CLASS COMPOSITION
Introduction
Class composition is a central notion in our search for the possibility of revolution.
We are looking for a force that is able to change society from the bottom up.
It is correct, however general, to say that only the exploited are able to overthrow
exploitation, but how does this process of liberation actually take place? The
perception of the Marxist-Leninists is different from our experiences: the "working
class" is neither a united object nor do we see the possibility that it just
needs a political party to overcome the class divisions and give a revolutionary
direction to workers' struggles. The analysis of class composition can help
us understand what is determining workers' struggles, how they can turn into
a class movement and how we can play an active part in this process.
The work-shop on class composition can therefore be the starting-point for a
deeper discussion about our "role as revolutionaries" and our political strategies:
where is a deeper coherence of the "workers' net" of CRO in Bologna, the "workers'
inquiry" of Kolinko in the Ruhr Area, the interventions in Brighton, the newspaper
project of Folkmakt etc.? About which questions do we have different political
assessments and what possibilities for further co-operation exist?
We want to start with some short points on the relationship between political
practice and the notion of class.
1. The notion of the "role of revolutionaries" has its basis in a specific
notion of class and in a specific relation to class
In the discussion about the "role of revolutionaries" different political currents
(Leninism, Syndicalism, Council-Communism etc.) are usually just "compared"
to each other. We have to analyse how different notions of the role of revolutionaries
and their organisation derives from different comprehensions of class and from
a specific historical relation to class struggle.
2. The different communist currents (Leninism, Council-Communism etc.) have
a formal notion of class in common
In general the different currents grasp "capital" as just a formal relation
of exploitation: the surplus labour-time is appropriated by private hands or
by the state. The actual material process of exploitation/work is neglected.
This formal notion of capital leads to a formal notion of working-class: a mass
of exploited individuals who have to sell their labour-power due to their "non-possession"
of the means of production. From this similar notion of working-class different
political conclusions are drawn: the Leninists emphasise the need for a political
party that is able to gather the masses whose only coherence is the formal similarity
of non-possessing. The party has to give a strategical direction to the spontaneous
struggles of the exploited. The Council-Communists just notice that the mass
of exploited create their own forms of organization in struggle. They neglect
the question of strategy and see their main task as distributing the experiences
of self-organization among the workers.
3. A formal notion of class can neither explain nor support the self-emancipation
of the working-class
The formal notion of exploitation (appropriated surplus labour-time) can not
reveal the possibility of self- emancipation that workers can develop. As "non-possessors"
of means of production their power can not be explained. The mere fact that
they are all exploited does not create a real coherence between the individuals.
The possibility of self-organization can only be derived from the fact that
workers have a practical relation to each other and to capital: they are working
together in the process of production and they are part of the social division
of labour. As producers they are not just opposing capital as formal "wage-labourers",
but in their specific practice they are producing capital. Only arising from
this relation can workers' struggles develop their power. The isolation of workers
in single companies, branches etc. cannot be overcome "artificially" by taking
the similarity of "all being exploited" as the foundation for an organization.
This attempt generally ends up in another "rank-and-file" union: there will
always be the need for an outside institution if the coherence of the workers
is not based on their actual social co- operation, but just on the "formal coherence"
of exploited wage-labour. Leninism does not realize this deeper reason for trade-union
forms of workers' struggle. It tackles the problem as a mere question of leadership:
is the external coherence built up by the unions or the communist party? The
criticism of Leninism usually reduces itself to questioning just the form of
this external coherence: it is "undemocratic", not built by the workers themselves
etc. The left critics very rarely analyse the process of production in terms
of the foundation for the coherence of workers' struggle. Therefore they tend
to just follow the spontaneity of struggles without realizing or supporting
a strategical direction within this. Why do different political currents develop
despite their similar notion of class?
4. The reason for the different political notions and practice of Leninism
and its left critics are the different material conditions of exploitation and
class struggle they had to face
Council-Communists and others mainly criticize the patronizing and undemocratic
character of the Leninist Party. We think that the more profound critique on
Leninism consists of the analysis that the Bolshevik form of party emerged from
the specific material conditions in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century.
An agrarian society with dispersed and isolated peasant villages, a high rate
of ill iteration and just few zones of industrialization could only be politically
unified by an external mass-organization. Therefore the most profound critique
of the Council Communist is that this kind of organization was not useful and
appropriate in their historical situation: in the industrialized regions of
Western Europe during the 1920s. They realized that the factories had already
unified the workers and that the creation of workers' councils during the revolutionary
period 1918-23 was the political answer of the working class. Today just a few
critics of Leninism reflect this "material core". The critique usually remains
on a political level, not touching the material roots of Leninism and other
currents. Today we have to put the critique on it's feet again by analysing
the changes in the organization of exploitation and of workers' struggle. That
is the precondition for the development of new political strategies. The notion
of class composition can help us with that.
5. The core of the notion of class composition is the thesis that there is
a close relation between the form of struggle and the form of production
Workers do not fight together because of the consciousness that "they are all
exploited". Struggles of workers arise from concrete work-conditions, from actual
situations of exploitation. Workers' struggles take different forms (in the
past, in different regions or sectors etc.), because the concrete labour-process
and therefore the material form of exploitation differs. The mode of production
and the position within the social process of production determines the form
and possibilities of a struggle: truck-drivers' struggles differ from those
of building-workers, strikes in factories producing for the world-market have
different outcomes than strikes in call centres. In the analysis of the coherence
of the mode of production and workers' struggle we distinguish between two different
notions of class composition:
* the "technical class composition" describes how capital brings together the
work-force; that means the conditions in the immediate process of production
(for instance division of labour in different departments, detachment from "administration"
and production, use of special machinery) and the form of re-production (living-community,
family-structure etc.)
* the "political class composition" describes how workers turn the "technical
composition" against capital. They take their coherence as a collective work-force
as the starting-point of their self-organization and use the means of production
as means of struggle. We are still discussing the question of at which particular
point in the process of workers' struggle we can describe it in terms of "political
class composition". One position uses the term as soon as workers of a single
company or branch organize their struggle out of the conditions of production.
The other position takes as a pre-condition for a new "political class composition"
a wave of workers' struggles that are unified into a class movement by struggles
in central parts of the social production process (for example in the 60s/70s
the focus for the class movement were mainly the struggles in automobile factories).
In the following passage we want to sketch how specific forms of production
influence the ways, contents and perspectives of struggles:
a) immediate organization
Whether workers try to find individual or collective solutions for their problems
mainly depends on the way they have to relate to each other in the daily work-process.
When work is mainly based on individual performances and skills (for instance
handicraft work) dealing with conflicts on an individual basis is more likely.
When the division of labour creates a mutual dependence between workers the
need for a collective action is more obvious. The potential for self-organization
furthermore depends on the question of whether the work-process enables the
workers to communicate with each other (high degree of co- operation, concentration
of many workers in one work-place or living-area etc.)
b) immediate power
The foundation for the emergence, the content and prospects of workers' struggles
is the question of whether they can gain power against capital. That depends
on different circumstances, for instance if workers are concentrating on points
of significant importance for the process of production and accumulation; if
the struggle takes place in a specific economic situation (for instance boom,
lots of orders) or under a particular composition of capital (for instance high
standard of machinery requires production around the clock) that increases the
dependence on the work-force.
c) political content
"Political consciousness", the consciousness to confront capital as a class,
can not be brought to the workers from outside, but can only develop in the
struggle itself. This developing consciousness also depends on the practical
relation between the producers and their relation to the means of production.
The specific capitalist mode of production is mass-production based on division
of labour and machinery. Whether workers grasp exploitation just from a "unionist"
point of view as an unfair distribution of the product or from a "political"
point of view as a social relation of production with it's own laws, depends
on the conditions they have to work under. It is not a question of their "right
or wrong consciousness" as the Leninists would claim, but the question of whether
their exploitation is not only capitalist in a formal way (free wage-labour)
but also in its material way (hierarchical division of labour, machine-controlled
work-process etc.).
Some examples of how the specific conditions of production influence the political
content of workers' struggle - and their relation to capital as a mode of production:
Relation to the wage-form:
In capitalism the wage-relation, appearing as the "individual exchange of money
for work", conceals the fact that capital exploits the collective labour-power
of the workers. A worker who is hired together with a hundred other workers
and who has to do the same work is more likely to notice that the "individual
contracts" are just a fake than for example a handicraft worker who "possesses"
special skills and therefore special "work to sell".
Relation to work:
Work in capitalism is abstract. The specific tasks one performs are not important,
but the fact that work adds surplus labour-time to the product is. A worker
who has to do "unskilled" work together with others will have a different relationship
to work than a specialized worker. The first will actually experience work as
abstract and will be less likely to glorify it and organize within the boundaries
of her or his profession.
Relation to other workers:
A formal notion of class does not reach very far. That reveals itself when we
look at the composition of work-force on the shop-floor. We could state that
foremen, team-leaders or managers are also "wage- labourers" and therefore exploited,
but nearly every struggle has to enforce itself against these "little bosses".
The (hierarchical) division of labour of the social production process is the
foundation for racist and sexist divisions within the working class. So on the
one hand capital divides workers, but on the other hand it brings together workers
of every skin-colour, gender, nationality etc. in the process of production.
Whether divisions between workers are questioned or fortified is generally decided
in struggles. Factories, specific sectors etc. with a "colourful" composition
are especially decisive in this process.
Relation to the means of production:
Capital is the process and result of a mode of production where the dead labour
(machines, work-material) commands the living work-force. A worker who has to
obey the rhythm of the machines, and who notices that despite the technological
progress his/her situation does not improve, is more likely to attack capital
as a contradictory mode of production. Workers of a handcraft work-process who
are still "masters" of their tools will more likely see the "boss" as the symbol
of exploitation.
Relation to the product:
Workers in spheres of mass-production realize just by working that the quality
of the products plays a secondary role and that it is all about quantity. Usually
one can not relate to the use-value of the product, because one only sees a
small part of the whole production process and at a stage of the product which
has no use-value yet. A lot of workers are not working on a material product,
but they work under industry- like conditions to perform "services". We have
to discuss how this "immateriality" of the products impacts on the workers'
struggle.
It remains an open question for us how far struggles of "handicrafts", agricultural
workers and other proletarians who do not work under "industrial" conditions
can develop an anti-capitalist character. It is a decisive question how these
struggles can unite with the struggles of the "industrial proletariat" despite
the different conditions and without external mediation (like the so-called
"Anti-Globalisation"-Movement, "Peoples Global Action", the "Zapatistas" and
other organisations who try to link different "social movements")
d) expansion
Whether struggles can expand themselves also depends on "spontaneity", the social
situation and mere chance. For a political strategy it is important to analyse
the material foundation of an expansion: what is the relationship between a
single struggle and the social production? Single companies are, to a greater
or lesser extent, connected to the social division of labour: international
production chains, transport, connections to "scientific work" in universities,
connection to the "service sector" and distribution. So there are different
ways a struggle can effect society, for instance a strike the daily life of
a mass of workers. Do workers who are not immediately engaged in a strike notice
it's outcomes as producers, for instance because they can not do their work
due to missing parts? Do they notice it as consumers, for instance because they
miss their daily newspaper in the morning? For the expansion of a struggle it
is important that other workers are not just informed through the media, but
that it effects their daily work/life. These effects show the social dimension
of production today and so they can destroy the notion of "isolated work-places".
Also the social skills that workers acquire in their existence as a work-force
influences their potential to break through the isolation of their struggle
by their own activity: for instance the knowledge of how to organize and improvise
in the chaos of the production process, the skills to use means of communication,
the experiences and connections of immigrated workers etc.
e) political generalization
In the history of class struggle there has never occurred a "mass uprising",
a simultaneous uprising of the majority. It has always been small sections of
the proletariat (of a single factory, branch, region etc.) which start the trouble,
which push it forward or which become the symbol or focus of a class movement.
These "cores" are neither founded on "higher consciousness" nor do they emerge
by chance. In the 60s/70s it was mainly the workers in the automobile factories
who played this role. The automobile sector was the driving force of the capitalist
boom of the previous decades. It absorbed thousands of workers who came from
the different poor regions to the metropolis. It generalized the experience
of workers by technology and work-organization on an international level. It
was the centre of an international division of labour with productive connection
to nearly every sector. Though the product was a symbol of an increasing wealth,
the only chance to get a piece of it was by subjecting oneself to the command
of the factory.
In other times and places there have been particular regions which became the
centre of a movement. That was less due to "tradition" than to their significance
in the social process of production, for instance port- towns, mining regions.
In the centres of development the connection of state and capital can be noticed
more easily (planning of infrastructure, labour-market policy, special laws
etc.) and the global character of this society is obvious ("foreign investments",
migration etc.). We can take towns like Turin as examples for the 50s/60s or
the Maquilladoras in South America and "Special Development Zones" in China
for today. Also in Europe there a zones of development (for instance on the
west border of Poland, the region around Dresden, Piemont).
We think that struggles can expand without these "centres", but often the limitation
of strike-movements is due to the fact that the "centres" were not taking part
or have been defeated. So the question of "generalization" is not really a question
of a "political leadership", but the question of to what extent struggles can
socialize themselves along the lines of the social production and hit capital
at central points.
f) communist tendencies
There are widely differing notions of "communist tendency". On the one hand
the notion that humans have the "human need" for a better society which they
express in their struggles against exploitation. On the other hand the orthodox
notion that the development of the forces of production will overthrow capitalism
and will make communism possible. Leninism and most of the "left communist"
currents have a very mechanical notion of the forces of production: development
of technology and the extension of the social division of labour due to the
driving forces of competition. The foundation of communism is the fact that
the increased forces of production are able to reduce individual work-time.
They only deal with the fact that the forces of production are in the wrong
hands, and ignore the contradiction that the material form of technology (assembly
line), of science (Taylorism) and socialization ("globalisation") itself is
the foundation of capitalist command over the workers. The dissolution of this
contradiction can only take place in a class movement that both changes the
material conditions of production and "socializes" the forces of production
along with the struggle. Therefore, struggles have to relate to the contradiction
of social possibilities (enormous production of material wealth, increased productivity)
and reality (drudgery and relative poverty).
A central problem remains the uneven development: the forces of production do
not exist solely as a "stage of the forces of production" detached from the
workers. The state of technology, the use of science, the degree of social division
of labour is different in every sector, region etc. Workers have to face different
states of development in the work-process, so in struggles they relate in different
ways to the possibilities and contradictions of the social forces of production.
In zones of underdevelopment (no or few investments, investments in "labour
intensive" exploitation) the "need for communism" will, above all, express itself
in the workers attacking poverty and labour-intensive production as a consequence
of the capitalist "usage" of the social productivity. In centres of development
the contradiction shows itself in the fact that despite the "technological progress"
and "abundance", life is still ruled by drudgery and relative poverty. The main
question will be from which points of uneven development struggles can socialize/globalise
themselves as a new "force of production". Which struggles will be able to express
the possibility and hope for a better form of production due to the material
conditions (state of technology, science, division of labour etc.) they arise
from?
The communist revolution will have to tear down the artificial existence of
"development and underdevelopment". We have to ask at which points of social
production this process will start and develop power.
It is not easy to find good examples to show the coherence between the "stage
of the forces of production" and the "Utopia" of class struggles. The revolts
in agrarian societies had less a "social utopia" than the demand to cultivate
the land in their own "anarchical" way. The factory-struggles in Western Europe
at the beginning of the last century developed the socialist hope of running
the factories and therefore the whole society under workers control. The struggles
of the 60/70s expressed the increasing "scientification" of the production,
the increasing terror of machinery and alienation from work and product. The
distinction of "workers' struggle" and other social movements dissolved more
and more due to the fact that the whole society (schools, university, town infrastructure)
was closer connected to the "actual process of production". The centres of the
movement (factories, universities) appropriated much of the "productive possibilities"
of a modern society. The increasing division of labour inside the factory and
the assembly line were used to organize new forms of strikes; squatted factories
and universities became central meeting points, the "new science" and means
of communication were developed by the movement etc. By doing this the movement
itself became more "productive" and creative and spread the developed "forces
of production" into other parts of society. The movement reflected the "developed
forces of production" in their demands: not "factory under workers' control",
but "automation of the factory" and wealth for everybody...
6. Class composition expresses the inner coherence and the tendency of class
struggle
The problems above beg the questions of strategy for class struggle. The strategy
can only be derived from the tendencies of capitalism. In the social process
of production capitalism creates and connects parts of development and underdevelopment
as a reaction to the class contradiction, which explains the dynamic character
of the system. Within hi-tech factories there exist departments of different
"technological" levels. These factories themselves are connected to suppliers
of different standards of development right down to the "Third- World" sweat-shop.
The different levels of development are the material foundations for the divisions
and unevenness of class struggle. Workers' struggles which can generalize themselves
along the lines of "uneven development" lead to the conditions of production
becoming more similar. The struggles of workers in automobile factories in the
60s-80s had the result that the conditions in the main factories became similar
worldwide including former "zones of underdevelopment" (Mexico, Brazil etc.):
on the level of technology and also for the workers (similar relation between
wage and product). Capital reacts to the "political class composition" (the
generalization of class struggle) with a "technical re-composition", with the
reproduction of uneven development on a higher level: regions are "de-industrialized",
in others capital makes the great technological leap forward, old "core" factories
are divided into different units of a production chain, the production is "globalised"
etc. Capital creates new centres of development which can become new points
for the generalization of future class movements. So the inner coherence of
the coming class movements is anticipated. Their strategy will not grow detached
in the heads of revolutionaries, but lies within the process of the material
development (of division of labour, machinery etc.) itself.
7. The task of revolutionaries is the analysis of the capitalist development
in order to be able to assess and show the potentials of class struggles
The special role of revolutionaries can not be explained by a "political consciousness"
which class struggles could not achieve by themselves. It can only be derived
from a general view and interpretation of the things that actually happen. The
power, the possibilities of self-organization, of expansion and generalization
are set by conditions of production. The task of revolutionaries is to show
the coherence between the material conditions and practice and the perspective
of struggles. The class movement will take place within the net of development
and underdevelopment. Therefore, we have to show the connection of different
parts of this net and the political reasons for the inequality. The analysis
of the material foundation of workers' struggle also determines where we should
intervene. It is not sufficient just to follow the "spontaneous" patterns of
struggles and to document them. We have to look for the points which can be
of strategical significance for the future. These areas do not need to be the
"most developed" or the "centres of accumulation". Often the sectors that connect
different levels of development (transport between different factories, "information
work" between production and distribution) are significant for a generalization
of struggles. For this we need more than just an informal exchange between our
groups, we need an organized discussion and intervention.
8. Suggestions for the discussion
a) questions
b) Does a coherence of the form of production and forms of struggle exist? What
are the differences, for instance of factories and call centres and what does
this mean for possible conflicts?
c) Is the "immediate process of production" the central sphere of class struggle?
What's about other parts of proletarian existence (living area etc.)?
d) Are there "central spots" in a phase of struggle? What are their origins?
e) To which political consequences does the notion of class composition lead,
what is the danger (for instance reduced view on class struggle)
f) Where are the tendencies for a "new political class composition"? Where are
the possible spots of new workers' power and generalization of struggles?
9. Summary of the discussion about class composition at the meeting in Oberhausen,
April 2001
1) Summary of the discussion
2) Critique on the discussion itself
3) References to articles about class composition
1) Summary
We started with a presentation of the short version of the paper, because not
everybody had read the paper in the "materials". The following discussion developed
freely, it did not refer to the paper in detail. The discussion can be summarised
in four categories of questions:
a) Is the notion of class composition and its emergence strongly tied to a specific
historical situation and therefore not as easily applicable to the recent situation?
b) Does the notion of class composition lead us to classify the class into different
categories of workers? Does the notion over-estimate the influence of "objective
conditions" and under-estimate the impact of spontaneity, experience and exemplariness
of actual struggles of workers?
c) Do we have to look for a "central subject" or a central sector which plays
an important role in class struggle - or do we have to take into account the
experience of every worker?
d) Does the strategy of class composition boil down to a separation between
revolutionaries and the actual conditions of exploitation and therefore to a
sociological notion and relation to class struggle?
Question a)
We did not agree on the importance of the discussion about the origin of the
actual term 'class composition' for our debate itself. There existed two general
lines of discussion:
First:
The notion of class composition has its origin in a specific historical situation.
It was introduced in the Marxist discussion in Italy in the early 60s. The situation
at that time was not notable for intensive class struggle. There were just few
hints of new kinds of conflicts. The notion of class composition is related
to the emergence and development of central sectors in this period and in this
region: the extension of the metal and automobile sectors. The notion of class
composition could help us to understand the coherence between the development
of the material conditions within these sectors, and the re-emergence of workers'
power. Therefore, the notion is not applicable to other historical situations
without taking note of the specific differences. That has often happened during
the last few decades (e.g. theory of the 'social worker' or 'immaterial worker').
In the last 20 to 30 years, capitalism has developed in such a way as to not
have a central sector of accumulation anymore; therefore the notion of class
composition has lost its main foundation. (references to the article: "Massenarbeiter
und gesellschaftlicher Arbeiter" by Battagia)
Second:
The notion of class composition first of all describes a specific approach:
to analyse the potentials of workers' power and subjectivity which arise from
the material conditions and developments of the relation of capital. The paper
on "class composition" could have been written without using this specific term.
Previous to the discussion in Italy in the early 60s, (and so previous to the
introduction of the term "class composition"), there were discussions about
the coherence of the mode of production and the form that workers' struggles
take. (references to the article: "The militant Proletariat" by Lewis). That
capital is not generating a new central sector which connects different regions
and branches of industries is indeed a major problem. The problem is not that
we can not use our specific terms anymore, but that because of the lack of this
central sector the working class can not find common points of references and
therefore can not generalize its struggles.
question b)
We tried to summarize the different usage of the notion of class composition:
1. As an instrument to classify different group of workers, e.g. in the sense
of the Marxist-Leninists, who try to label different group of workers due to
their supposed different class-consciousness. From this perspective workers
can just be seen and treated as objects.
2. As a tool of analysis for our search for conditions where collective action
can develop and where we can take part in discussion and activities against
exploitation. In this notion we see ourselves as a part of class subjectivity.
3. As an approach to understand the dialectic relation between the development
of capital and class subjectivity. The notion of class composition is referring
to Marx' notion of the organic composition of capital. This term describes the
coherence between the accumulation of dead labour (machinery) in relation to
labour-power. This relation on one hand expresses the command of capital over
the workers, but on the other hand also contains the communist tendency within
capitalism (potentials to reduce necessary social labour-time). Class composition
describes the coherence between this objective dynamic of capitalism and workers'
subjectivity.
The following discussion more or less circled around the question: What is the
relation between the objective conditions and the subjectivity of workers?
Classification:
There exists the danger to fall back into the mechanical Marxist-Leninists patterns
by trying to understand the different potentials of workers' struggle due to
of the different conditions they arise from. On the other hand we have to face
the problem that workers actually are classified and put into specific categories
by the capitalist production process. These classifications (e.g. to be a skilled
female worker in a small work-shop for global garden gnome production) can just
be destroyed "from within". The analysis of the specific conditions of workers
should not be static. Our starting-points are the specific conditions in a specific
sphere of exploitation, we have to try to relate them to the global class contradiction.
In reference to the third point of the summary of the usage of class composition
(the relation of workers to the organic composition of capital): Workers are
confronting the "organic composition" of capital and socialisation of work in
many different ways (e.g. Indian software companies next to textile sweat-shops).
We have to face and analyse the problem of how these differences can be overthrown
in class struggle.
Spontaneity and experience:
It was questioned if we can derive from the "objective conditions" whether and
how workers will struggle. It was emphasised that we rather have to analyse
the actual struggles going on. Also struggles in "less important" spheres of
exploitation (garden gnome production) can become a role model and symbol for
other workers. We agreed that there is always a spontaneity of class struggle
and that it is a good thing that not every action is determined. But it is impossible
to take this spontaneity as a foundation of political strategy. Apart from analysing
current class struggles we should try to understand the material foundation
of the present day crisis of class struggle and the conditions for future conflicts.
In order to do that we can just relate to the actual and different conditions
within exploitation.
question c)
It was criticised that the notion of class composition is used to identify a
central subject within class struggle (thereby filtering out the rest). In contrary,
we have to see the importance of every "proletarian experience" not just at
the work-place, but also in the sphere of reproduction, the special experience
as (work-)immigrants etc. The analysis of class composition can only help us
to understand specific situations we are confronted with, e.g. why particular
divisions between workers exist on a special shop-floor. We asked ourselves
whether we are all searching for special conditions within exploitation, because
we assess their specific political importance. Also the CRO, which is insisting
on the immediate experience of every worker, emphasises the importance of the
industrial mode of production, scientific work-organisation etc. We agreed that
if there is a choice, we would rather work or intervene in a big factory than
in a two person fish and chip shop.
question d)
We discussed the question as to which relation between revolutionaries and class
derives from the notion of class composition. The analysis of class composition
often was a mere remedy for party and union bureaucrats to gain more influence
for their organisations within conflicts, despite their actual detachment from
the shop-floor. The analysis can only be achieved by them or other "scientists",
because only they have got the time and the means. However, an inquiry can only
be revolutionary, if it is performed by workers themselves - self-inquiry. We
can support this self-inquiry by leaflets etc. The analysis of class composition
must happen out of the concrete practice. It should not be that the analysis
proceeds the decision to intervene in a particular struggle.
That was opposed by the comment that revolutionaries can not just move within
exploitation by chance or analyse just the struggles that happen and/or we co-incidentally
are aware of. We should be able to understand the general and specific tendencies
within class struggle.
During this part of the discussion it became obvious that we use two quiet abstract
terms: 'class composition' and 'proletarian experience'. It is not about opposing
these terms but about discussing the relation between experience/intervention
within exploitation and the analysis of specific developments in certain areas
of the social production process. Thereby we have to be aware of different conditions
we have to face (of groups, of different regions etc.).
2) Critique on the discussion itself
There were two main critiques on the discussion:
a) The discussion was to general. We should have discussed the notion of class
composition with regard to the situation in, and inquiry into, call centres
or another concrete experience.
b) In the discussion the terms "class composition" and "proletarian experience"
were just used as ideological labels. Therefore we did not discuss our own questions
about the recent situation in class struggle and our own way to relate to this
situation.
3) References
"Massenarbeiter und gesellschaftlicher Arbeiter - einige Bemerkungen über
die "neue Klassenzusammensetzung" - Roberto Battaggia, wildcat-Zirkular Nr.36/37
bzw. Primo Maggio Nr.14 (Winter 1980/81)
"Zusammensetzung der Arbeiterklasse und Organisationsfrage" - Sergio Bologna,
Internationale Marxistische Diskussion 35, Merve Verlag Berlin "Composizione
di classe e teoria del partito alle origine del movimento consiliare" - Operai
e Stato, Milano 1972
"Organische Zusammensetzung des Kapitals und Arbeitskraft bei Olivetti" - Romano
Alquati, TheKla5 "Composizioni del capitale e forza-lavoro alla Olivetti" -
Quaderni Rossi nr. 2, 3
"The Militant Proletariat" - Austin Lewis, Chicago 1911 dtsch. Übersetzung
"Das militante Proletariat" - Austin Lewis, in: Karlsruher Stadtzeitung(wildcat)
(Hrsg.): Die Wobblies, Band 2, Karlsruhe 1984
"Forcing the Lock? The Problem of Class Composition in Italian Workerism" -
Steve Wright, Monash Phil.Diss. 1988
"Der Kommunismus" - Jean Barrot, Weltcommune, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift
der kommunistischen Bewegung, 1/94