Reconsidering the Proletariat: More Than Just the Working Classes

 

In quotidian terms, the proletariat is considered by many to refer to those on the lowest wages and most limited influence in the workplace and that do not own, or, alternatively, often being used by some as a term to describe the working classes. With both uses of this term, the interests and positions of the proletariat are considered to clearly be exploited by and opposite to those of the bourgeois (which are widely considered to have greater wealth and influence in society). However, as we can observe when looking at the proletariat in its purest form and upon only observing it without comparison to the bourgeois, it is clear that wealth does not in any way factor into whether an individual can qualify as a proletarian, as well as the proof that it can be entirely possible to qualify as a proletarian yet still have adopted the income and lifestyle of those considered as bourgeois.

As observed by Rosa Luxemburg on analysing the Marxist view on the position of the proletariat in economic order, the proletariat have a role in the promotion of social solidarity between classes and the breaking of barriers between them with the proletariat. Furthermore, she considers the proletariat to have clear similarities to the bourgeois in that, according to her, they both have a similar social existence and aim to form a mutually exclusive relationship with each other in which all desire to gain social and economic influence so as to form a "bridge to the promised land of socialism". Luxemburg explains this through using the analogy of bees constructing their honeycombs referring to each individual as having an integral part in the building and sustaining of a society as a whole much like each bee would assist the collective work on the forming individual cells within a honeycomb (Luxemburg, 1903). This is especially evident when observing the proletariat aiming for power in the form of land, resources and workforce to exploit essentially aiming to replicate and become the bourgeois proving both influential in the liberation of the working classes, yet equally in the preservation of a classist hierarchical system. This is clearly evident in Deng Xiaoping's 1949-52 land reforms which, despite having been set out with the working classes in mind and, on a superficial level, appearing to have a role in the overthrowing of the feudal bourgeois system, it ironically appears to be preserving these values and maintaining a capitalist and traditional society, which is very much in agreement with conservative models of society. 

Moreover, both the bourgeois and petty bourgeois are also very much engaged in and able to observe culture, way of life and environment, as well as engage in everyday activities to support their needs much like the proletariat. Equally, while material gains may be smaller or larger and the value of these might be considered differently depending on position in society, they can likely be observed as something of value for members of all groups and social status, regardless of the fact that materialism and the value of capital and objects to demonstrate wealth appears to be primarily associated with the bourgeois and those that own land and property.

The bourgeois and the petty bourgeois can also be considered to often have no greater wealth or higher quality of life than the proletariat in that this proves to be completely irrelevant to the construct of the stereotypical supposedly upper, middle and working class lifestyles, and the view that all proletarians are likely to appear to represent the working class while all bourgeois are considered as upper middle class. With the petty bourgeois technically being owners of industry and with their own means of production yet their operations not being assisted by the selling of labour by the proletariat and serfs, this could present all owners of business (however small), self-employed people, and those that carry out their own service, thus proving to be a very broad and all encompassing term which could be fitting to a variety of individuals including shopkeepers, gardeners, childminders, cleaners, salespeople and independent professionals, to name a few, all of whom not typically being considered as owning high levels of wealth and that are able to present significant power over society. Equally, individuals in high paying and high skilled graduate employment yet that do not own businesses or means of production are considered by many as upper class in relation to income and the lifestyle they can afford to follow, would also prove to very obviously be described as members of the proletariat. This would, therefore, prove to explain that the ideas of the proletariat and the way in which this group can be defined to clearly be down to a lot more than purely class constructs and observable lifestyle and cultural differences, and that it should be observed completely separately from income and material wealth one has, and to disprove the usage of this term by some as a synonym for the working classes.

Luxemburg, R (1903) Marxist Theory and the Proletariat, Edition No. 64. Translated By Christian Fuchs. Internet Marxist Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1903/03/14-abs.htm

n.d, https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm

Brown, N (2013) The Proletariat Trans-Scripts 3 (2013) https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/f/1861/files/2014/10/2013_03_04.pdf

Cohen, G.A (1983) The Structure of Proletarian Unfreedom. Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 3-33. Wiley https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265026

Liberalism, Libertarianism and Neoliberalism in the Context of Economic Anarchy

The three political philosophies of libertarianism, liberalism and neoliberalism all have the common intentions of advocacy for individual liberty socially and economically in which freedom of expression and the strong opposition to an individual acting in any way within society that is against their own will and values (be that relating to the protection of their own needs, supporting and involving themselves with their community, the situations of political corruption, or to further allow them to gain influence within society, along with many other reasons). In spite of this, these philosophies do tend to clash, the main cause of this being due to the varying attitudes towards the state. This is shown with liberals considering it to be the states responsibility to support the people's interests, and for this to be assisted by democratic values within society, libertarianism to relate to the direction of society by the people with complete individual and collective liberty and limited involvement by the state, and neoliberalism being an economic philosophy in which the markets are separate from the state advocating for deregulation, the free market and the promotion of capitalism, with greater freedom to maximise business owners' own gains due to limited intervention. 

As a result, the key ideas observed with the libertarian and neoliberal philosophies can prove to be of importance in paving the way for economic anarchy with this also proving to have been deeply rooted in past and present imperial and neo-colonial relations between nations, with these largely stemming from a capitalist economic structure (one which supports the exploitation and imbalance in power between the workers and those in positions of power in a business). This is considered to have taken place in a way akin to peace having influenced the formation of a stable democratic government, albeit with completely opposite intentions (Powell, 2009). Anarchy, as in the operation of society without influence by a state thus eliminating its corruption of power and putting this directly into the hands of the people, would thus prove to be clearly in line with some of the ideas observed with neoliberal and libertarian philosophies, and so prove that anarchy can be observed across the full breadth of the political spectrum as opposed to being primarily associated with the far left. If anything, this is likely to be even more evident with a more right wing society when observing this form of economic anarchy, in that the reduced regulation of the treatment of the workers so as to provide increased freedom to exploit them by the capitalist business owners, the changes to wealth distribution, and the lack of value placed on the workers' own rights, is unlikely to be favoured by a more socialist society. Socialist forms of anarchy tend to be drastically different in their functioning with their key intentions being to reduce hierarchy and corruption of power by those of higher economic status, and provide complete equality of opportunities. This is evident through a capitalist society appearing to put greater emphasis on supporting the priorities of those of greater economic status, particularly those that own business and take full advantage of economic liberalism so as to use this to greater support their own needs. This presents strong advocacy for a hierarchical economic system functioning in such a way that "wants should be provided for in the order of their importance" (Bye, 1944) 

Social economy (as in the belief that the workforce are seen as more than machines and means of production, and the key aims of a successful economy being to promote greater social security, improved provision of infrastructure, and the subsequent success of this economy being evident through the improved wellbeing of the population), which would also be considered a more socialist principle, would also likely not be favoured by these neoliberal and right-wing libertarian anarchists. This supposedly more successful economy is modelled by the "four leaf clover" model of social economy (Golob, 2008) shown below presenting the four core factors influencing the success of an economy being reciprocal to and directly influencing each other.

Equally, the view of communism being anti-liberalism and seen by conservative liberals advocating collectivism and the hierarchical economic system (in which certain individuals have greater influence than others and so gain increased freedom within the markets) as something hindering a supposedly "free" world, or, as put by Murray Rothbard in his "The Real Agressor", considered that "people may prefer death to communism", would prove to be contradictory when observing the previous points. This would be due to, despite individuals and markets being supposedly sovereign and able to act on their own will and support themselves, libertarian and neoliberal anarchy in favour of this perspective would likely see very little social and economic freedom. This would clearly present the crossing of paths between libertarianism and neoliberalism when developing anarchic systems to somewhat support individual liberty and greater freedom within society, yet this only being able to be observed for certain groups particularly those in positions of power, and to act as poor and limited evidence for the success and development of a free economy. After all, as put by Murray Rothbard, people "might prefer life under Communism to death in a "free world" cemetery" with communism not necessarily being synonymous with this form of anarchy, and this supposed liberalism to be ironically more oppressive.

References:

Van der Vossen, B (2017) Libertarianism- chapter from Oxford Research Encyclopedia of  Politics (pp. 1-8) by Thomson, W (2017). Chapman University Digital Commons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.86

Lazell, M (2016), Liberalism and the Critical Securitization of Development Debate in Globalizations Vol. 13, No. 4, 361-376, Routledge, DOI: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14747731.2015.1111656

Rothbard, M.N Are Libertarians Anarchists? https:www.rothbard.it/articles/libertarians-anarchists.pdf

Rothbard, M (1954) The Real Aggressor in Faith and Freedom 5(8)

Levy, C (1999) Max Weber, Anarchism and Libertarian Culture: Personality and Power Politics In Max Weber and the culture of anarchy (pp. 83-109). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK

Powell, R (2009) Anarchy in international relations theory: the neorealist-neoliberal debate. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300028204

Golob, U et al (2008) Social economy and social responsibility: alternatives to global anarchy of neoliberalism? International Journal of Social Economics 36(5) DOI 10.1108/03068290910954068

The Politicisation of Feminism as Applied to Marxism

With many interpretations of feminism and sexual expression being based around Marx and Engels' ideas, and with these ideas being very much in line the radical feminist ideas of women being heavily sexually oppressed with all relations between women and men featuring an exploitation and imbalance in power by the men over them as the lesser sex (or akin to the proletariat while the men function as the bourgeoisie as described by Marx and Engels) with this largely being attributed to their role and position in society, the liberation of women and social progress in understanding their rights can be seen to largely be supported by a more liberal and progressive socialist society. As a result, the development of the theory of Marxist Feminism and the women's revolution against their treatment when working in domestic labour, as can be observed throughout the last century, can lead to the politicisation of feminism and this being associated with socialist movements.

In his 1848 Communist Manifesto, Marx implemented female liberation into his socialist theory further exploring the analogy of the woman as the proletariat, seen as an "instrument of production" to support the needs of the man (the bourgeoisie) who exploits her. This is shown when he writes:

"The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that [under communism] the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at [by communists] is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production."

While this theory and those of other socialist feminists that followed from Marx and Engels appears to be promoting gender equality and aiming to break the metaphorical class barriers and those reducing female liberty, ironically it also appears to somewhat assume that a sexless society and the abolition of gender is impossible as well as the fact that women will always remain the weaker sex. Considering that gender and sex as observed in this context appear to be largely based on position within the workforce and employment type, as well as the clear fact that gender is also derived purely from physical and observable characteristics and common stereotypes leading to individuals becoming institutionalised to categorise each other as masculine or feminine with no link to biological sex and reproductive ability (although this is somewhat taken into account with reproduction being considered a means of producing increased workforce to provide for the growing demands of the people thus increasing the efficiency of the economy), this further proves to explain the point that while radical feminist principles influenced by socialist philosophy would appear to be intended to reduce sexism, they would merely preserve this way of thinking and assume that differences between the genders will always remain.

Domestic work very much appears to be a by-product of a capitalist society with the people employed in this sector (these being mainly women) easily exploited by their more economically powerful employers who have greater role in liberalising the economy and giving them greater freedom to exploit those (women) under them. While the domestic work sector is considered to be high value and employs many, as well as much of the female population globally remaining at home and doing this work while the breadwinner male in the family is employed in another occupation in that, according to John McMurtry, in his work The Cancer State of Capitalism, it is estimated to have a wage equivalent value of approximately $16 trillion, the lack of recognition of this as well as the dehumanisation and repression of the females involved (in that as Federici, S in his 2012 work Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction and the Feminist Struggle, they "serve life not commodity production") is clearly evident. This would also prove to have major negative social and health related implications with this proving to directly impact on quality of life and standard of living for the women involved.

Red and Green Politics: Why people associate environmentalist policy with the political left.

                                      A poster for a Green Party meeting in Hackney (inner London) in 1985

While organised groups of environmental activists having existed since the 17th century with the founding of the Royal Society and the Temple Coffee House Botanical Club, and the Victorian environmental organisations seeking to campaign against industrialisation and its resulting environmental consequences, it is only recently that governments have become increasingly keen to improve the environmental inclusivity of their policymaking, as well as the general public having become more vocal about these issues. This has led to increased support for and rapid growth of the Green political movement likely properly taking off at the time of 1970s counterculture going against  materialism and capitalism with the UK Green Party (under a different name) having emerged in the UK political scene in 1972. This brings about the question, why has this been the case and what positions on the political spectrum have influenced this?

                                                     A Royal Society meeting in its early years.

Many consider the beginnings of environmental activism to relate to the concern about the rapid growth in industry and the concerns regarding people's health and wellbeing due to the high levels of pollution observed. This could perhaps also be somewhat criticising the capitalist ideas of the time as well considering the intentions of this rise in industry perhaps somewhat presenting a more left wing perspective on this. There is Marxist precedent on the leftist connotations of environmentally inclusive policy and ecological politics with both Marx and Engels having touched upon the natural environment and its importance in the development of their ideology. This can be evidenced through it being clear through Marx claiming that "the true humanist turns out to be the true naturalist" and that it "is by definition impossible in true Marxism" to oppose and abuse nature in that nature would prove to act as the foundations of human behaviour and what they rely upon to support their needs thus making it appear paradoxical for humans to be against it, as well as disproving the belief that those passionate for the environment resented mankind in that mankind would be somewhat required to keep this nature in order. Howard L. Parsons (1977) interprets this mutual symbiotic relationship between humans and the environment conceived by Marx and Engels that Marxists would value both of these equally considering humans to function in their environment in a similar way to non-human animals within a habitat, albeit with different aims and uses for it "as if man is a human animal, as Marxism maintains, man's needs require the full support of both society and nature." Parsons also considers Marx and Engels to be the main pioneers in the studying of humans and the environment, and the implementation of environmental safeguarding into government policy having claimed that they studied an approach to ecology long before the evidence of an "ecological crisis" and "energy crisis" was contemplated.

However, it is perhaps misguided to assume that the rise in ecological policymaking was entirely due to the interpretation of these leftist theories especially with there being, in many cases, a much reduced investment into environmental innovation and technologies under left-wing governance compared with in a more capitalist society, as well as more economically and socially advanced nations which have the adequate infrastructure to support this. This is likely due to this new technology being considered an effective way of boosting the economy and generating more income as an effective business opportunity so likely appealing more to capitalists, despite the fact that environmental preservation is perhaps, ironically, not considered a major priority for groups that are ideologically more right wing. This would prove to present that, while the foundations of environmental policy and those in support of its development are based around the political left, it is, in fact, the more capitalist right-wing groups that invest more into developing the infrastructure to support this, albeit likely for their own vested interests as opposed to because of them advocating clear environmental principles.

Maccaferri, M (2022) European History Quarterly Vol. 52 (3) pp. 401-17: From ‘Old’ to ‘New’ Politics: The Politicization of the Environment in Left-Wing British Intellectual Discourse (1970s–1980s) DOI: 10.1177/02656914221103165

Matuszczak, A et al (2020) Science of the Total Environment: Environment and political economics: Left-wing liberalism or conservative leftism- Which is better for eco-efficiency? Evidence from Poland  www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Breen, S.D (2014) Green Views of Marx: Reinterpreting, Revising, Rejecting, Transcending DOI: 10.1177/2158244013520609

Tawiah, V, Zakari, A (2023) Government political ideology and green innovation: evidence from OECD countries https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-024-09712-y