The term proletariat assumed a new meaning in Engels’ document on communism. The miserable working conditions which inspired him to write, …“But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians…”; those miserable working conditions have deteriorated even more. As per the definitions advanced, a classic proletariat would be someone who lives only by his/her salary and “whose life and death, therefore, depend on the alternation of times of good and bad business; in a word, on the fluctuations of competition” (Engels, 1847). So, one could say, in today’s world, a factory worker, a bus driver, a pizza-delivery man, a professor , a multinational executive all could qualify to the sobriquet as long as they do not invest and live on its profit. No…the meanings have become more complex. Engel’s conceptualization was in a certain frame of reference and as situations change, so the interpretation. The writings are a political argument seeking to formulate certain principles which add up to an ideology under which people can mobilize against oppression, suffering and improving human conditions. And whether the writings have currency today, well yes, the conditions are more oppressive now and people need to mobilize (as they continue to do in many parts of world) for better living conditions.
Interestingly, these writings originated in the same imperialist spaces which were carrying out colonial conquests in other parts of the world since longand who with their oppression, abuses and selfish conquests had destroyed the development/ progress in their colonies reducing them to feeders for their own growth. Engels, one presumes would have little knowledge about the life of an Indian worker in the Opium factory being run in Bihar by the East India Company or in the indigo plantations. “Communism” is a product of the same imperialist, dominant knowledge creators system but has more appeal as its talk of classless society, addressing inequities and social change is far more direct and romantic in many ways.
Some of us in this blog have said to the effect that the talk of a classless society, a society “where an abundance of goods will be able to satisfy the needs of all its members”, a society with no private property is decidedly utopian and does raise many uncomfortable questions. But it certainly is an ideology to work towards as only by addressing injustices, exploitation, discrimination based on wealth creation, can we address the issues of social justice. This is where I see the intersections between Marx and Engels, the doctrine of Marxism and the political movement called communism. Marxist economic theory essentially says that the unpaid wage/ labor are the surplus-value or profit and that is what supports capitalists: “the source of wealth of the capitalist class”. This is a very elegant explanation of profits but what is essential here is to debate is whether this “materialism” would not be evident in a system where there is no private property.
A society might not advance in the areas of social justice by adopting either a capitalist ideology or a communist or a socialist ideology. History has repeatedly shown that demise of one form of feudal society leads to another form though the new order is more sophisticated in its oppression and exploitation. The quest for human dignity and social justice is endless.
A word about land ownership and common property. In Koraput where I am doing research with the indigenous populations, previously land was owned collectively by the village elders. During those times they did not have these concepts like land deeds, settlement, land parcels, government land etc.., it was an understanding that these are village lands and we are the village. Now when the government wanted to institute land reforms, the original village with its 5-6 elders and 10 families had grown to a 250 – 300 strong population with different claims to ownership developed across the years; so how does the government distribute the land parcels? Further, as the government found minerals under the “lands”, the value of the common land changed and so the claims. This created and is creating injustices and exploitative circumstances which are leading to internecine conflicts and resistance. To what end?
Comments