By FERNANDO NOGUEIRA DA COSTA*
Class identity and class consciousness manifest differently in more diverse and fragmented workplaces
Socialism, as theorized by Karl Marx, should be understood as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. Socialism would be achieved through the development of productive forces to the point at which material scarcity was overcome and, simultaneously, inequality was eliminated. The quantity of achievements would alter the quality of society.
Society would have the capacity to produce enough goods to meet the basic needs of all its members. Abundance would reign!
With the overcoming of scarcity, work would no longer be alienating, as workers would no longer be subject to capitalist exploitation. Instead, work would be a creative and self-fulfilling activity.
The abolition of private ownership of the means of production would lead to the redistribution of resources, eliminating economic inequality. Collective ownership would ensure the benefits of production are shared equally.
Socialism would eliminate social classes, promoting equality in terms of opportunities and results. Not only would economic equality be achieved, but also equality in terms of access to education, health and other essential services.
In the original Marxist vision, overcoming scarcity and eliminating inequality would be interdependent. This is because scarcity creates conditions for competition and inequality, while inequality maintains scarcity by restricting equitable access to resources and opportunities.
Socialism was seen as a transitional phase where society would still work to overcome scarcity and eliminate inequality. This phase would require centralized economic planning and the dictatorship of the proletariat to reorganize the economy and society.
In practice, socialist regimes in the 20th century faced difficulties in overcoming both scarcity (poverty) and inequality. Centrally planned economies have failed to achieve the efficiency necessary to eliminate scarcity, while the creation of a new bureaucratic elite has perpetuated forms of inequality.
China adapted its socialist practices by incorporating elements of a market economy, seeking to overcome scarcity through economic growth and innovation. In return, this reintroduced social inequality.
In Marxist theory, socialism is a progressive systemic evolution seeking to overcome scarcity and eliminate inequality. These two conditions are interconnected.
The ideology of socialism aims to create a society where resources will be abundantly available and equitably distributed, paving the way for communism, where the state and social classes will disappear completely. The practical realization of this ideal, however, was anachronistic as it was attempted in countries with low development in the capitalist mode of production, depending on the historical and contextual circumstances of each one.
To aggravate the anachronism given the current reality, with the replacement robotization of worker labor and the automation of the production process, doesn't the revolutionary subject capable of leading society towards socialism disappear?
This question about the role of the worker as a revolutionary agent in the context of robotization and automation of production is interesting and complex.
In fact, with the advancement of robotization and automation, many tasks previously performed by human workers are being replaced by machines and artificial intelligence. This has significant impacts on the structure of employment, especially in manufacturing and production sectors.
The traditional industrial worker base has historically played a central role in union movements and labor struggles. Now, it is shrinking in size and influence, due to automation. Trade unionism is in decline.
While some jobs are being replaced, new opportunities are emerging in sectors related to technology, programming, machine maintenance, etc. Will these new workers develop class consciousness and shared interests?
Will skilled workers in emerging sectors such as information technology and digital services organize and mobilize around specific labor issues such as wages, working conditions and job security? Or will everyone simply change jobs if they are dissatisfied?
In other cases, such as “urbanization”, the fragmentation of the labor market and the proliferation of precarious and temporary jobs can make it difficult to organize and mobilize workers around common interests.
The notion of “worker” is changing, to “microentrepreneurs” and/or “pejotizados”, because new types of occupations emerge. Class identity and class consciousness manifest differently in more diverse and fragmented workplaces.
Automation and robotization are transforming production relations, creating contradictions and antagonisms between capital and work, such as overexploitation in long working hours in home office. However, the emergence of a revolutionary working class depends on the ability of workers to organize and mobilize around common interests.
The socialist revolution would not be based exclusively on the industrial working class, as Marx predicted. New social subjects and forms of struggle have emerged, including knowledge workers, environmental activists, marginalized communities and other identity groups.
Therefore, robotization and automation are changing the landscape of work and challenging traditional conceptions about the working class and its ability to drive social transformation. While some aspects of the revolutionary subject may be changing, the struggle for social justice, equality and emancipation continues, and new forms of organization and mobilization emerge in response to the opportunities presented by technological and economic change.
Individuals with human capital, such as highly qualified professionals, technology specialists, consultants, among others, demonstrate an ambiguous relationship with working class consciousness and entrepreneurship. Many overvalue their skills and specialized knowledge, and their professional identity is more linked to their expertise rather than their position as part of the traditional working class.
Professionals with high human capital feel, culturally and socially, distant from workers in less qualified jobs. This makes it difficult to identify with a common class consciousness.
Some of these professionals engage in knowledge entrepreneurship, starting their own companies based on their specialized skills. They then identify more as entrepreneurs rather than salaried workers.
Professionals with significant human capital value the independence and autonomy gained from creating their own companies. It leads them to identify more with the figure of the entrepreneur among the working class.
Class identity is just one part of an individual's identity, influenced by other aspects such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. The intersectionality of these identities influences how individuals see and identify themselves.
Class consciousness is not static because it is shaped by personal, social and political experiences. Working-class consciousness depends on a variety of factors, including their experiences in the workplace, their political beliefs and their understanding of power relations in society. They can recognize their position within class and power relations – and get involved in labor struggles and social movements in search of justice and equality.
*Fernando Nogueira da Costa He is a full professor at the Institute of Economics at Unicamp. Author, among other books, of Brazil of banks (EDUSP). [https://amzn.to/3r9xVNh]
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
