How can the Jamaican population effectively confront this "evil" in their midst, without being provided with ,at least, a working knowledge of the nature of the beast that they are supposed to be fighting? Certainly he should be aware that it is the responsibilty of the general to intellectually prepare his officers and his troops for war."
Robotham did attempt to rise to the challenge in his follow-up article, 'The influence of the lumpen' published in the Sunday Gleaner on October 7, 2007. However, his definition and analysis of social classes in Jamaica, including the lumpen-proletariat, remains theoretically impoverished and does not provide much insight into the concrete specificities of the profound social crisis that is facing the various classes and strata at this particular moment of the country's history. I will critique some of the formulations (by way of definitions) that he has offered, later. But first, I think that it is essential to carry out the preliminary task of scientifically defining the social categories we term--proletariat and the lumpen-proletariat--and locating their historical origins, within the political economy of the capitalist mode of production. In order for us to do real theoretical justice to the task in front of us, our analysis will have to involve a constant movement from the universal to the particular and from the abstract to the concrete, in historical time and socio-economic space. So, please bear with me as I attempt to walk you through this very complex process.
Locating the birth and development of the proletariat and the lumpen-proletariat and a discussion of their contemporary features.
Between the 15th and 18th centuries major changes occured throughout various regions--within Europe-- that laid the material and political foundations for the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. What were the essential features of this process? Vast numbers of the population that had been, hitherto, tied to the land for centuries, were being forcefully removed from the land and compelled to relocate into developing urban centers where their energies could be more effectively exploited, in the context of developing factories. In other words, increasingly large sections of the peasantry, who worked the land on behalf of a landlord class, were being transformed into a new class, who could only survive by selling the only commodity that they possessed---their capacity to work/their labor-power. The social class that purchased this labor-power was also a relatively new class--the class we call the industrial bourgeoisie, a component of the capitalist class. Where did the industrial capitalists come from? They largely emerged out of the ranks of the merchant capitalists ( those primarily engaged in the buying and selling of commodities, as opposed to organizing the process of producing commodities) and also from the ranks of the master craftsmen (these were skilled individuals who owned their own tools and did organize the work of a few apprentices who worked for them). This is particularly the case within Britain and France.
How do we, then, define the proletariat/the working class? Whether or not an individual belongs to the proletariat/working class is not determined by the size of their income or occupation but by how they earn their income. Do they own the tools with which they labor, or do they have to sell their labor-power to a group of people who owns the tools, in order to get access to life necessities? These are the types of questions we have to ask to ascertain social class membership. Based upon our readings of history, we know that the tools become more and more complex as capitalism develops and this reduces the social time that is required to produce the commodities ( including other tools). This essentially means that as capitalism develops, the ownership of the tools become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. This means that the vast majority of the population becomes proletarianized. If you look at what has been happening in the Health Industry (within the US, for instance), the point that I am trying to get across will become clear to you. The rise of the Heath Maintence Organizations (HMOs) has served to accelerate the proletarianization of doctors. Rising insurance costs along with the cost of medical equipment (tools) have undermined the relative autonomy that doctors used to enjoy for most of the history of their profession. As medical tools continue to be revolutionized, nurses and physician assistants can now be used to do some of the procedures--at a much lower cost--that were formerly the sole preserve of the physician. It is, therefore, no accident that doctors are increasingly joining labor unions to bargain for salary and better working conditions. Many are now even questioning the wisdom of incurring major debt, in order to attend medical school. Similar developments are occuring in the legal industry. So, gentle-people, I hope you can now begin to appreciate why it is not analytically useful to lump individuals who have a certain level of income into the various categories of upper middle class, middle-class and lower-middle class. As capitalism develops, the class structure becomes more simplified, while the occupational structure becomes more complex. This reflects the development of the productive forces and the growing technical division of labor.
A more scientifically useful way to understand the income diversity within the working-class, is to recognize that as the tools become more complex, they render some skills obsolete and, as part of same process, create new demands on the working class to acquire new skills if they want to be linked to the new tools. Those who aquire the new skills, and are able to operate effectively in the new technical and social environment, will no doubt command a greater income than other sections of the working class. This doesn't make them middle-class; this makes them relatively highly-paid members of the working-class. However, most of these workers, intuitively or consciously, know that this can be a very transient/temporary position, in light of the unrelenting technical innovations that are occuring in all sectors of modern industry and the capacity of capital to access skilled labor all over the world.
Indeed, Marx and Engels pointed out that the bourgeoisie cannot survive or reproduce the material basis for its social existence, as a social class, unless they constantly revolutionize the tools/ means of production. Folks, this last point is particularly significant for developing a deeper appreciation and understanding of the enormous challenges facing all of the social classes in Jamaica and the Caribbean region, as a whole. For instance, the Caribbean bourgeoisie might own the tools that are used in their factories and offices but-- partly owing to their colonial economic history---this particular section of what is now a global capitalist class, is not directly engaged in the production of modern tools. This process requires a large surplus (a reserve army) of highly-skilled and proletarianized scientists and engineers. Caribbean-based institutions (which include schools and households) are not organized to produce or socially reproduce the quantity or the quality of this skilled reserve of labor-power that is required by capital to be competitive, in global terms. And, from the standpoint of the reproduction of the modern worker: acquiring new skills and sustaining them in order to reproduce one's labor-power--- under the conditions of the current revolution in science and technology-- requires, at a very minimum, a stable household. Today, this type of household usually consists of two-income earners with post-secondary education and training and, at the very maximum, three children. The joint managers (spouses and partners) of these households are compelled to organize the structure of daily life in a fashion that allows for the most efficient use of time, energy, and all of the material, spiritual and intellectual resources that can be accessed through their social interaction with the broader world. Incidentally, these objective social demands that are being placed upon the professionalized sections of the working-class in contemporary capitalist society, are the basis on which the gay community is demanding both the right to have stable marriage arrangements and legal equality for their partners.
We now look at the group termed, the lumpen-proletariat: As the name suggests, this group is a relatively close relative of the proletariat (they are from the same gene pool) and also came into historical existence as the feudal system of social relations was in the process of social disintegration. They are, therefore, also a product of the emerging capitalist mode of production. In this sense, we can, perhaps, call the lumpen-proletariat---the fraternal, as opposed to the identical twin of the proletariat. These were a group of the people who were largely in rebellion against the regimentation and social demands of a proletarianized existence. These were/are individuals who could not be absorbed by the then and now existing capitalist industry. What were their options in regards to getting access to the necessities of life?..... Becoming prostitutes, vagabonds, mercenaries, buccaneers and pirates. In an interesting way, it is not possible to fully understand the birth and development of Caribbean society and culture, without a clear grasp of the role that the lumpen-proletariat or the declassed social elements played in this process. Let us now look more closely at this history.
Marx and Engels referred to the period between the 15th and the mid-18th centuries as the period of "the primary or the primitive accumulation of capital". This is the period that included the enclosure acts in Britain (the forceful removal of the peasantry from the commons); the beginnings of the African slave trade and the development of plantation slavery in the Caribbean and Latin America; and the dispossession of the native populations of the Americas. All of these dialectical integrated processes prepared the material foundations for the transition from feudalism to industrial capitalism. While some sections of the proletariat labored in the developing factories, the group we refer to as the lumpens were busy ripping off the gold and silver mines of the Americas in direct collaboration with the merchant class. Let us not forget that the British and French ruling classes (comprised of landlords, aristocrats and merchants, during this period) relied very heavily upon the lumpen-proletariat to prey upon and snatch the wealth from their rivals' ships on the high seas. For their work on behalf of the crown and the merchants, former members of the lumpen-proletariat, such as Henry Morgan etc, were knighted; and given a Governorship and massive amounts of land in Jamaica. Many, who were imprisoned under the vagrancy laws in Britain, were given a second chance in life if they accepted the option of working on a slave ship and participating in dragging more enslaved Africans to the plantations in the Caribbean. The point that I want to make clear here (and which I will later elaborate on) is that the lumpen-proletariat did not only play a key role in the primitive or primary stage of capital accumulation but remained and will remain, like the proletariat, an integral part of the process of capital accumulation. Proceeding from the thoroughly misguided notion that a lumpenized section of the proletariat is an anomaly-- and not an organic product of the process of separating large sections of the population from the ownership of the tools-- Preacher Don seems to think that he can preach away or exorcise the social contradictions that the capital accumulation process engenders, along the way. He hopes to lead the campaign of "defeating the lumpen economically". Only somebody who has never seriously studied the many-sided aspects of technical innovations, under the conditions of capitalist accumulation, could mouth such simple-minded slogans.
In the sections to come, I will discuss the economic necessity of the 'surplus population' ( the reserve army of labor) for the functioning of modern capitalist industry, in the context of globalized capitalist competition and illustrate how this process is connected to the continued growth of the so-called 'lumpen-proletariat', the permanently unemployed and underemployed segments of the working-class and what this implies for social stability/instability in Jamaica.
Comment