Skip to main content

Unorganized Labor Sector: Relevance of Critical theory

In the introduction of Gateway edition of Das Kapital, Levistsky wrote “The workers themselves,…stand no longer helplessly facing the all-powerful capitalist. They established union of their own, just as Marx said they would, but these unions are powerful enough to impose the workers’ demand on the “capitalists” without having to resort to violent revolution” (p. xvii).

In some sense, the statement appears naïve to me. Let me share an official statistics, which states that in 2007 there were 393 million (93% of total employment) workers in unorganized sector in India [National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO)]. That means these unorganized workers were not officially registered, they did not have any Insurance (health, disability) coverage, provident fund facility and they were not members of registered or recognized trade-unions. Therefore they are still helpless, and they are NOT ‘powerful enough to impose the workers’ demand on the “capitalists”.’

In unorganized sector the workers remain oppressed in many ways. Most of the industrial security acts, labor laws and leave rules (not even maternity leave rule) are not applicable for the workers of the unorganized labors. As their job is highly unsecured, they have to work more than eight hour. Oftentimes, they also have to work in inhuman work/ site conditions without any extra wage. Moreover, a recent official data shows that in India essential food prices rose 17.9 percent in the 12 months. But their wage remains more or less same as compared to last year. Therefore, to earn extra money women and children of a family also have to work.

With the help of Marx’s analysis in Das Kapital, we can discuss the causes of the above mentioned scenario. He discussed several methods adopted by the capitalist to maximize the profit. He showed that, when a laborer work more than eight hours, he may (or may not) get any extra payment for that work, but it essentially lowers the production cost (thereby increases profit) because the owner don’t have to pay the variable cost (and not the constant cost; e.g.-capital on machinery, building etc.). Moreover, as Marx wrote, the unorganized workers never get any part /advantage of the surplus-value. Accumulated surplus-vales, increased automation and price hike of essential commodity is making the life of unorganized workers miserable. Also, as they keep working throughout the day, they hardly get any opportunity to enhance/ diversify their knowledge and skills; that limits their opportunity of getting other/ better jobs for themselves. Here, let me mention a statement of Marx, “The…bourgeois which praises division of labor in the workshop, lifelong annexation of the laborer to a partial operation, and his complete subjection to capital, as being an organization of labor that increases productiveness- that same bourgeois mind denounces with equal vigor every conscious attempt to socially control and regulate the process of production as an inroad upon such sacred things as the rights of property, freedom, and unrestricted play for the bent of individual capitalist” (p.187).

Lenin showed that, ‘capitalism constantly diminishes the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture’, and this statement is particularly important for Indian scenario as in 2007 there were 237 million agricultural works in the country (NSSO, 2007). Govt. of India is proposing a social security bill that may ensure facilities like: (a) life and disability cover; (b) health benefits; (c) old age protection, among other benefits for unorganized workers. Theoretically and ideally this is a good initiative form the Indian Government. But at the same time appropriate collective initiatives takes by unorganized workers may also help them to improve/ change the situation.

‘Capitalism increases among the population the need for union, for association…’ (p. 49)- V.I.Lenin.
We recently have seen some initiatives, resistances, voices and actions of unorganised workers (especially agricultural labourers) against dominant structure and capitalist forces in Nandigram, Singur and some other parts of India.

Comments

Phoenix said…
Nice thoughts Uttaran. Your bringing up the perspective of unorganized sector is important and this routinely gets hidden in regular discussions what we call the "dominant discursive spaces".

Reading it brought another thought into mind which me and my wife have experienced in the past 3 years (very novel for me). Working in US (she as a postdoc and I as a grad labourer)has been a great experience in many ways. One relevant here is that I have learnt what is it to feel powerless? To always be under a threat and not be covered by any humanitarian laws. So helplessness is also induced by these "ambiguous spaces" in which we voluntarily participate.
So, what I am trying to articulate here is do we really understand the "helplessness" of the "border people", of the mestiza, of indentured worker, the trafficked woman, the displaced farmer , the laid off worker, the scores of laborers who every morning congregate in the worker's "haat" - a human market. Further, I am yet to reach a sufficient level of engagement with this Marxist literature which might increase my understanding from its present level...something is missing here.

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &

Activism, Communication and Social Change

Now days I am trying to engage myself with various issues related to indigenous communities. As a part of academia it is a constant quest for all of us, how can we engage ourselves to make the world a better place to live. All the reading of this week addressed the aspects of reflexivity and engagement; and, one of them is an article by Zoller (2005) that discussed many aspects of activism, communication and social change. Though in his article he focused mainly on the health and related issues; I think we can use this framework (along with other frameworks like CCA) in other broad contexts, such as the context of indigenous lives, indigenous knowledge, science, technology, art, craft, and other infrastructural issues. Zoller (2005) perceived activism as a means for social change by challenging existing power relation. He mentioned different approaches of participation and emphasized on the aspects of community group mobilization for collective actions. In this context he discussed var