THE PROLETARIAT IN BRITAIN

THE MARXIST-LENINIST RESEARCH BUREAU REPORT 5.

THE PROLETARIAT IN BRITAIN

(See Also the related work, Marxism & Class).
Introduction

The concept of social class as

"... a division or order of society according to status",

('Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 3; Oxford; 1989; p. 279).

is a very ancient one, the English word 'class' being derived from the Latin 'classis', meaning each of the

"... ancient divisions of the Roman people"

(Charles T. Onions (Ed.): 'The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology' ; Oxford; 1985; p. 180).

Servius Tullius, king of Rome in the 6th century BC, organised a classification system

" ...which divided citizens into five classes according to wealth". ('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 10: Chicago; 1994; p. 455).

The Marxist-Leninist Definition of Class

Marxist-Leninists accept the concept of social class put forward above, but hold that a person's social class is determined not by the amount of his wealth, but by the source of his income as determined by his relation to labour and to the means of production:

"Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation . . . to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of their share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different place they occupy in a definite system of social economy".

(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'A Great Beginning', in 'Collected Works', Volume 29; London; 1974; p. 421).

To Marxist-Leninists, therefore, the class to which a person belongs is determined by objective reality, not by anyone's opinion.

On the basis of the above definition, Marxist-Leninists distinguish three basic classes in 19th century Britain:

"There are three great social groups, whose members . . . live on wages, profit and ground rent respectively"

(Karl Marx. 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 886).

These three basic classes are 1) the proletariat or working class; 2) the bourgeoisie or capitalist class; and 3) the landlord class, respectively.

The Landlord Class

Marxist-Leninists define the landlord class as that class which owns land and derives its income from rent on that land:

"Land becomes . . . personified and . . . gets on its hind legs to demand . . . its share of the product created with its help . . . : rent".

(Karl Marx'. 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 824-25).

With the development of capitalist society, however, the landlord class progressively loses its importance, and a new class emerges -- the petty bourgeoisie, Thus, in a developed capitalist society like Britain, there are still three basic classes, but these are now: 1) the proletariat or working class; 2) the petty bourgeoisie; and 3) the bourgeoisie or capitalist class:

"Every capitalist country . . . is basically divided into three main forces: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat. (Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Constitutional Illusions', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 6; Moscow; 1964; p. 202).

The Bourgeoisie

The English word 'bourgeoisie' is derived from the French word 'bourgeoisie', meaning

" . . . the trading middle class", (Charles T. Onions (Pd.): op. cit.; p.110).

as distinct from the landlord class.

Marxist-Leninists define the bourgeoisie or capitalist class as

" . . . the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour".

(Friedrich Engels: Note to the 1888 English Edition of: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party', in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 204).

The capitalist class includes persons whose remuneration comes nominally in the form of a (relatively high) salary, but who serve the capitalist class in high administrative positions (e.g., the directors of large companies, judges, the heads of the armed forces and civil service):

"The latter group contains sections of the population who belong to the big bourgeoisie, all the rentiers (living on income from capital and real estate . . .), then part of the intelligentsia, the high military and civil officials, etc."

(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Development of Capitalism in Russia , in:

'Collected Works', Volume 3; Moscow; 1960; p. 504).

It includes also the dependants of these persons.

The Proletariat

The English word 'proletariat' is derived from the Latin word 'proles', meaning 'offspring', since according to Roman law a proletarian served the state

" . . . not with his property, but only with his offspring".

(Charles T. Onions (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 714).

Marxist-Leninists define the proletariat 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".

(Friedrich Engels: Note to the 1888 English Edition of: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party', in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 204).

and as

". . . that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour and does not draw profit from any kind of capital. . . . The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class".

(Friedrich Engels: 'Principles of Communism'; London; 1971; p. 5).

This is not essentially different from the dictionary definition of 'proletariat' as

". . . that class of the community which is dependent on daily labour for subsistence, and has no reserve of capital".

('Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 12; Oxford; 1989; p. 606).

It must be noted that Engels declares that

". . . the proletariat . . . . is in a word the working class". (Friedrich Engels: op. cit.; p. 5).

so that any attempt to present the working class as something different from the proletariat is not in accordance with Marxism-Leninism.

It must be noted that Marx also speaks of the lumpenproletariat, which he differentiates from the industrial proletariat:

"The lumpenproletariat . . . form a mass strictly differentiated from the industrial proletariat, a recruiting ground for thieves and criminals of all kinds, living on the crumbs of society, people without a definite trade, vagabonds, gens sans feu et sans aveu (folk without fire and without faith, i.e., a rabble).

(Karl Marx: 'The Class Struggles in France: 1848-50', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1943; p.211).

However, Marx characterises the lumpenproletariat as part of the proletariat. Speaking of the Mobile Guards, recruited 'for the most part' from the lumpenproletariat, he says that

". . . the Paris proletariat was confronted with an army drawn from its own midst".

(Karl Marx: 'The Class Struggles in France: 1848-50', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1943; p. 211).

In modern society,

". . . the proletariat is the only really revolutionary class". (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party', in: Karl Marx: Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 216).

so that, in producing the proletariat, the bourgeoisie produces

". . . its own gravediggers".

(Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: ibid.; p. 218).

which will carry through the socialist revolution under the leadership of the urban industrial workers:

"Quite a definite class, namely, the urban and industrial workers in general, is able to lead the whole mass of toilers and the exploited in the struggle for the overthrow of the yoke of capital"

(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'A Great Beginning', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 9; London; 1986; p. 432).

led in turn by a Marxist-Leninist Party:

"The Party is the political leader of the working class"

(Josef V. Stalin: 'The Foundations of Leninism', in: 'Works', Volume 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 178).

The Middle Class

The term 'middle class' is used by Marxists -- including Marx and Engels themselves -- in two different ways:

Firstly, in the historical sense, in the sense of

". . . the French word 'bourgeoisie', that possessing class which is differentiated from the so-called aristocracy"

(Friedrich Engels: Preface to: 'The Condition of the Working Class in England: From Personal Observation and Authentic Sources', in: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Collected Works', Volume 4; Moscow; 1975; p. 304).

Secondly, when speaking of modern capitalist society, with the meaning of 'petty bourgeoisie', discussed in the next section.

The Petty Bourgeoisie

Between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat stands the petty bourgeoisie:

"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeoisie has been formed".

(Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party', in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 321).

The English term 'petty bourgeoisie' is an anglicisation of the French term 'petite bourgeoisie', meaning 'little bourgeoisie'. Marxist-Leninists define the petty bourgeoisie as a class which owns or rents small means of production, which it operates largely without employing wage labour, but often with the assistance of members of their family.

"A petty bourgeois is the owner of small property".

(Vladimir I. Lenin: Note to: 'To the Rural Poor', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p.254).

As a worker, the petty bourgeois has interests in common with the proletariat; as owner or lessee of means of production, however, he has interests in common with the bourgeoisie. In other words, the petty bourgeoisie has a divided allegiance towards the two decisive classes in capitalist society. The petty bourgeois

". . . is cut up into two persons. As owner of the means of production he is a capitalist; as a labourer, he is his own wage-labourer".

(Karl Marx: 'Theories of Surplus Value', Part 1; Moscow; n.d. p. 395).

and consequently petty bourgeois

". . . are for ever vacillating between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie"

(Josef V. Stalin: 'The Logic of Facts', in: 'Works' , Volume 4; Moscow;

1953; p. 143).

This divided allegiance between the two decisive classes in modern capitalist society also applies to a section of employed persons -- those who are involved in superintendence and the lower levels of management, e.g., foremen, charge-hands, departmental managers, etc. These employees have a supervisory function, a function to ensure that the workers produce a maximum of surplus value for the employer. Thus, on the one hand such persons are exploited workers, with interests in common with the proletariat (from which they are largely drawn); on the other hand, their position as agents of the management in supervising the efficient exploitation of their fellow employees gives them interests in common with the bourgeoisie:

"An industrial army of workers under the command of a capitalist requires, like a real army, officers (managers) and sergeants (foremen, overlookers) who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist".

(Karl Marx: 'Capital: An Analysis of Capitalist Production', Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 314).

"The labour of supervision and management . . . has a double nature.

On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process. . . On the other hand . . . this supervision work necessarily arises in all modes of production based on the antithesis between the labourer . . . and the owner of the means of production".

(Karl Marx: 'Capital: An Analysis of Capitalist Production', Volume 3; Moscow; 1974; p. 383-84).

Because of this divided allegiance, which corresponds to that of the petty bourgeoisie proper, Marxist-Leninists place such employees (and their dependants) in the petty bourgeoisie.

For the same reason, Marxist-Leninists also place persons employed in the coercive forces of the capitalist state -- the army and police -- (and their dependants) outside the proletariat.

The Peasantry

The English word 'peasant' is derived from the Latin 'pagus' , meaning a

". . . country district",

(Charles T. Onions (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 66).

and is defined as

". . . one who lives in the country and works on the land". ('Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 11; Oxford; 1989; p. 402).

If 'work' is taken to include entrepreneurship, this definition includes the rich peasant who lives primarily by exploiting wage labour, but excludes the landlord since, even if he 'lives in the country', he does not 'work on the land' but derives his income from ground rent.

The peasantry does not form a social class, but consists of a number of classes that live in the country and work on the land:

"It is best to distinguish the rich, the middle and the poor peasants"

(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'To the Rural Poor: An Explanation for the Peasants of what the Social-Democrats want' (hereafter listed as 'Vladimir I. Lenin (1903)', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 261).

The peasantry is made up of:

Firstly, rich peasants or rural capitalists, who employ labour, that is, who exploit poor peasants:

"One of the main features of the rich peasants is that they hire farm-hands and day labourers. Like the landlords, the rich peasants also live on the labour of others. . . . They try to squeeze as much work as they can out of their farmhands, and pay them as little as possible".

(Vladimir I. Lenin (1903): ibid.,; p. 265).

Sometimes, rich peasants are called 'kulaks', a word derived from the Russian 'kulak', originally meaning a

" . . . tight-fisted person".

('Oxford English Dictionary , Volume 8; Oxford; 1989; p. 543).

Secondly, the middle peasants or rural petty bourgeoisie, who own or rent land, but who do not employ labour, working the land with the aid of their families:

"Only in good years and under particularly favourable conditions is the independent husbandry of this type of peasant sufficient to maintain him and for that reason his position is a very unstable one. In the majority of cases the middle peasant cannot make ends meet without resorting to loans to be repaid by labour, etc., without seeking 'subsidiary' earnings on the side, which partly also consist of selling labour power, etc.

(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Development of Capitalism in Russia , in: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1944; p. 235).

A middle peasant who works part-time for an employer is called a semi-proletarian:

"A one-horse peasant, like a horseless one, keeps himself alive only with the help of a 'job'. But what does this word 'job' mean? It means that the one-horse peasant has ceased to be an independent farmer and has become a hireling, a proletarian. That is why such peasants are described as semi-proletarians".

(Vladimir I. Lenin(1903):6¼ cit.; p. 267).

Thirdly, the poor peasants, whom Marx called

" . . . the rural proletariat"

(Karl Marx: 'The Civil War in France;, in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2 London; 1943; p. 507).

The poor peasant

" . . . has become quite propertyless. He is a proletarian. He lives . . . not by the land, not by his farm, but by working for wages. . . . He is the brother of the town worker". (Vladimir I. Lenin (1903): op. cit.; p. 265).

'Neo-Marxism'

Revisionism is

" . . . a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism".

(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Marxism and Revisionism , in: 'Selected Works', Volume 11; London; 1943; p. 704).

In other words, a revisionist poses as a Marxist, but in fact puts forward a political line which objectively serves the interests of a bourgeoisie:

"The revisionists spearheaded their struggle mainly against Marxism-Leninism . . . and replaced this theory with an opportunist, counterrevolutionary theory in the service of the bourgeoisie and imperialism". (Enver Hoxha: Report to the 5th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, in: 'Selected Works', Volume 4; Tirana; 1982; p. 190).

Despite all the torrents of propaganda levelled against it, Marxism-Leninism still retains enormous prestige among working people all over the world. It is for this reason that many modern revisionists call themselves 'Neo-Marxists' claiming that they are not revising Marxism-Leninism, but merely 'bringing it up to date'.

In general. 'Neo-Marxists' pay their loudest tributes to Marx's early writings, before he became a Marxist. 'Neo-Marxism' is essentially a product of the worst kind of university lecturer, who equates obscurantism with intellectualism. Even sympathetic sociologists speak of

". . . the extreme difficulty of language characteristic of much of

Western Marxism of the twentieth century"

(Perry Anderson: 'Considerations on Western Marxism'; London; 1976; p.54).

But, of course, obscure language has great advantages for pseudo- scientists, making it easier to claim, when challenged, that the challenger has misunderstood what has been said.

Much 'Neo-Marxism' is an eclectic hotchpotch of Marxism and idealist philosophy, giving it, it is claimed, a 'spiritual aspect', which was lacking in the original. A typical example of a 'Neo-Marxist' is the French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, who writes:

"I believe in the general scheme provided by Marx",

(Jean-Paul Sartre: 'Between Existentialism and Marxism'; London; 1974; p. 53).

but -- and it is a big 'but' -- it must be a 'Marxism' liberated from

" . . . the old guard of mummified Stalinists". (Jean-Paul Sartre: ibid.; p. 109).

And, according to Sartre, this 'liberation' is to be effected by merging it with the existentialism of the Danish idealist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard!

"Kierkegaard and Marx . . . institute themselves . . . as our future". (Jean-Paul Sartre: ibid.; p. 169).

However, this paper is concerned only with revisionist theories of class, which, in general, narrow and restrict the Marxist-Leninist definition of the proletariat. While they may thus still present the proletariat as 'the gravedigger of capitalism', it becomes a gravedigger equipped with a teaspoon!

The Unemployed

Some 'Neo-Marxists' exclude the unemployed from the proletariat on the grounds that people who are not working cannot be considered members of the working class!

But on this absurd basis, a worker would cease to be a member of the working class when he finishes work each day.

Marx explicitly characterises the unemployed, whom he calls the

" . . . industrial reserve army",

(Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 1; Moscow; 1974; p. 592).

" . . . a relative surplus-population among the working class', (Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy , Volume 2; Moscow; 1974; p. 518).

and speaks of

". . . the working class (now actively reinforced by its entire reserve army)".

(Karl Marx: 'Capital.. A Critique of Political Economy , Volume 2; Moscow; 1974; p. 414).

Clearly, therefore, according to Marxism-Leninism, the unemployed form part of the proletariat.

Non-productive Workers

Other 'Neo-Marxists' exclude from the proletariat all workers engaged in unproductive labour.

Certainly, Marx differentiated productive from unproductive labour, defining the former as labour

" . . . which creates a surplus value"

(Karl Marx. 'Theories of Surplus Value', Part 1; Moscow; n.d.; p. 45).

On this basis, the Greek revisionist Nicos Poulantzas excludes unproductive workers from the proletariat. which, he claims, is

". . . not defined by wage-labour, . . but by productive labour".

(Nicos Poulantzas' 'Classes in Contemporary Capitalism'; London; 1979; p. 94).

Poulantzas therefore assigns unproductive workers to a

" . . . new petty bourgeoisie",

(Nicos Poulantzas: ibid.; p. 290).

Consequently, according to Poulantzas,

" . . . wage-earners in commerce, advertising, accounting, banking and insurance . . . do not form part of the working class".

(Nicos Poulantzas'. ibid.; p. 211-12).

and

". . . engineers and technicians do not belong to the working class". (Nicos Poulantzas: ibid.; p. 250).

However, Marx insists that the distinction between productive and unproductive labour has

" . . . nothing to do . . . with the particular speciality of the labour".

(Karl Marx: 'Theories of Surplus Value', Part 1; Moscow; n. d.; p. 156).

and that the same labour may be productive or unproductive.

"The same labour can be productive when I buy it as a capitalist, and unproductive when I buy it as a consumer".

(Karl Marx: 'Theories of Surplus Value', Part 1; Moscow; n. d.; p. 160-61).

For example, a teacher in a private school is engaged in productive labour since his labour produces surplus value for the proprietors of the school. But a teacher in a state school, working under identical conditions, is engaged in unproductive labour, since his labour does not create surplus value.

Furthermore, many kinds of unproductive labour, such as the labour of clerical workers in a capitalist production company,

". . . while it does not create surplus value. enables him (the employer -- Ed.) to appropriate surplus value, which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital. It is, therefore, a source of profit for him.

The unpaid labour of the commercial wage-worker secures a share of this surplus value for merchant's capital".

(Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 3; Moscow; 1974; p. 294).

Even Poulantzas himself admits that employed unproductive workers

". . . are themselves exploited, and their wages correspond to the reproduction of their labour-power"

(Nicos Poulantzas: op. cit.; p. 212).

And Lenin insists that commercial workers belong to the proletariat:

"The wage-worker in agriculture belongs to the same class as the wage-worker in a factory or in a commercial establishment".

(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Trudoviks and Worker Democrats , in: 'Collected Works', Volume 18; Moscow; 1965; p. 39).

Thus, the question of whether an employee is engaged in productive or unproductive labour has no relevance to the question of whether or not he belongs to the proletariat.

Indeed, as the American sociologist Erik Wright points out,

". . . in the end the procedure Poulantzas adopts makes ideology itself the decisive criterion for class".

(Erik 0. Wright: 'Class, Crisis and the State'; London; 1978; p. 59).

The 'Labour Aristocracy'

In developed capitalist countries,

". . . the bourgeoisie, by plundering the colonial and weak nations, has been able to bribe the upper stratum of the proletariat with crumbs from the super-profits".

(Vladimir I. Lenin: Draft Programme of the RCP (B), in: 'Collected Works', Volume 29; Moscow; 1965; p. 104).

Super-profits are the profits of foreign investment, profits

". . . obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their 'home' country".

(Vladimir I. Lenin: Preface to the French and German Editions of 'Imperialism. the Highest Stage of Capitalism', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 12).

Employees in receipt of a share of such super-profits form

". . . the 'labour aristocracy' " (Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 12).

which consists of workers

". . . who have become quite petty-bourgeois in their mode of life, in their earnings and in their outlook",

(Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 12).

and who function as

". . . the principal social . . . support of the bourgeoisie. They are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the labour movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class".

(Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 12).

Already by 1892, Engels

". . . distinguishes between a 'small, privileged protected minority on the one hand, and the 'great bulk' of workers on the other".

(Martin Nicolaus: 'The Theory of the Labour Aristocracy', in: 'Monthly Review', Volume 21, No. 11 (April 1970); p. 92).

It consists primarily of

". . . skilled men who had served an apprenticeship, . . who were union men".

(Aleksei N. Rumyantsev (Ed.): 'The Structure of the Working Class'; New Delhi; 1963; p. 81).

"The engineers, the carpenters and joiners, the bricklayers form an aristocracy among the working class".

(Friedrich Engels: Preface to the English Edition of: 'The Condition of the Working-Class in England'; London; 1969; p. 31).

With the development of capitalism,

". . . the lines of demarcation between skilled and unskilled were becoming blurred in an increasing number of trades".

(Charles More: 'Skill and the English Working Class'; London; 1980; p. 231).

so that

" . . . the growth of skilled occupations which were not learned by apprenticeship reduced the importance of this method of training, previously one of the peculiar hallmarks of the labour aristocracy" (Charles More: ibid.; p. 231).

and

". . . the growth of non-apprenticed skilled work diluted the labour aristocracy". (Charles More: ibid.; p. 231).

Consequently, the labour aristocracy tends to shrink in size:

"The tendency of this stratum (the labour aristocracy -- Ed.) is to shrink". (Aleksei M. Rumyantsev: op. cit.; p. 104).

Some 'Neo-Marxists' exclude the labour aristocracy from the proletariat. Thus, according to a London-based grouping, in Britain

". . . the proletariat consists of the workers on subsistence wages or below."

( 'Class and Party in Britain;' London; 1966; p. 4).

However, Lenin defines the labour aristocracy as a part of the proletariat, as

". . . certain strata of the working class",

(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism' in: 'Selected Works', Volume 11; London; 1943; p. 752).

(Vladimir I. Lenin: Conference of the Sections of the RSDLP Abroad,' in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 134).

and as

". . . an insignificant minority of the proletariat", (Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Collapse of the Second International', in: 'Selected Works', Volume.5; London; 1935; p. 183).

and as

". . . sections of the working class in the oppressing nations",

(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'A Caricature of Marxism and "Imperialist Economism" ',in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 291).

and as

". . . the top strata of the proletariat". (Vladimir I. Lenin: 'How the Bourgeoisie utilises Renegades', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 30; Moscow; 1965; p. 34).

The Polarisation of Capitalist Society

Because of the small size of the means of production under their control, petty bourgeois are in constant danger of sinking into the proletariat:

"The lower strata of the middle class . . . sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital . . . is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population". (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party', in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 213).

"The working class gains recruits from the higher strata of society. A mass of petty industrialists and small rentiers are hurled down into its ranks".

(Karl Marx: 'Wage-Labour and Capital', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 280).

and the old, once highly respected petty bourgeois professions become proletarianised:

"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers".

(Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party', in:

Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 208).

Thus, as capitalist society develops, it becomes increasingly polarised into two basic classes -- wealthy bourgeois and poor proletarians:

"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up . . . into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat". (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Manifesto of the Communist Party', in: Karl Marx: 'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 205-06).

"Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, moral degradation, at the opposite pole"

(Karl Marx; 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 604),

The proletariat is

". . . a class always increasing in numbers".

(Karl Marx; 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 715).

The Size of the Working-Class in Britain

On the theoretical basis delineated above, it is possible to calculate approximately the changing size of the British working class.

The working class changes in size through -- among other things -- what is termed 'social mobility' -- movement downwards into the working class from the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, and (more rarely) movement upwards from the working class into the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. Marx points out that such upward mobility strengthens the capitalist system:

"The circumstance that a man without fortune but possessing energy, solidity, ability and business acumen may become a capitalist . . . is greatly admired by apologists of the capitalist system. Although this circumstance continually brings an unwelcome number of new soldiers of fortune . . . into competition with the already existing individual capitalists, it also reinforces the supremacy of capital itself, expands its base and enables it to recruit ever-new forces for itself out of the substratum of society . . . The more a ruling class is able to assimilate the foremost minds of a ruled class, the more stable and dangerous becomes its rule".

(Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy', Volume 3; London; 1974; p. 600-01).

However, the development of modern monopoly capitalist facilitates downward social mobility. while rendering upward social mobility more difficult:

"The path to senior management via a technical career . . is being increasingly eclipsed by the direct recruitment of graduates as management trainees".

(Bob Carter: 'Capitalism, Class Conflicts and the new Middle Class'; London; 1985; p. 102-03).

The official statistics below relate to Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 1951 and 1991 respectively:

1951:

1. Population: 1951: 48,854 thousand (100%)

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956'; London; 1956; p. 7).

2. Occupied population: 1951: 22,578 thousand (46.2%)

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956'; London; 1956; p.14).

3. Unoccupied population: 1951: 26,276 thousand (53.8%)

(Calculated from '1' and '2' above).

4. Employers and self-employed: 1951: 1,584 thousand (3.2%).

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956'; London; 1956; p. 14).

5. Managers, etc.: 1951: 748 thousand (1.5%)

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956'; London; 1956; p.15).

6. Foremen, supervisors, etc.: 1951: 812 thousand (1.6%)

('Census 1951: England and Wales: Occupational Tables'; London; 1953; p. 2-21).

('Census 1951: Scotland: Volume 4: Occupations and Industries London; 1954; p. 2-16).

7. Armed forces: 1951: 827 thousand (1.7%)

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956'; London; 1956; p. 103).

8. Police: 1951: 70 thousand (0.1%)

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956'; London; 1956; p. 64).

1991:

1. Population: 1991: 56,207 thousand (100%)

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995'; London; 1995; p. 4).

2. Occupied population: 1991: 27,815 thousand (49.5%) ('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995', London; 1995; p. 102).

3. Unoccupied population: 1991: 28,392 thousand (50.5%) (Calculated from '1' and '2' above).

4. Employers and self-employed: 1991: 3,078 thousand (5.5%)

('1991 Census: Economic Activity: Great Britain1, Volume 1; London; 1994; p. 190).

5. Managers, etc.: 1991: 3,031 thousand* (5.4%)

('1991 Census Report for Great Britain1 (Part 2); London; 1993; p.188).

6. Foremen, supervisors, etc.: 1991: 988 thousand* (1.8%).

('1991 Census Report for Great Britain' (Part 2); London; 1993; p.36).

7. Armed forces: 1991: 298 thousand (0.5%)

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995'; London; 1995; p. 128).

8. Police: 1991: 139 thousand (0.2%)

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995'; London; 1995; p. 69).

*Converted from a 10% sample figure, by multiplying by a sampling factor of 10.16.

('1991 Census Report: Great Britain: (Part 2)'; London; 1993; p. 337).

On the basis of the above figures and of the analysis made in previous sections of this paper, it is possible to calculate the size of the occupied proletariat in Britain in 1951 and 1991 respectively approximately as follows:

	1951	1991
Occupied population:	22,578 thousand	27,815 thousand
	-----------------	----------------
Less employers and self-employed:	1,584 thousand	3,078 thousand
Less managers, etc.:	748 thousand	3,038 thousand
Less foremen, supervisors, etc.:	812 thousand	988 thousand
Less armed forces;	827 thousand	298 thousand
Less police:	70 thousand	139 thousand
	-----------------	----------------
Less total:	4,041 thousand	7,534 thousand

This gives figures for the size of the occupied proletariat of 18,537 (1951) and 20,281 (1991), figures which represent 82.5% (1951) and 72.9% (1991) of the occupied population.

If we assume that the proletarian portion of the unoccupied population is the same as in the occupied population, this gives us figures for the unoccupied proletariat of 21,573 thousand (1951) and 20,698 thousand (1991).

Finally, this gives us figures for the total British proletariat of 40,110 thousand (1951) and 40,979 thousand (1991), which represent 82.1% (1951) and 72.1% (1991) of the total population.

Author: W.B. Bland
The Marxist-Leninist Research Bureau
NCMLU

BIBLIOGRAPHY