Retrogression in the socilaist movement of Iran

The underdevelopment of a country can be problematic in a number of different ways. The suffering of Iranian people from Socio-econmical and political underdevelopment in Iran is immense. It is due to this underdevelopment, that at the end of the twentieth century, a regime took power in Iran that embodies all the backward ideas of the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, in consequence of this underdevelopment, there has been created a kind of retrogression amongst even those people that call themselves enlighter, radical, revolutionary, left and socialist. For example, after one and a half centuries, when the populist Utopian Socialism was crushed by Scientific Socialism in Europe, the former has now been revived in Iran. Many supporters of this Utopian Socialism can be found amongst the so-called „socialists“. In addition to those groups, which traditionally represented the right trend, some of the old ultra-lefts, which have frequently turned to the Right in every sharp turn in history, have joined the ranks of the supporters of this type of „Socialism“. According to their point of view, socialism is not a matter of working class and proletariat is not the only force that has the mission of overthrowing capitalism and actually establishing socialism. But this task depends on a broad spectrum of classes and stratums. For these socialists, the class struggle is no longer the motive force of history. They rejected also proletariat dictatorship as the principle dividing line that distinguishes scientific socialism from all pseudo socialism and in order to escape from this fact, that the socialist is he who that accepts the extension of the class struggle to the extent of the establishment of proletariat dictatorship. What is formally accepted is workers government – which is, in fact, a populist government. The abolition of private ownership and the establishment of social ownership of the means of production is a touchstone no more. Because they believe that socialism has no contradiction with private ownership and market! It is therefore proclaimed, that all socialists, irrespective of what type of socialists they are, must unite and live and struggle in brotherhood. But it should be remembered that, „pseudo socialists“ justify this retrogression in different ways. They usually use such frases as „the critical situation“, „the necessities of the present condition“, „changes in the political condition of the world“, „technological developments“, „the need for „innovation“ and „extension of socialism“ in order to justify this backward way of thinking. During the last one to two years, these kinds of assertions have been criticised by our organisations publications.

It has been highlighted that, there can be no talk about socialism without believing in the social revolution, the dictatorship of proletariat and abolition of the private property. Therefore, there can be no unity between supporters of scientific socialism and the different kinds of pseudo socialist. In the light of this, there is no need to discuss this issue further, or focus on the new claims of supporters of the populist Utopian socialism. In spite of the fact that this view is not new and that the supporters of populistic socialism have borrowed it from social-democracy, but it is the logical result of this trend standpoint. It also shows, why this socialism is a kind of petty bourgeoisie populist socialism.

False socialists claim that the Marxist definition of „working class“ and who we can call a „worker“, is not in accordance with present reality. Moreover, they claim that they will develop marxism and that everybody, who receives wage or salary and lives off this income should be considered a worker. This established theory of opportunist social – democracy, which after many years, has again surfaced in Iran, should be ruthlessly and thoroughly criticised. The aim of such ideas is obliterating the distinction between the working class, the petty bourgeoisie, and even the bourgeois trends, and it dissolves the working class into non-proletarian stratums. So, it is necessary, that the supporters of scientific socialism in Iran, disclose the aims and the essence of this point of view. They should defend Iranian working class independency , and prevent the working class from being combined with the non-proletraian stratums. In accordance with this, we will theoretically analyse this category to see who is a worker and who comprise the working class from the marxist point of view.

1. How should classes be distinguished?

We will begin our discussion on a more general issue, namely the Marxist definition of classes. Lenin introduced the most concrete and conscise definition from the Marxist angle, He says:

“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 (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the 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 places they occupy in a definite system of social economy”.(1)

What is emphasized in this definition is the distinction between the different classes. The position which a group of people in society takes in the historically determined “system” of social production distinguishes this group from other groups in society, the relation of these people is related to the means of production, their role in organising social labour, their share of social wealth and the way in which they obtain this social wealth. If we use these norms to distinguish the working class, we will soon recognize that, the working class is a very large group of people that their position as wage-labourers in the capitalist mode of production is fixed. They have no means of production. With regards to the social organisation of the labour, they have , as a group which is controlled and oppressed by the capital, a subordinate position. They are exploited and produce surplus-value for capitalists. What they get from the social product is a wage, which they obtain by selling their labour-power. In explanation of this question, Marx points at the root of this matter and says, that the proletariat, that is to say the contemporary working class, are those which :

“Can only live when they get work, and they only get the work when their work increase the capital“.(2)

This is also the essence of this question. A worker is a person, whose work creates capital. This means that his work increases capital.

2. Conception of productive and unproductive labour

This definition by Marx is in accordance with one of his definitions, which is related to the concept of productive labour seen from the standpoint of capital. Wage-labour, which is exchanged for the variable part of the capital (the part of the capital that is spent on wages), reproduces not only this part of capital or the value of its own labour-power, but in addition produces surplus-value for the capitalist.

It is therefore simply the fact that wage-labour is productive that produces capital i.e. the existence of capital is based solely on this type of wage-labour. Marx therefore says:

“Productive labour is only the labour, which creates capital. Only … labour, which produces capital …..is productive labour, and every other kind of labour, either useful or detrimental for producing the capital, is not useful, it means it is not productive. So productive labour is the labour, which directly expands the capital“.(3)

He also states that:

“Productive labour is – in the system of capitalist production – labour which produces surplus-value for its employer, or which transforms the objective conditions of labour into capital and their owner into a capitalist“.(4)

Marx talks of productive labour as labour that produces surplus-value, and of unproductive labour as labour which does not produce surplus-value, does not exchange with the variable capital, and from which wage is not paid. Unproductive labour is a labour which renders services. The labour of menial servants, priests, judges, military people, politicians, state officials, lawyers, artists, teachers, doctors, public servants, etc.. is included in this category. Marx distinguishes this group in this way:

“Creation of surplus-labour in one hand are in accordance with creation the unemployment or relative unemployment (or in better words unproductive labour) on the another hand. This fact aiso effects capital itself. But regarding the classes, which share it, such as beggars, footboys, sycophants, etc.. who are earning from the surplus-production. In short, all of the people who get revenue, apart from the servant-class, who live on revenue and not capital, the very same fact are also affected. This class of servants are totally different from the working-class“.(5)

Marx clearly states who is the worker, why he is called a worker and who constitutes the working class. He clearly claims that everybody who gets a wage or salary is not a worker. If anybody wishes to say that everybody that receives a wage and revenue is a worker, then he should give another definition. He may claim that a worker is one that doesn´t directly produce capital, but he may not call himself a marxist.

3. A supplementary definition from the point of view of material difference

Marx did not stop his analysis of productive and unproductive labour here, and in continuation of this discussion he gives a supplementary and more limited definition of the concept of productive and unproductive labour. He defines productive labour as labour which produces commodities. It realizes itself in saleable items, i.e. in material wealth. He says:

“It is however clear that in the same measure as capital subjugates to itself the whole of production – that is to say, that all commodities are produced for the market and not for immediate consumption, and the productivity of labour rises in the same measure – there will also develop more and more a material difference between productive and unproductive labourers, inasmuch as the former, apart from minor exceptions, will exclusively produce commodities, while the latter, with minor exceptions, will perform only personal services. Hence the former class will produce immediate, material wealth consisting of commodities, all commodities except those which consist of labour capacity itself“.(6)

So it becomes clear that productive labourer produces commodities for the person, that buys his labour-power, whilst unproductive labourer produces merely „use-value“. In fact the unproductive labourer is the receiver of commodities and not the producer of them.

Marx emphasizes again that:

“In considering the essential relations of capitalist production it can therefore be assumed that the entire world of commodities, all spheres of material production – the production of material wealth – are (formally or really) subordinated to the capitalist mode of production. On this premise, all labourers engaged in the production of commodities are wage-labourers, and the means of production in all these spheres confront them as capital. It can then be said to be a characteristic of productive labourers, that is labourers producing capital, that their labour realizes itself in commodities, in material wealth. And so productive labour, along with its determining characteristic -which takes no account whatever of the content of labour and is entirely independent of that content – would be given a second, different and subsidiary definition“.(7)

He continues:

“The distinction made between the labourers who live on capital and those who live on revenue is concerned with the form of labour. It expresses the whole differences between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production. On the other hand, the terms productive and non-productive labourers, in the narrow sense, are concerned with labour which enters into the production of commodities (production here embraces all operations which the commodity has to undergo from the first producer to the consumer) no matter what kind of labour is applied, whether it is manual labour or not ([including] scientific labour), and labour which does not enter into, and whose aim and purpose is not, the production of commodities. This differences must be kept in mind and the fact that all other sorts of activity influence material production and vice versa in no way affects the necessity for making these distinctions“.(8)

It may be concluded from all of Marx’s definitions that, a worker is generally he who is deprived of means of production and is obliged to sell his labour-power to a capitalist. A worker should produce surplus-value and so to be capital-creater. At the same time, from the material difference point of view and in a more restricted sense, productive workers produce commodities and their labour embodies itself within these commodities.

4. Who gets the wage and salary

If all people, who are in some way working within the frame of the social division of labour and who are getting wages and revenue, are classed as workers, then all of Marx´s discussions will be useless. Can we find anybody in contemporary capitalist society, apart from small producers and retailers, who do not enter in the discussion about productive and unproductive labour and have no role in a developed capitalist order and do not get a wage and salary?

It is obvious that apart from capitalists and owners, almost everybody gets wage and salary. Presidents, ministers, lawyers, judges, high-grade state officials, scientific experts, generals, public servants and wage-labour workers all get wage and salary and the vast majority of them live from it. However, it is clear that a large number of these people, are not simply workers, but are in fact organisers of the exploitation and suppression of the working class. Their unproductive labour is not simply of no use, but it is also destructive. Let us take a more precise look at this issue.

It has been said that, capital as capital should be a self-expanding value and in order to gain this characteristic it should be exchanged for a commodity whose use-value has a capacity, that can increase the exchange-value. This commodity is the power of labour. The capitalist divides his capital in two parts. Firstly, Constant Capital is used for buying tools, buildings, means of labour and raw materials. The second part will be used for buying labour-power, from which the capitalist can increase his capital. The value of this labour-power in the market system is determined by the value of the living requirements of the worker and his family in accordance with the certain historical conditions and the level of the development and civilisation. When the capitalist buys the labour-power of a worker, he has to use it. He gets the worker to work for him for more than the labour-time that is necessary for compensation of the wage that he get from capitalist.

This difference between the workers labour-time that compensates the value of labour-power and the labour-time during which is used as use-value is the source of Surplus-value and so enables the capitalist to increase his capital. It is clear that, in order to get a worker to work in fabrics, the capitalist needs a certain amount of organisation in fabrics and work-shops, in which workers appear “as the private soldiers of industry under the control of a hierarchy of non-commissioned officers” , and they perform their duties.

From managers (who stand at the top of this hierarchy) to ordinary office-servants, bookkeepers, engineers, advisers, technicians, supervisors, security-guards etc.., it is necessary, that the worker under the control of this hierarchy of supervisors, perform his duty – creating surplus-value. Nevertheless, this is only one side of the bourgeoisie organisation (namely the organisation of exploitation in the work-shop), which is not the subject of our discussion at present. Where the capitalist mode of production is dominant, capitalists, in order to maintain and secure their economical power, organisation of exploitation and supression of disobedience and protests of workers need to have political power and through a complicated broad state apparatus maintain his power.

However the bourgeoisie is neither in a quantitative nor qualitative position to carry out these duties alone. It therefore employs people who are experts in these spheres.

In this state machinery the first priority belongs to the organisation of the material means of repression in order to maintain the power of bourgeoisie. To keep workers and toilers in captivity and to forcibly prevent discontented workers from rioting, the bourgeoisie organise an army. In this organisation, a large number of generals, officers and grade officers are arranged in different levels i.e. in a hierarchy. This organisation, as a whole, is a professional military force and is completely financed by the bourgeoisie i.e. an army is organised as a guardian force of the existing order and is kept by the bourgeoisie. The army carries out the bougeoise´s repressive and expansionist military policies. Of course, within this apparatus a mass of soldiers are organised. The majority of them belong to working people families and are forcibly made to undertake a short period of military service. They are neither a professional army force nor are they within the income brackets of the bourgeoisie. They have neither military privileges nor do they belong to the military. The bulk of this organisation consists of the very same generals, officers and lower grade officers, who live off the revenue and facilities which they own, and they readily obey the bourgeoisie.

Can anybody deny that the officers and lower grade army staff are within the bourgeoisie´s income bracket? No. And it isn´t only a few generals whose source of income is great enough to lead a “life of luxury”. In spite of the fact that all of these military people are getting salary, they have nothing to do with workers and the working class. They are, on the contrary, the enemies of workers. Not only are they not productive, but they are parasites and live off the labour of workers. This a section of them, who get revenue, and who our “renewers” recommend us to class them as workers. Let us now return to the main question. In spite of the fact that the bourgeoisie organises the army as a force of repression, it neither can nor wants to use this force in the everyday class struggle. The use of this force is confined to a serious crisis. Therefore, the bourgeoisie needs another organisation to supplement this repression force. The daily duty of this other force is to maintain “order” and to protect the “security” of the bourgeoisie. This duty, in different countries, is usually imposed on an organisation, called the Ministry of the Interior. There are a group of experts and high political cadres, who are sitting at the top of this organisation. They plan and carry out the general internal policies of the bourgeoisie in order to rule the country and 5keep order and security on a national, regional and local level. Governers and district governors are carrying out these duties on a lower level.

These policies carried out by establishing organisations which work in accordance with their duties. To make these duties as effective as possible, the bourgeoisie organise a special force for order, security and repression. For example, the police department is used as a force to keep order and security in towns and gendarmes are used in villages. In Iran they are called the force of order. The bourgeoisie represses workers and toilers daily, and keeps „order“ through using the different income brackets of this apparatus of repression. In addition, this organisation usually has in a supplementary apparatus, which is called the security force. These salary earners use underground activities, which play a considerable role in the repression of the masses. This huge apparatus, with all of its administrative, political and military force, constitutes another part of the income bracket system like the army. In addition to these organisations, the bourgeoisie has another organisation, which is called the judiciary. This apparatus consists of courts on different levels, some another organisations, and a group of people called judges with their administrative staff. This income bracket also has the duty of implementing legal proceedings against every worker who violates the order and property of the bourgeoisie i.e generally, anybody that commits an illegal offence in the eyes of the bourgeoisie.

Judges can sentence workers and toilers to prison, give them a fine, or order execution. The bourgeoisie has also organised a particular apparatus whose duty is not the directly implement the repression of the masses. Instead, their duty is to spiritually mislead and to provide an ideological and political bombardment of the workers. Today, this role is carried out mainly by press bureaus, radios, televisions, different newspapers with an army of writers, journalists and staff who have particular roles and duties. The propaganda network of the bourgeoisie is one of the most destructive and efficient means of politically and spiritually misleading the masses. Religious organisations also have a particular role in the organisation of giving misleading information. In spite of the fact that capitalist countries usually try to hide the bourgeoisie´s direct material help to these religious organisations, it is a fact that, they are also direct or indirect salary earners of the bourgeoisie. In some countries, like Iran, they have an official monthly salary. For the organisation of economical affairs and policies (both internally and internationally) the bourgeoisie have particular establishments. These organisations consist of economical experts and their group of staff. Other groups have also been created to carry out foreign policies and diplomatic affairs. These groups are also salaried by the bourgeoisie. Let us not forget that these bourgeois organisations cannot carry out their duties properly, unless organisations exist in other spheres that carry out service duties and are apparently directly related to the needs of the masses. For instance, the question of taking care of the labours-power’s health requires national organisation. In most cases, this duty is served by particular organisations within the state apparatus. The Ministry of Health, with its specialised organisation, takes the responsibility of caring for public health. Education is treated in a similar way.

The establishment of these specific organisations is extremely important to the bourgeoisie. Firstly, in order to perform even the simplest tasks, the people of society need education to a certain level and should have passed different education courses. Even the worker, who carries out the most basic work in fabrics should have a minimum level of education and knowledge. So education and knowledge, for the skilled workers, has a special place. Secondly, in order to educate its experts and cadres in different spheres to rule the country, the bourgeoisie needs this educational apparatus.

Educational subjects usually encompass class biases, and therefore are used as a means of giving the bourgeoisie ideological domination. The bourgeoisie´s apparatus of education requires a general program and educational policy, and by employing teachers at different levels it carries out this program. This apparatus educates and prepares, in groups, the force which is then ready to provide service at different levels to the bourgeoisie. One group of pupils are sent to the job market,with or without a short course of training as a worker. Another group, which pass middle school, consist of a group of 6 workers that are ready to work in fabrics and the administrative and service offices of the bourgeoisie. The duty of the bourgeoisie’s apparatus of education does not end here. The best pupils will be educated to higher levels at universities and high schools.

They are educated with the ideology of the bourgeois, and, mainly because it necessary for their future, they are absorbed by the worldview of the bourgeois. Politicians, lawyers, scientists, engineers, managers, senior university lecturers, schoolteachers, artists and ministers are all educated to this level. All of these organisations and varying income brackets are necessary for the bourgeoisie to maintain its class domination. This means that, in order to keep workers as wage-labourers and to exploit them to obtain capital, the bourgeoisie has to employ an army of other people and to pay them salary, which comes from the labour of workers. This revenue differs, depending on the position of the people of this hierarchical army.

Ministers and their deputies, general directors and department directors, directors of offices, high grade politicians and military persons are all at the top of this hierarchy. Their revenues and privileges are at the highest levels. There is also a group under them, which consists of high grade officers and experts. In addition, we have another group whose position, because of their social privileges and revenue levels, is lower than the first two groups. And finally, there is a wide mass of officers at the lowest level of this hierarchy, and in spite of the fact that they do not have the same privileges as those in the higher levels, they still have advantages over people who do not fall into this „leading apparatus“. All of them constitute the top income bracket. They all belong to an apparatus, whose duty is to organise exploitation, and to guard the class order of capitalism and the repression of the workers. Although they receive revenue, they have nothing to do with the process of production. Not only do they not produce surplus-value, but they live off the surplus-product of society which is produced by the workers.

The fact that unproductive labour of some groups may be useful does not alter the main question. It is natural that there are differences between the people which are not involved in productive labour and that are not workers. For instance, those who work in the educational and health organisations (like teachers, professors, scientists, doctors and nurses) are not the same as those who directly repress the masses. Even though the former group are unproductive labourers, they are still useful. However, the unproductive labour of the second group is destructive. At least, the first group is useful because it provides health care for the masses. It is connected with science, knowledge growth and mental and spiritual development. However, we should remember that this group is still a part of the bourgeoisie society structure.

It does not mean that we can call the group of people who are involved in useful labour proletariats. A doctor is not worker. Teachers, professors and scientists are not proletariat. Therefore, it is incorrect to talk about an educational proletariat. Later we will look at the question of teachers, professors and doctors more comprehensively.

To summarize this part of the discussion, we can say that the bourgeoisie have two types of income bracket. One group are those that the bourgeoisie pay a wage to, in return for the production of surplus-value. They are workers, who are exploited and repressed. There is also another group who are within the income bracket of the bourgeoisie.

They do not produce super-value, but maintain the domination of the bourgeoisie. They organise the exploitation and repression of the workers. So it is obvious that this group are neither exploited nor repressed. They are actually an inseparable part of the domination apparatus of wage-labour. Taking this point of view, it does not make any difference if you are, for example, an army officer, a police officer or a lower grade policeman or gendarme. With these explanations in mind, it is clear that the claim of the false socialists that everyone who gets a wage or salary is a worker is nothing more than rubbish. Having clarified that, let us return to Marx´s discussion and look more precisely at the question.

5.The dual nature of mental labour in the process of material production

In his study of the concept of productive and unproductive labour Marx concentrated on the question of mental labour, which is used in the process of material production. He also illustrated that mere direct participation in the process of material production is not solely enough to class somebody as a worker. In addition, the distinction between physical and mental labour, the role of mental labour in organisation of exploitation and consolidation of bourgeoisi power, and the size of the wages have to be considered. He shows, using this point of view, the dual nature of the labour of managers, engineers and supervisors in a factory. The differences must be distinguished. If the material content of these people´s labour is taken into consideration, then it may be regarded as productive and a necessary part of the production process. But at the same time, it originates from the antagonism between capital and labour in a certain social form.

When we consider this question from the whole process of production, all the producers are helping in the production process. This means that not only the labourers, who work with their hands and on machines, but also the labour of intellectuals , whose work is necessary in certain spheres of material production to produce commodities, are required.

Therefore, when Marx considers the question of productive labour from the whole process of material production point of view, he says:

” But the totality of these labourers , who possess labour-power – (although all the employed maintain much the same level) – produce the result, which, considered as the result of the labour-process pure and simple, is expressed in a commodity or material product ; and all together, as a workshop, they are the living production machine of these products – just as, taking theproduction process as a whole, they exchange their labour for capital and reproduce the capitalists´ money as capital, that is to say, as value producing surplus-value, as self-expanding value“.

It is indeed the characteristic feature of the capitalist mode of production that it seperates the various kinds of labour from each other, therefore also mental and manual labour – or kinds of labour in which one or the other predominates – and distributes them among different people. This however does not prevent the material product from being the common product of these persons, or their common product embodied in material wealth; any more than on the other hand it prevents or in any way alters the relation of each one of these persons to capital being that of wage-labourer and in this pre-eminent sense being that of a productive labourer“.(9)

He also says, when studying the labour of management and supervision, that:

” The labour of supervision and management is naturally required wherever the direct process of production assumes the form of a combined social process, and not of the isolated labour of independent producers. However, it has a double nature.

On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals cooperate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor. This is a productive job, which must be performed in every combined mode of production.

On the other hand – quite apart from any commercial department – the supervision work necessarily arises in all modes of production based on the antithesis between the labourer, as the direct producer, and the owner of the means of production. The greater this antagonism, the greater the role played by supervision“.(10)

We shall return to Marx´s discussion later. The purpose of this discussion is merely to show the fact that even when considering the whole process of the capitalist production, mental labour is necessary and productive.

However, we should not simply consider those receiving revenue as labourers. It is necessary to mention, that what Marx says about managers does not apply to the managers of present monopolies, who are large shareholders with very high revenues. It only applies to the low grade managers involved in present levels of production in capitalist firms. Marx talks about the labour of supervision and management, as a „special type of labour imposed on some people“, and as, „directly and inseparably are welded to the production duties in every type of connected social labour“.

He clarifies that the wage of such a manager should be like “the wage of a skilled labourer”. He says:

“The wages of management are or should be a simple wage for a special type of labour, which price, like every other labour, is regulated in the labour market“.

Precisely the same applies to engineers.

6. Commercial workers and the methodological importance of Marx´s discussion

With regards to previously introduced definitions concerning productive and unproductive labour, it is necessary to consider Marx´s discussion about Commercial workers and the transport industry. This shall be considered because of its methodological importance in the forthcoming discussion. Before entering the main discussion, it is necessary to point out that, from the material point of view, it is not only manufacturers, or extractive, agricultural and building workers, that are productive. We can also find some branches, which are partially related to the sphere of service and in which workers, without any change in the material shape of commodity, are directly producing surplus-value.

For instance, the indusrty of transport, in connection with the transportation of commodities. Obviously the commodity, which is produced in a fabric or farm, should be delivered to consumers. In other words, it is necessary that it is transported from the place of production to the place of distribution. This necessity exists independent of the form of social production and in the, sense that it originates from the production as a whole, it is in fact a continuation of the production process. Therefore, workers who are transporting the commodities, add their labour to the commodities directly.

Here the transport industry worker is just like the fabric worker. On the one hand the transport worker adds, with his labour, the value of transport means to the value of commodity, and on the other hand he creats a new value, which consists of wage-labour and surplus-value. In connection with the transporting of people, the transport worker belongs to the sphere of services. Although he makes profit for the capitalist, he is not directly productive from a material point of view. Marx writes:

“This is the transport industry, transporting either people or commodities. The relation of productive labour – that is, of the wage-labour – to capital is here exactly the same as in the other spheres of material production. In the case of the transport of people this is service. But where the commodity is transported, a kind of labour adds. Although this labour has left no trace it nevertheless incorporates itself in the commodity“.(11)

In the sphere of commerce, we also have to consider, to a certain extent, the continuation of the production process. There are some duties which the commodity can´t be obtained without. For instance, distributing, retailing, packing, storing are duties often imposed on the commercial wage-labourer.

To a degree, these duties are independent from the social form of production, and from the continuation of the process of production. Therefore from this view, the commercial wage-labourer is also directly productive; it means that he directly produces surplus-value. It follows that the remaining part of commercial wage-labourer belongs to the sphere of service. In fact this sphere consists mostly of these labourers.

Marx, in the third volume of “Capital”, considered the situation of this section of workers. He answers the important question – why despite this fact that, the commercial wage-labourer belong to the sphere of service and is therefore not directly productive, in fact the labourer can be exploited and the commercial capitalist can expand his Capital using this exploitation?

In his analysis, he shows first that all of the costs of circulation are only the expenses for realizing the value, or changing it from one form to another, and that they add no real value to commodities. These expenses should be covered by Surplus-production and deducted from Surplus-value or Surplus-production. Therefore, he concludes that:

“Commercial capital, therefore – stripped of all heterogeneous functions, such as storing, expressing, transporting, distributing, retailing, which may be connected with it, and confined to its true function of buying in order to sell – creates neither value nor surplus-value, but acts as middleman in their realization and thereby simultaneously in the actual exchange of commodities, i.e., in their transfer from hand to hand, in the social metabolism“.(12)

So, the mere commercial costs (either the costs which are used as variable capital or constant capital) add no value to commodity and the commercial capital creates neither value nor surplus-value. So where does the profit of the commercial capital come from ? It comes from transferring some of the surplus-value, which is produced by the productive capital.

Nevertheless, this transformation can only occur if the commercial capitalist employs wage-labourers who, while carrying out their duties in the sphere of circulation and doing the unpaid work, reduce the costs of realizing the surplus-value.

“The commercial worker creates profit for capitalists not because he directly produces value, but because he helps to reduce the costs of realizing the surplus-value to the extent, that he is directly doing the unpaid work“.(13)

In explaining the commercial worker, Marx says:

“In one respect, such a commercial employee is a wage-worker like any other. In the first place, his labour-power is bought with the variable capital of the merchant, not with money expended as revenue, and consequently it is not bought for private service, but for the purpose of expanding the value of the capital advanced for it. In the second place, the value of his labour-power, and thus his wage, are determined as those of other wage-workers, by the cost of production and reproduction of his specific labour-power, not by the product of his labour. However, we must make the same distinction between him and the wage-workers directly employed by industrial capital, which exist between industrial capital and merchant´s capital, and thus between the industrial capitalist and the merchant. Since the merchant, as a mere agent of circulation, produces neither value nor surplus-value…..it follows that the mercantile workers employed by him in these same functions cannot directly create surplus-value for him“.(14)

In answering the question of how the commercial worker, despite the fact that he doesn´t directly produce surplus-value, can create profit for the commercial capitalist, Marx says:

“This question has, indeed, already been solved in the general analysis of commercial profits. Just as industrial capitalist makes profit by selling labour embodied and realized in commodities, for which it has not paid any equivalent, so merchant´s capital derives profit from not paying in full to productive capital for all the unpaid labour contained in the commodities (in commodities, in so far as capital invested in their production functions as an aliquot part of the total industrial capital ), and by demanding payment for this unpaid portion still contained in the commodities when making a sale. The relation of merchant´s capital to surplus-value is different from that of industrial capital. The latter produces surplus-value by directly appropriating the unpaid labour of others. The former appropriates a portion of this surplus-value by having this portion transferred from industrial capital to itself…… The very function, by virtue of which the merchant´s money becomes capital, is largely done through his employees. The unpaid labour of these clerks, while it does not create surplus-value, enables him 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…..Just as the labourer´s unpaid labour directly creates surplus-value for productive capital, so the unpaid labour of the commercial wage-worker secures a share of his surplus-value for merchant´s capital“.(14)

Marx, with this explanation of the situation of commercial workers, introduces a theory which generally explains the situation of service workers. At the same time, it can be shown how we should define a worker in the service sector. He shows here, that to be a worker is the same as being a capital-creater.

The worker is the one who sells his labour-power for a wage, which is paid from the variable part of the capital. It means that the buying of his labour-power is used in order to expand the capital. At the same time the value of this labour-power, or in other words wage, is determined by the costs which are necessary for the production and reproduction of it. But the function of this labour-power is not equal to its value. Capitalists make workers work more than the time, necessary to cover his wage. It is from this surplus-value that the capitalist makes his profits and the workers are exploited i.e. the worker is being exploited in order to expand the capital.

7. The working class in the present world

Having discussed generally Marx´s theories about productive and unproductive labour, the dual nature of mental work in the process of material production, the difference between industrial workers and commercial workers, and the normal ways that workers can be distinguished from non-workers, let us now look at the changes the working class has faced in the twentieth century. Have the technological changes, or the changes, which have happened in the composition and structure of the proletariat reduced or annihilated the credibility of marxist definitions ? Can we, as some people believe, claim that today everyone who receive wages and revenue is a worker ?

In answering this, it should first be stated that the changes that have taken place since Marx have not altered the most basic principals of capitalism, and as long as this relation exists Marx´s theory has credibility. Let us look more thoroughly at these changes.

The working class is today, as in the time of Marx, concentrated into three main economical spheres of activity; industry, services and agriculture. Firstly the working class has, in every capitalist country, consisted of wage-labourers who work in the sphere of material production, e.g., in the manufacture industry, extractive industry, transport industry and building industry. An important part of the working class are the workers, who work in different branches of the service sector and, because they are not taking part in material production directly, and are not seen as directly productive. Nevertheless, they create capital.

8. The industrial proletariat

The industrial proletariat, in respect to quantity and its position in production, is, in every capitalist country, the main part of the working class. It constitutes the backbone of the working class. This part of the working class is mainly concentrated on the large enterprises, and therefore it is regarded as the most organised, progressive and conscious part of the working class. The whole existence of society depends on the work of this section of working class. The main parts of both material products and the surplus-value are produced by these workers in every capitalist country. The scientific and technological changes of the twentieth century, especially in the second half of it, have increased the role and the importance of the industrial proletariat. These changes have, at the same time, affected the quantity, composition and structure of the industrial proletariat. Under the influence of these changes, which have taken place simultaneously with the use of new technologies, new branches in industrial production have been created. The importance of these new branches, and the working class people working in them, has consequently reduced the role and importance of other branches of production.

For instance, while the role and importance of the extractive industry has been reduced, the role and importance of the processing industry has increased. Also the electronic, air-space, computer and chemical industries have achieved a higher status. Under the influence of the increasing new lines of production, and application of new technologies, the skill level of workers has witnessed some perceptible changes. In the time of Marx, the industrial proletariat mainly consisted of manual workers with a minimum level of skill and education and in the first half of the twentieth century the majority of the industrial proletariat in developed capitalist countries consisted of half-skilled workers. In the second half of the twentieth century the role and importance of unskilled-workers was seriously increased and their number was reduced minimally.

In contrast, under the influence of new technological revolution, the position of skilled workers has strongly increased, but half-skilled workers still make up the main part of the working class. Nevertheless, their number is also decreasing daily and the number of skilled-workers is increasing. These changes have naturally altered the previous distinction lines between manual and mental labour. A large section of the labour force, who have been employed in the office, have now become involved in more skilled area in the production sphere. For example, a considerable number of technicians are now commonly taking part in the process of production.

Whilst they are involved in to the main sphere of production, they miss their previous privileges and their wage has reduced proportionally. This is because of the increase in universal education which has been created from the development of capitalist production.

Education is no longer for a certain clan of people, and it has become generally more accessible to people. The rise of technical schools and the overspecialisation of skills due to the division of labour has led to an increase in the number of skilled workers. In addition, increased competition has generally reduced the production costs of this skilled labour force. When Marx discusses commercial workers, he explains how the value of the labour-power of a skilled-worker has reduced. He says:

“The commercial worker, in the strict sense of the term, belongs to the better-paid class of wage-workers – to those whose labour is classed as skilled and stands above average labour. Yet the wage tends to fall, even in relation to average labour, with the advance of the capitalist mode of production“.

Then he explains that:

“This is partly due to the division of labour in the office, implying a one-sided development of the labour capacity, the cost of which does not fall entirely on the capitalist, since the labourer´s skill develops by itself through the exercise of his functions, and all the more rapidly as division of labour makes it more one-sided. Secondly because the necessary 12 training, knowledge of commercial practices, languages, etc.., is more and more rapidly, easily, universally and cheaply reproduced with the progress of science and public education the more the capitalist mode of production directs teaching methods, etc.. towards practical purposes. The universality of public education enables the capitalist to recruit such labourers from classes that before merely had no access to such trades and were accustomed to a lover standard of living. Moreover, this increases supply, and hence competition. With few exceptions, the labour-power of those people is therefore devaluated with the progress of capitalist production. Their wage falls, while their labour capacity increases“.(15)

Marx´s discussion, apart from the points which apply specifically to commerce, has an important relevance to skilled and specialist workers as a whole. The fact is that millions of unemployed workers from developed capitalist countries are skilled specialist workers. In addition, a section of these skilled and half-skilled workers are working at levels, which require less skill, and give a considerably smaller wage. So when we are talking about technicians, it can be said overall that, with regards to their role in production and their wages, they belong to the more skilled strata of the working class.

We should focus on another matter, which resulted from the new technological revolution, the more comprehensive integration of science, technology and production, and the growing importance of abstract labour in the process of production. This is the angle taken on the process of production by a group of scientists.

Despite the number of scientists that have a direct relation to the process of production, the proportion of the total amount of scientists in capitalist countries is still less. Nevertheless technological developments and new industries, along with the hard competition between monopolies, have increased their number, and more scientists now work in research centers and laboratories which are integrated with large industrial enterprises. Since the mental labour of these scientists has a direct and inseparable relation to the material process of production, we can naturally not view these scientists in terms of the last century. If we look at their work in terms of the total process of production, it is the necessary part of this process, and it therefore is the productive labour. In spite of the fact that they can be distinguished from other scientists, they are only required for mental labour, and are therefore privileged. They get very high revenues and are working for the interests of the capital. Therefore, unlike the assertions of reformist trend, these scientists don´t have positions like proletariats and naturally, cannot be considered members of working class. The position of this group of scientists is comparable to the that of managers, designers and engineers. So what Marx considered, about the dual nature of the mental labour in the material process of production is also applicable to these scientists.

Another point, which should be discussed here in connection with the technological developments, is the relative reduction of the number of productive workers in proportion to the total employed population and the entire working class.

In 1967 in OECD-countries, from the total employed population, 36,7% worked in the industrial sector, 15,9% in the agricultural sector and 47,3% in the service sector. By 1990 these figures had changed as follows:

“29,6% in the industry sector, 7,5% in the agricultural sector and 62,9% in the service sector“.(16)

Another indication is that, in spite of the increase in the total number of workers in the industry sector, the number of workers has reduced proportionally in the largest production enterprises of the capitalist world. For example, during the last two decades:

“From 1970 to 1990 the number of total employed in the industry sector in USA has increased from 27.029.000 to 30.902.000, nevertheless, in the same period the total number of employees in the large manufacture industries reduced from 19.367.000 to 19.111.000 and the number of workers from 14.044.000 to 12.974.000.

Or in the same period in Japan while the employees of industry sector has increased:

“From 1.819.000 to 2.129.000 and those who get wage and revenue in the same sector from 1.144.000 to 1.306.000, the number of the workers in the large manufacture industries has reduced from 5.850.000 to 5.145.000“.(17)

The lawfulness of development of capitalism necessitates that, at the same time, whilst increasing the accumulation and concentration of capital and production, the organic composition of the social capital constantly grows. The capitalist mode of production, in its developing process, makes use of new technics and increases the productivity of labour as required. This process has taken place at the same time as the relative growth of constant capital in relation to variable capital. It means that a lesser number of workers with larger amount of constant capital are involved in the process of production. The more concentrated the capital and use of modern technology, the more technical or organic composition of capital growth becomes. Today, with new technology such as the use of computers for controlling the machines and the development of robatisation and automation, a relatively small number of productive workers are needed.

The relative reduction in the amount of productive workers (productive from the material point of view) has been the logical outcome of this process. The fact that the less productive workers produce more, means that the work of industrial workers has been more productive and the importance of these workers in the process of production has been increased. It also shows that a country has become richer.

“A country is the richer the smaller its productive population is relative to the total product; just as for the individual capitalist…..The country is richer the smaller the productive production in relation to the unproductive, the quantity of products remaining the same. For the relative smallness of the productive population would be only another way of expressing the relative degree of the productivity of Labour“.(18)

Today, the burden of the total wealth of the capitalist society lies on the shoulders of these workers. This fact is the prominent reason for the ever-growing and increasingly important role of workers in production. At the the same time, it is also preparing all the necessary preconditions for the transformation of society towards socialism.

Before ending this discussion it is necessary, while we are talking about productive workers, to talk about agricultural workers. The number of employees in the agricultural sector has also been reduced in the second half of the twentieth century. This is due to scientific and technological developments. In the agricultural sector employment has been reduced from 4,5% to 2,8% in the USA and from 17,4% to 7,2% in Japan. Consequently, the number of agriculture workers has also been reduced and they now constitute not more than 2 or 3 % of the total working class of most developed capitalist countries. In spite of this the number of workers has been reduced in this sector, but they, as another part of the productive workers, have preserved their important role in the material process of production.

With the huge concentration of capital and the production and the creation of large capitalist farms which use highly developed science and technology, this limited number of workers in agriculture sector produce a vast amount of agricultural products. This matter is a prominent reason for the importance of these workers in the process of producing and creating social wealth.

9. The service sector and workers of the service sector

While productive workers have relatively reduced and employees of industrial and agricultural sectors have been generally decreased, the service sector has expanded and the size of its labour force has relatively and absolutely grown. The fact that the sector of service has expanded constantly with the development of capitalist order is undeniable. In fact, in the most developed capitalist countries the, the main section of the labour force, that is to say about 60% of this labour, are employed in this sector. And as we pointed out before, in the OECD-countries, 62,9% of the total employed labour force are employed in the service sector.

In the USA, this figure is 70%. The rise of the employed population in the service sector and the simultaneous reduction of productive workers who take part directly in the process of material production, has resulted from the law governed development of the capitalist mode of production, which Marx foresaw and analysed.

In spite of this fact, the bourgeoisie has tried to make a weapon from this problem against Marxism and the working class and have tried to prove the uselessness of Mrax´s theories.

On this basis, during the last decades a group of bourgeoisie theoreticians claimed that with the growth of the service sector, importance of mental and abstract labour, relatively reducing of productive workers and increasing the size of the „middle classes“ the working class has missed its role and mission. It has been absorbed into the middle class, and now the hegemonic and leading role belongs to representatives of mental labour or, more clearly, the intellectuals. These theories have presently found their final forms in different technocratic-computer theories such as “the post-industrial society”, “the third wave” and “the informatic society”. The essence of all these theories is a vain try to prove the matter that the capitalist society, in its old sense, does not exist anymore. The class society with its two hostile powers has disappeared. Therefore, the working class has no role and mission now. The relation of capital and labour has missed its meaning, and there is no longer a discussion about socialism as an alternative to capitalist society. Together with these theories, the social reformist trend of the labour movement has claimed that under the influence of technological changes (attaching importance to mental labour and expanding the sector of service) the distinctions between proletariat and the people, who belong to sphere of mental labour or generally sector of service, have disappeared, and everyone who recieves wages and salary should be classed as a worker.

These theories, which aim to deny the class independency of workers, spreading petty bourgeoisi inclinations and bourgeoisi world outlook amongst workers, in actual fact is another striving for denying the role and mission of the workers and giving this role to intellectuals.There is not adequate room in this article to comprehensively discuss the ill-founded claims of the bourgeoisie theoreticians.

We will only say that, contrary to their claims, the working class has neither been absorbed into the “middle classes” nor has everyone that recieves a wage and revenue become a worker. In the former part, when we discussed the situation of the industrial proletariat, we showed how empty the claims were of those who say that the role and importance of industrial proletariat has been reduced. We saw that the technological revolution in the second half of this century has not reduced the importance of industrial proletariat in production, but has actually increased it.

Concerning the determined role and the importance of this section of workers, it is enough to say that with large strikes currently occuring, the whole of society is being paralysed. The bourgeoisie is shaken and talks about the millions and millions of losses because of these strikes. These people are not the middle classes, the scientists, the researchers or the managers, but wage-labourers who sell their labour power and are exploited in order to expand capital. Also, in the sector of service, unlike the claims of the bourgeoisie theoreticians, we are not confronted only with the “middle classes”. A considerable part of the labour force that works in this sector, .e.i approximately one third of them are workers.

According to international organisations all those that work in branches such as commerce, transport firms, communication, tourism, restaurants, hotels, finance, insurance, health services, education, the social services and public adminstration, whether they are capital producers or not, are registered as the labourers of the service sector. The bourgeoisie theoreticians present all of them as „middle classes“. But as we saw before, a considerable part of this labour force, is made up of commercial and transport workers, who a part of them are taking part directly in the process of material production, and so directly create surplus-value. Another part of these workers, in spite of this fact that they don´t take part in the process of material production, are exploited and increase the capital.

There are today, in every capitalist country, millions of workers who work in shops, warehouses, transport firms, communication, restaurants, hotels and repairation centres, etc.. The capitalist that employs them makes huge profits through exploiting them. Not only those that carry out the manual labour, but also a part of mental labour in this sector, are among the workers. Generally we can say that those people in this sector, whose labour-power is bought with variable capital, are prepaid to expand capital. The value of this labour-power is determined by expenses, which are necessary for the production and reproduction of it and play no role in organising repression and exploitation, they are simply workers.

In spite of the fact that they are not taking part in the process of material production and do not directly produce surplus-value, their unpaid-labour contributes to the expropriation of a part of the surplus-product of the society and the surplus-value expropriated by capitalists. They are exploited and help to expand capital, and are therefore classed as workers. They are a part of the working class, whose sphere of work is different. Workers in the industry sector, agriculture sector and service sector, consist entirely of the working class. In every capitalist country they constitute the majority of the population and their numbers are increasing absolutely. So the claims of the bourgeoisie theoreticians, such as the disappearance of the working class into „middle classes“, negating the important role of the working class in production and denying the role and mission of proletariat are completely ill founded.

10. The sector of service and the new petty-bourgeoisie

It should also be said that a considerable part of the labour force, who work in the sector of service, consists of people who are classed as “middle classes“. Their numbers have also increased. Despite the fact that this part of the labour force of the service sector generally gets revenue and lives from it. They do not taking part in material production and are totally unproductive on all levels. They do not create capital and are not classed as workers. Some people claim that, since they get revenue and maintain themselves from it, we should count them as workers. However, Marx says: “The mere direct exchange of money with labour does not transform money to capital and labour to productive-labour. Where the direct exchange of money with labour takes place without at this labour produce capital, therefore where it is not productive, it has bought as service, which is entirely nothing more than a word for the special use-value, which this labour, as every other commodity, has“.(19) So, if we will find a class position for them, they belong to the sphere of petty-bourgeoisie or what, we call the „middle class“. This labour force, as we said before, has especially grown in the second half of the twentieth century. This also comes from development of the very same capitalist order, which increases the number of unproductive sections of the population relatively. In summary Marx says: “On the other hand, there is a relative growth in the number of people not dependent on manual labour, and although in the mass of workers grows, the population of the social strata they have to provide for materially through their labour grows in the same proportion….The part of revenue which is not re-converted back into capital, therefore 16 grows, and thereby also the substance on which lives the stratum of society not directly involved in material production. This applies, in particular, to the part of society which concerns itself with sciences; just as the part concerned with the business of circulation (trade the money business), and to the idlers, who only consume; as well as to the serving part of the population….The working class has to feed, and to work for, this gang – who have become separated from the working class – since they themselves are not directly involved in material production.(the same goes for armies).

Although the number of workers grows absolutely, it declines relatively, not only in proportion to the constant capital which absorbs their labour, but also in proportion to the part of society not directly involved in material production or indeed engaged in no kind of production whatsoever“.(20)

In this discussion Marx clarifies that the relative decline of workers is simultaneous to the relative growth of the unproductive population. A population, who basically are related by the different branches of the service sector.

Though they do not own the means of production and are not capitalists, but they get revenue and often maintain themselves from it. Nevertheless, they do not exchange their labour-power with capital. They are not capital-creators and because of their work, life conditions and world views they have the main characteristics of the petty-bourgeoisie. At the same time they provide a social strength base to the power of the bourgeoisie. Marx, in his critique of the theories of Ricardo, points to the growing of numbers of middle classes and writes:

“What he (Ricardo) forgets to emphasis is the constantly growing number of the middle classes, these who stand between the workman on the one hand and the capitalist and landlord on the other hand. The middle classes maintain themselves to an ever-increasing extent directly out of revenue, they are a burden weighthing heavily on the working base and increase the social security and power of the upper ten thousand“.(21)

Needless to say, that when Marx discusses the “middle classes” he means the social type that stands between workers and the capitalists, namely petty-bourgeoisie. However, not the traditional petty-bourgeoisie, whose numbers are constantly declining, but the modern one.

He talks about the ever-increasing growth of a “new strata”, whose growth relates to the development of capitalist production and the sector of service. They should be called the modern petty-bourgeoisie. It is they, who are a burden on the workers and strengthen both the social security and power of the bourgeoisie. In fact, if any one wants to find the reasons why the power of the bourgeoisie has been strengthened in the last 3 – 4 decades in the most developed capitalist countries, and also try to find the social forces which have played a role in allowing the right wing bourgeoisie to take power in the same countries, then we must again to analyze of the very same petty-bourgeoisie. They consist mainly of those that receive revenue, and some claim that they are part of the working class. However, this group, who work in the sector of service, though they do not own the means of production and often maintain themselves out of their own revenue, are not workers.

That is, they do not exchange their labour-power with the variable part of capital. They do not produce surplus-value, are not exploited, and do not expand capital. On the contrary, for the service they carry out, they get a part of the social product and, even from the capitalist production point of view, their expenses are, in a general sense, a part of the overhead costs of production. These strata, because of the nature of their work, the mode of their profession, the organisation of their work, the level of their revenue, their level of education, their social origin and their social privileges have a different status to workers. Therefore this group, because of its class basis should be placed in the sphere of petty-bourgeoisie. We should not forget, however, that because of the expansion of the sector of service, their social privileges are constantly limited. The latter fact creates different levels amongst them. While the upper layer and, to a extent, the middle layer of employees in this sector tend to keep the existing order, the lower layer, who mainly consist of low-level clerks from different branches of service sector, have very limited rights and privileges.

An examples of such a group is low-level school teachers. This means that if, for example, in the sector of educational services, the university lecturers and scientists from research groups often find themselves comparable to the rich petty-bourgeoisie. Teachers of high schools and technical schools, with a university education and their special privileges, are like the middle petty-bourgeoisie. Schoolteachers and low-level clerks have a position more like the poor petty-bourgeoisie or half-proletariat (half-proletariat in the sense that their revenue can hardly cover their daily needs).

Of course, in the sphere of educational services, we can also see the manifestation of capitalism in the sphere of non-material production. Teachers, who work in an educational institute for a capitalist can, from a capital creation point of view, even be classed as productive. However, these cases should be laid aside as exceptions. We should not make rules from exceptions and present everyone, that gets revenue as a worker. The way that Marx argues on this issue is also constructive. He says:

“Teachers in educational institutions are maybe the pure wage-labour for the owner of this institution. Though these teachers are not productive labour in connection with pupils, but for their employer they are productive labour. He exchanges his capital with their labour-power and through this process is enriched. This matter is also valid for other entrepreneurs like theatres, entertainments, etc.. In such cases the relation of actor with public is only the relation of an actor, but in connection with his employer he is a productive labourer”.

He then concludes that:

“All of these manifestations of capitalist production in this sphere are in compare with the whole production, so little, that they can totally be put away“(22)

In addition, concerning the expenses of the educational and health services he says:

“As to the purchase of such services as these which train labour capacity, maintain or modify it, etc..; in a word, give it a specialised form or evenonly maintain it – thus for example the schoolmaster´s service, in so far as it is „industrially necessary“ or useful; the doctor´s service, in so far as it maintains health and so conserves the source of all values, labour capacity itself, etc.. – these are services which yield in return „a vendible commodity, etc.“, namely labour capacity itself, into whose costs of production or reproduction these services enter….It is therefore clear that the labour of the doctor and schoolmasters does not directly create the fund out of which they are paid, although their labours enters into the production costs of the fund which creates all values whatsoever – namely the production costs of labour capacity“.(23)

Nevertheless, the question of teachers should be discussed in the more general frame of mental labour. Teachers are an example of a social group which are called intellectuals. Intellectuals, not as poet or writer, but people that can do mental labour as opposed to manual work. This group consists of a large number of educated people, whose main profession involves mental activities. Like actors, writers, teachers, journalists, lawyers, professors, engineers, office clerks, etc., they do not have a certain position in the system of social production. They are not defined through their peculiar relation to the means of production. They do not constitute an independent class with special aims and interests. They stand between the two major classes of society.

The activity of this group is determined by the interests of the class to which they give service. They get a social and political role, because they fulfill the certain need of the main classes. Various relations, that connects them to the existing society, and their mode of life, their non-proletarian world view, all of them connects these intellectuals to the bourgeoisie and most of them serve the bourgeoisie. The Bourgeoisie tries to use them as a mean of dominating the wage-labour. Therefore, a large group of them provide services to organise capitalist exploitation and fulfill the ideological-political aims of the bourgeoisie. They tend politically to liberalism and reformism. Nevertheless, the hostility of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist order to some spheres of mental labour, or to some extent the consciousness, which they get through researching or having close contact with the working class. This leads a group of these intellectuals to support the working class and some groups even take a proletarian position. They defend the ideology, aims and interests of the working class. They change into a proletarian intellectual and take an active role in the struggle of the working class. The more the capitalist order becomes parasite and rotten, the more the contradictions of this order become sharper and its unhuman face become more clear. Hence, the stronger this tendency of the intellectuals towards proletariat becomes.

There is no more space in this article to discuss this topic in more details. We will just clarify, that the main part of the labour force in the sector of service consist of those, who cannot be classed – by any means – as workers. It is nonsense to say that everyone, that gets a wage and salary, on which they can maintain their life, is a worker.

At the same time the study of technological changes and its consequences for the working class and the sector of industry, agriculture and services has shown that through all of these scientific-technological changes and the changes that have taken place in the composition and structure of the working class, the capitalist order with its basic relation, which is the relation between labour and capital, consists of two main classes.

This part of Marx´s theories, like the whole of his theory still maintains its credibility. In fact, as it was said in the beginning, what the Iranian “innovators” “socialists” say on this matter is almost outdated. It was discussed many years ago by the European social-democrats. They have also borrowed these theories from the old utopian socialists or from the “bourgeoisie vulgar economists”. Footprints of these theories can even be followed at the time of Marx. A part of Marx´s critique of vulgar economists is due to the fact that they also tried to present all of the people, who are somehow in receipt of capital, as workers. Marx, in explanation of these theories wrote:

“As the dominion of capital extended, and in fact those spheres of production not directly related to the production of material wealth become also more and more dependent on it – especially when the positive sciences (natural sciences) were subordinated to it as serving material production – the sycophantic underlings of political economy felt it their duty to glorify and justify every sphere of activity by demonstrating that it was „linked“ with the production of material wealth, that it was a means towards it; and they honoured every one by making him a „productive labour“.(24)

Look how similar the claim of those who say that everyone that receives a wage and revenue is a worker is with the theories of the vulgar economists of the 19th century. But it is clear, that such ideas are the logical result of the way of thinking of a group of Iranian so-called “socialists”, whose socialism can be realized without the dictatorship of the proletariat and, it has no contradiction to private property and market. It is clear, that in this “socialism”, the non-proletarian strata can also be presented as proletariat and undertake the mission of establishing socialism. These theories are, in fact, nothing more than an attempt to propagate instability among workers, to alterate the independency of the working class, to deny the class and historical role and mission of the proletariat and to deny the class struggle of the proletariat. These ideas are nothing than a retrogression tendency in our movement. A tendency, which wants to return to old utopian socialism.

———————————————————-

1. V.I.Lenin . “A great beginning” . Collected works in 3 volumes . volume 3 – p.172
2. Marx – Engels. The Communist Manifesto
3. Karl Marx – Fredrick Engels . Collected works volume 28 – (Marx:1857-1861) – p. 231-232
4. Karl Marx . Theories of Surplus-Value volume 1
5. Karl Marx – Fredrick Engels . Collected works volume 28 – (Marx:1857-1861) – p. 396
6. Karl Marx – Fredrick Engels . Collected works volume 31 – (Marx:1861-1863) – p. 16-17
7. Karl Marx . Theories of Surplus-Value volume 1 – p. 409-410
8. Karl Marx – Fredrick Engels . Collected works volume 33 – (Marx:1861-1863) – p. 354
9. Karl Marx . Theoris of Surplus-value volume 1 – p. 411-412
10. Karl Marx . Capital volume 3 – p. 383-384
11. Karl Marx . Theories of Surplus-Value volume 1 – p. 412
12. Karl Marx . Capital volume 3 – p. 282
13. Karl Marx . Capital volume 3 – persian version.
14. Karl Marx . Capital volume 3 – p. 292-293-294
15. Karl Marx . Capital volume 3 – p. 300-301
16. Labour Force statistics – OECD-1992
17. Karl Marx – Fredrick Engels . Collected works volume 31 – (Marx:1861-1863) – p. 127
18. Karl Marx . Theories of Surplus-Value volume 1
19. Karl Marx – Fredrick Engels . Collected works volume 30 – (Marx:1861-1863) – p. 302-303
20. Karl Marx – Fredrick Engels . Collected works volume 32 – (Marx:1861-1863) – p. 198
21. Karl Marx . Theories of Surplus-Value volume 1
22. Karl Marx – Fredrick Engels . Collected works volume 31 – (Marx:1861-1863) – p. 22-23
23. Karl Marx – Fredrick Engels . Collected works volume 31 – (Marx:1861-1863) – p. 31