The Proletariat and the Unemployed: Are They One and the Same?
Introducing the Problem
Marx defines members of the proletariat as those who sell their labour on the labour market for wages to the capitalist (Capital, 265). This then means that anyone who can never, for various reasons, sell their labour cannot be considered as part of Marx’s conception of the proletariat. Given that Marx defines this group as the revolutionary agent, this leaves out of Marx’s conception of the revolutionary agent those that are forbidden from entry into the factory or other formal spheres of work, such as those who are forcibly unemployed or unable to work due to disability. In this essay, we conceive of the ‘forcibly unemployed’ as those that, while searching for work, are never able to find it. This includes but is not limited to: Those that are functionally disabled, particularly weak physically, or in other ways lack the desirable characteristics needed to find work in the formal sphere. In all, Marx’s definition seems too focused on the factory itself, not concerning itself with the capitalist system as one that could possibly extend beyond the factory, and thus, to those beyond its walls.
Why is this a Problem?
Why is This a Problem, Logically?
In evaluating why this presents a problem in Marxism, we must first ask what incentive there is to pose the problem in the first place, which is to say, why should we care about the forcibly unemployed? Plainly, an answer to this is that they seem to suffer under the capitalist system, often being subjected to prolonged poverty, illness, and death, at least to the same level as the proletariat. It seems hard to imagine a scenario in which the overthrow of capitalism emancipates the workers, but leaves the unemployed to die on the streets. Because of this, there is a somewhat logical argument that the forcibly unemployed feel like they should be a part of the overthrow, and determining what that role should be is the foundation of this essay. Another evaluation that must be made is about what information Marx would have had access to. There must have been people at the time who could not work either because there was no work or because of physical disability. There must have equally existed some discrepancies in the supply and demand for workers, in which, at one point, there existed too many workers for too few jobs. The question of whether this surplus or as described by Boggs, ‘outsiders,’ counts as workers is one that requires some sort of evaluation. This need will become further emphasized when later, it will be considered whether Marx views the unemployed and the workers as one force, or as two forces that oppose each other to the benefit of the capitalist. Finally, it is crucial to consider the capitalist system as one that seemingly goes beyond the factory. As written by James on the idea of women and children as part of the capitalist system: “So here are two sections of the working class whose activities […] appear to be outside of the capitalist wage labour relation because the workers themselves are wageless. In reality, their activities are facets of capitalist production and its division of labour.” (4, Sex, Race, and Class) If the capitalist system can apply to women and children in them being wageless, then it may be useful to examine whether it can apply to another wageless group, the forcibly unemployed. The point of the capitalist system as extending beyond the factory is reinforced by asking why, if the capitalist system did not exist outside of the factory, would the forcibly unemployed be trying so hard to get in, even if they have never worked in one? We have then presented three logical bases for this problem being of significance: The unemployed feel as though they should be part of the solution, there must in Marx’s time existed a group of people who could not or were not allowed to work in the factory, and there seems to be a basis for a conception of the capitalist system as one that extends beyond the factory.
Why is This a Problem, Textually?
We then turn to textual explanations as to why the exclusion of the forcibly unemployed from the proletariat is a problem, starting first with the assumption that Marx makes that capitalism exists as a binary between the worker and the capitalist, writing: “It came to pass that the former sort [the capitalist] accumulated wealth, and the latter sort [the worker] had nothing to sell except their own skins.” (Capital, 295) To this, I raise the question: What does selling your skin even entail? There is value in examining whether the ‘selling of skins’ can be thought of in a more abstract way, such as through the searching for work rather than in an explicit factory setting. A second issue that arises in the text is whether or not the forcibly unemployed being considered in this essay even exist, or whether they are all contained under Marx’s description of the unemployed or those with extremely irregular work in Capital, ch.25. As will be shown later, the conception of those who have never worked presented in Marx is very different to the more modern conceptions presented by authors such as Boggs, who writes: “We already have with us a generation of youth who have completed high school and had some kind of training and yet have found no mode of production into which they can fit.” (51) This difference between them is of note when it is considered that Marx categorizes those who do no work as “paupers” and as inherently tied to criminality. (Paragraph 8, Capital ch.25, s.4) There then seems to be some need to explicate whether the workers and the outsiders are oppressed by the same mechanism, or if their oppressions are different enough to warrant separation.
Before launching into the potential solutions for this problem, I see fit to first address a solution that I will not explore as in depth as others, that being: Why not just include every oppressed person under the proletariat? To this, I respond that the connections between Marx’s proletariat and each oppressed group may not be strong enough to warrant serious consideration of amalgamation, whereas the connection between the forcibly unemployed and the proletariat, it will be shown, seems to be very strong. We are then looking at whether, on Marx’s grounds alone, we are able to amalgamate the workers and the forcibly unemployed into one singular revolutionary agent capable of overthrowing the capitalist system. In this, we shall investigate three relatively simple solutions, but through their mechanisms in which they might be implemented, become more complex. Each solution will be split in two parts: Textual analysis of the solution, and the applicability of the solution. First, that those that are forcibly unemployed can be added to Marx’s conception of the proletariat. This will focus on Marx’s conception of labour as it relates to Boggs’ unemployed on the textual side, and on the side of applicability, on the separation of the workers and the unemployed being potentially a problem of organization rather than of difference between the two groups. Second, that those that are forcibly unemployed cannot be added to Marx’s conception of the proletariat, and that we then need a new theory that is capable of amalgamating the two. This solution will stress Marx’s assertion of labour as relating specifically to workers’ subsistence on the textual side, and on the difficulty of discerning how Marx would think of the forcibly unemployed being discussed in this essay due to the limitations in how Marx examines the unemployed on the applicability side. Finally, that the forcibly unemployed cannot be added to Marx’s conception of the proletariat, and that we should not seek to amalgamate the two groups. This will center on the textual side on Marx’s description of the battle between the employed and the industrial reserve army (the unemployed), as well as on the applicability side, Boggs’ description of the assumed necessity for the unemployed to work with the workers, and how this assumption may be misguided. It will also focus on how ideological clashes among segments of the population may be beneficial in bringing momentum to the revolution.
The Solutions
Solution 1: The Unemployed Can Be Added to Marx’s Proletariat
The idea that the workers and the unemployed can be amalgamated into one revolutionary agent relies on a somewhat generous reading of Marx’s conception of labour. Marx views the labour of the worker as one that creates value, the very basis of the capitalist system: “value therefore becomes value in process, money in process, and such, capital.” (263) Marx also sees that within this system, the worker does not have the ability to fully enjoy the product, and thus the value, of their labour: “The product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the worker, its immediate producer.” (281) A combination of the employed and the unemployed would require us to perceive ‘labour’ as something that is not solely contained to a factory, an idea explored earlier in Selma James. Perhaps labour could be conceived in the context of the unemployed in the search for work. This is because it seems as though even if one is not working directly for the capitalist, they still do not reap the value of the labour of searching for work. This more abstract idea of labour could possibly be permissible under Marx, writing: “In the valorization process it does not in the least matter whether the labour appropriated by the capitalist is simple labour of average social quality, or more complex labour,” (281) Under this conception of labour, one singular force of the employed and unemployed could be possible. It could also be possible under the conception of the unemployed being a crucial aspect of the capitalist system, and that their separation from the workers is a problem of organization rather than of substantial difference. As written by James on the subject of workers’ organizations and unions: “Some of us wore the blinkers of the white male Left, whether we knew it or not. According to them, if the struggle’s not in the factory, it’s not the class struggle. The real bind was that this Left assured us they spoke in the name of Marxism. They threatened that if we broke from them, organizationally or politically, we were breaking with Marx and scientific socialism. […] We found that redefining class went hand-in-hand with rediscovering a Marx the Left would never understand.” (6) While James is making reference to the Black movement against unions, the phrasing is very much applicable to the struggles of the forcibly unemployed, relegating them to something beyond Marxism because their organization took place outside factory walls. The ‘rediscovery’ of Marx is propelled by Marx defining the unemployed (which he refers to as “surplus population” or “industrial reserve army”) being a necessity of the worker-capitalist relationship, writing in Capital, ch.25, s.3: “Capitalist production can by no means content itself with the quantity of disposable labour power which the natural increase of population yields. It requires for its free play an industrial reserve army independent of these natural limits.” (Paragraph 10) Along with being a necessity, Marx describes this army as being ‘one part’ of the working class. (Paragraph 15) It can then be argued that due to their necessity and seeming connection to the workers, any attempt to overthrow the capitalist system must include their emancipation as well, making them a part of the revolutionary agent if not only by accident. This solution holds quite well in that it seems to flow from Boggs’ conception of the outsider into Marx’s conception of labour, and is inclusive while not drawing far-reaching conclusions from Marx, Boggs, or James, boiling the problem down to one of proposing better organization for the workers and the unemployed. However, there are issues with the potential essentialization of the proletariat if the unemployed were to be included, as it can be disputed whether a few passages is enough to draw that they should be included, and whether such a technique may be used for other groups, potentially confusing the meaning of the proletariat. It must be considered very carefully whether it is useful to add another group to Marx’s revolutionary agent if this was not his intention.
Solution 2: The Unemployed Cannot Be Added to Marx’s Proletariat, And This is a Problem
The second solution involves examining the way in which Marx describes labour as a process inherently tied to the work of the worker in the factory, writing: “To conceive capacity for labour in abstraction from the workers’ means of subsistence during the production process is to conceive a phantom.” (270) This goes against the claim made in the first solution that one could have a broader reading of Marx’s conception labour, in that this passage explicitly says that you cannot conceive of labour apart from the fact that the worker uses said labour to live during the production process. This relates as well to how Marx describes the capitalist system as a binary between workers and capitalists, writing: “It [worker-capitalist relations] arises only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence finds the free worker available, on the market, as the seller of his own labour-power.” (267) On the textual side, then, there seems to be pushback on the conception of labour as one that is abstract, and on the assertion that perhaps the system is not a binary. On the applicability side, there also arises with the first solution that Marx has a very particular view of the role that the unemployed play in the capitalist system, categorizing all but one of his four kinds of unemployed as having done some form of formal work at one time, even if said work was incredibly irregular. Those who do not, Marx calls “paupers,” describing them as “vagabonds, prostitutes, in a word, the “dangerous” classes.” (Capital, ch.25, s.4) This definition is problematic in that the association of forcible unemployment with criminality, while perhaps comprising the majority of the forcibly unemployed in Marx’s day, probably did not hold true for all, especially when considering the forcibly unemployed that rely on other people for subsistence. This categorization, then, makes it very difficult to discern how Marx would think about the forcibly unemployed conceived as those who have never worked in the factory, with Boggs writing: “It means not only that hundreds of thousands are yearly being displaced from production, but also that millions are outsiders to begin with.” (50) The inability for Marx to determine that there may be those that are unemployed who are not criminalistic lends itself to a potential solution being that Marx’s theory is incomplete, and that a new theory that can consider the “docile” unemployed is needed. Such is advanced further in Marx seeming too focused on only the economic side of a socialist revolution and the workers being at the head, with Boggs writing: “The American Revolution does not necessarily have to start from economic grievances. Nor does it have to start with the American working class in the lead.” (89) While this argument seems logical in the sense that Marx never really talks about the forcibly unemployed as we are considering them in this essay, this solution lacks force. Simply saying that Marx did not predict something or misidentified a group does not give us much in terms of ways to actually fix the problem or envision what a solution would look like.
Solution 3: They Cannot Be Added to Marx’s Proletariat, and They Should Not Be
The third solution entails examining the ways in which Marx, in Capital, seems to put his “surplus labour” population up against the workers, confusing the question of whether they are each one part of the same group, or two groups whose fighting helps the capitalist. As written by Marx: “If a surplus labouring population is a necessary product of accumulation or of the development of wealth on a capitalist basis, this surplus population becomes, conversely, the lever of capitalistic accumulation, nay, a condition of existence of the capitalist mode of production.” (Paragraph 4) The necessity of the existence of the unemployed, as Marx goes on to write, is something that pushes down on the worker and is overall beneficial to the capitalist: “The overwork of the employed part of the working class swells the ranks of the reserve [the unemployed], whilst conversely the greater pressure that the latter by its competition exerts on the former, forces these to submit to overwork and subjugation under the dictates of capital. The condemnation of one part of the working class to enforced idleness by the overwork of the other part, and the converse, becomes a means of enriching the individual capitalists,” (Paragraph 15) There is then somewhat of a contradiction in Marx, because he both admits that the unemployed and the workers are two parts of the working class, but also seeks to detail the ways in which these two groups conflict with one another, enriching the capitalist system in enriching the individual capitalist. On the practical side, one can also make the argument that if there does not currently exist a proper framework under which to amalgamate the unemployed and the workers, an idea explored in the second solution, that perhaps it is not necessary for the unemployed to be lumped in with the workers’ struggles in order to be emancipated. As written by Boggs: “What you have is no longer just the unemployed and the castaways, but a revolutionary force or army of outsiders and rejects who are totally alienated from society.” (50) While not seeking to venture too much into the “Marx is not applicable to today” argument, it could be said that it is not needed for the unemployed to fit into Marx’s conception of the proletariat at all, and that they could be the revolutionary agent themselves. This could lead to a clash between the proletariat and the unemployed that may actually be beneficial for the revolution. This is furthered by Boggs writing: “It is clashes, both ideological and physical, among segments of the population and usually the whip of the counter-revolution which gives the revolution its momentum.” (88) As such, it may actually be better for the workers and the forcibly unemployed if their emancipation and conditions to do so are kept separate from one another.
Conclusion and Next Steps
While presenting interesting new ideas, none of these solutions are particularly prescriptive. None of them seem to leap out as more substantially “right” than the other in answering whether the unemployed can be considered as part of the proletariat, owing mainly to the fact that much of the confusion comes from the different interpretations of Marx’s writing. In my opinion, I think that an amalgamation of the workers and the unemployed may have been useful in Marx’s day, but in the modern era, with the mass of the forcibly unemployed growing larger and larger, the divide may be becoming too great, and may simply not be effective for neither the worker nor the unemployed. As this mass of unemployed grows, Marxist thinkers will need to continue to wrestle with the question of whether the unemployed are part of the proletariat, and if not, what role they should play in the workers’ emancipation. They will also need to continue to wrestle with the likely disagreements within the movement on this front.
Words: 3257
Works Cited
Marx, Karl. “Capital, Vol.1: Chapter 4, 6, 7, 26” Karl Marx: Selected Writings, edited by Lawrence H. Simon, Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 1994, pp. 263–295.
Marx, Karl. “Capital, Vol.1: Chapter 25” Marxists.org, Originally Published in 1867, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm
James, Selma. Sex, Race, and Class: Selections, Petroleuse Press, 1974, pp. 4–6. https://libcom.org/library/sex-race-class-james-selma
Boggs, James. The American Revolution: Pages from a Negro Worker’s Notebook, Monthly Review Press: New York, 2009, pp. 46–89. https://libcom.org/library/american-revolution-pages-negro-workers-notebook