formal and real subordination and the contemporary proletariat

Formal and real subordination and the contemporary proletariat 89

Formal and real subordination andthe contemporary proletariat:Re-coupling Marxist class theoryand labour-process analysisDavid Neilson

Having seemed to offer so much in the 1970s, neo-Marxist class theory went into significant decline inthe decades that followed. This paper begins with acritique of E. O.Wright's 1980s detour via a reworkingof central aspects of Marx's class theory. Specifically,Marx's concepts of formal and real subordinationprovide the basis for a re-coupling of labour-processthemes with a class analysis of contemporarycapitalism.

Introduction

Traditionally, Marxist class theory defines theproletariat as 'the class of modern wage labourers,[who] having no means of production of their own,

are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live'(Marx & Engels, 1952:40).This definition focusing on 'formalsubordination', appended by Engels in a footnote to the 1888English edition of the Communist Manifesto, became theorthodox view, and is reinforced to the present day by thecontinuing spread of waged work. However, in the CommunistManifesto prognosis, and as developed further in CapitalVolume I, the formal proletariat of wage-dependent workersbecomes a circumstantially homogeneous or well-formed'class-in-itself' encompassing the 'immense majority' only asa result of 'real subordination' driven by industrialisation.

The persistence of work and life experiences among the'proletariat' that diverge significantly from those of reallysubordinated industrial factory workers raises problems bothwith the 1888 definition and the Communist Manifesto

90 Capital & Class #91

prognosis. In the 1970s, neo-Marxist scholars becameparticularly concerned with the increase in 'middle class'wage-earner positions that were ambiguously located betweenlabour and capital (Poulantzas, 1975; Carchedi, 1975;Wright,1976). On the one hand, these were waged positions andtherefore proletarian; but on the other hand, such 'workers'performed capitalist functions. Erik Olin Wright's conceptof'contradictory class locations' became the mainstream neo-Marxist solution.

While the original formulation drew explicitly on labour-process theory, Wright's (1985, 1986, 1989) second-generation analysis conflates the class concept with a narrowdistributional reading of exploitation that marginalises thethemes of work and subordination. Bob Carter (1995: 35)succinctly identifies a corresponding and 'growing divide'between labour-process analysis and class theory:

It is the contention here that the emergence of a revitalizedclass analysis during the 1970s represented a crucialdevelopment in social theory. The central innovation wasthe perception of the integral relationship of changes inthe labour process to changes in class structure.Subsequently, the increasing separation of theseperspectives has left Marxist class theory abstract andformal, a spectator rather than a crucial interpreter of theincreasingly rapid changes to work processes. Labourprocess analysis, on the other hand, has become(over) sensitive to the myriad changes but unable to relatethem to wider class theory.

This paper contends that, inconsistent with Marx's own work,Wright's second-generation analysis has fueled this divideby constructing the field of class theory in ways thatsystematically remove labour-process themes. Wright'sapproach is challenged here through a re-examination ofMarx's class concept and his thesis of proletarianisation,bringing labour-process themes back into the foreground ofan empirically adequate Marxian class theory. Wright'sapproach is examined first, and provides a critical point ofdeparture for identifying a Marxian class concept andanalytical method that can be applied to test Marx'sproletarianisation thesis. Next, Marx's lifetime publishedwritings that support the dominant proletarianisation thesis—particularly the Communist Manifesto and Capital, Volume


I—are briefly summarised. The thesis is that the spread offormal and real subordination will generate a well-formedproletariat that encompasses the immense majority.

From this basis, a more critical inquiry into theproletarianisation thesis can be undertaken, and this task isbegun in the third section of the paper in an examination ofthe tension within Marx's work itself. Consideration ofMarx's overarching intellectual project, and of specificarguments that he touches on, especially in the Grundrisse,significantly qualify the proletarianisation thesis by indicatingstages beyond real subordination that imply proletariandiversity and division. Finally, the tools of class analysisdeveloped in the earlier sections, combined with a revisedMarxian proletarianisation prognosis, are deployed in orderto test Marx's thesis in relation to contemporary forms ofproletarian subordination and class division. The distinctionbetween a formal proletariat and a well-formed proletariatis strikingly raised in the contemporary world by thecontinuing '"embarrassment" of the middle class' (Wright,1986: 114). However, the investigation of this distinctionwithin the context of neoliberal globalisation and the spreadof waged work into the service sector also revealsfragmentation amongst non-middle-class sections of thecontemporary proletariat.

Defining class contra Wright

According to Wright, the concept of exploitationdistinguishes Marxist class theory from other class analyses,while oppression diverts class analysis towards non-MarxistWeberian approaches (see Wright, 1986: 116-17; 1989: 4-6,41, 313). Such a rigid assignment of concepts, reflectingWright's ideological struggle to validate a Marxist approachagainst attacks from Weberian class analysts, actually leadshim away from Marx's class theory towards an abandonmentof power and the conflation of class with exploitation.

Wright (1989: 58) adapts Bhaskar's famous realistdistinction (1978) between generative mechanisms and eventsto the relation between class structure and class formation,but fails to apply the distinction to the relation betweenexploitation and class structure. Rather than viewing classstructures as events generated by mechanisms such asexploitation, Wright argues that class is exploitation. As Wrightneatly states, class is 'defined in terms of ... exploitation'


(Wright, 1989: 42); and later, 'class structure imparts theessential content of the adjective "class"' (1997:3). For Wright,exploitation is equated with class structure, which, in turn, isequated with class. By conflating class, structure andexploitation, Wright's class theory becomes circular and self-validating, because no concept of class itself can be appliedto test the class effects of the exploitation mechanism.

Wright's conversion to analytical Marxist economist JohnRoemer's (1982) narrow reading of exploitation reduces hisclass concept still further. Exploitation is defined purely interms of 'inequalities in the distribution of productive assets,or what is usually referred to as property relations' (Wright,1986:118). Further,Wright accepts Roemer's incredible claimthat 'domination within production ... is not a central part ofdefining class relations ... it is not the actual criterion forclass relations' (1986: 119). On this reading, class is reducedto a single distributive criterion derived from a definition ofexploitation that is unrelated to power and production.

Although the exploitation mechanism is fundamental inMarx's class theory, it is distinguishable from class effects.Following Marx's realist theory, class analysis needs todistinguish between the mechanisms that are purported togenerate classes, and classes themselves. The field of classtheory is defined here as the identification and explanationof patterns of social unity and difference. A class refers to acollection of people who have unity in their life situation.More fully, a single social class, in an ideal or fully formedsense, refers to a collection of people that has homogeneityof economic circumstance (class-in-itself); shared andcommunal life experience and identity; a common discourseor 'habitus' (Bourdieu, 1984); and a united politicalconsciousness and propensity to organise and act (class-for-itself). Marx's concept of class, even if not explicitly stated,is consistent with this definition. For Marx, classes are definedaccording to a commonality of life situation and, at a fullyformed stage, involve class refiexivity expressed as a societalproject (class consciousness, class-for-itself). Any social classis more or less well formed according to such benchmarkcriteria. The pattern of classes refers to a societal patterncomprising distinctions and boundaries between and withinmore or less well formed classes.

In order to empirically test a theory of class, such classeffects must be separated out from their generativemechanisms, and their relationship explored experimentally


using provisional models. A comprehensive investigationwould experiment with a range of mechanisms, includingpolitical struggles (Przeworski, 1985), which may allcontribute to an explanation of classes and class patterns.An initial task would be to derive a hierarchy of criteriafrom a full investigation of the class-effect-generatingmechanisms proposed by the theory. In this process, stagesin the historical unfolding and development of the proposedmechanisms can be differentiated. This method provides thebasis from which class maps can be constructed.

Marx's theory proposes that of all the mechanisms,exploitative relations of production are the primarygenerators of class effects. Marx's position is not a conflationof class with exploitation relations, but a claim about theirprimacy in generating societal class patterns. He argues that,in the capitalist context, the wage-based exploitation relationwill spread to more and more social activities, deepen as aresult of subsequent real subordination, and ultimately leadto the obliteration of differences in skill, income and lifestylefor the immense majority. The task of empirically exploringthis prognosis requires an investigation into whether thehistorical development of the capitalist forms of primarymechanisms do or do not generate the predicted class effectof the circumstantial homogeneity of the immense majority.

Themes of circumstantial homogeneity and classboundaries become problematic during the construction ofclass maps. At any given historical conjuncture, class mapsmay comprise less-than-well-formed groups, blurred andoverlapping boundaries, and 'classes' within classes. Whenis a less-than-well-formed grouping that has unclearboundaries (not) a class? And when are boundaries anddifferences between classes; and when are they within classes?Such matters can be pursued only in a provisional way withinthe context of a particular theory acting as a research agendathat can be tested in practice. While the adoption and spreadof the wage relation provides positive evidence of Marx'sargument, it does not of itself imply a well-formedproletariat. Nonetheless, the wage-dependence criterionprovisionally identifies the proletariat in its first stage. Othercriteria need to be applied in order to test for the existenceof proletarian homogeneity. The thesis of this paper is thatvariations in the forms of the basic mechanisms are likely tohave significant class effects among the provisional class ofwage-dependent proletarians.


Marx's theory of proletarianisation

Marx's theory of class development during the capitalistepoch centres on the capitalist class project ofproletarianisation, defined as the two-stage subordinationof labour to capital (Marx, 1976: 1019-38). 'Formalsubordination' refers to the process by which people losetheir independent means of subsistence, and becomecompelled as a matter of survival to enter into exploitativewage-labour relations with capital. The concept of formalsubordination foregrounds the power dimension of the wagerelation as wage dependence, rather than focusing on it asthe social mechanism of surplus appropriation undercapitalism. Although operating outside of, and in a senseprior to production, formal subordination also entails acoercive workplace discipline, although not one that fullyovercomes labour's power, autonomy and resistance withinthe labour process. The 'real subordination' of labour isachieved only by the machine system that replaces the skill,autonomy and individuality of the worker. The form andintensity of work is driven by the machine system itself, andworkers are harnessed to the machine's 'unvarying regularity'(Ure, cited by Marx, 1976: 549), and incorporated 'as itsliving appendages' (Marx, 1976: 548).Thus, labour's energybecomes completely subsumed by the requirements ofcapital. Every physical movement, and every moment withinthe working day, becomes driven by the capitalist machinesystem. Real subordination identifies a technical productionrelation that provides the means of capital accumulation;but it is also the means by which labour comes fully underthe power of capital.

The transfer of power and control to capital renderslabour, first through formal subordination, as dependent andexploitable; and second, through real subordination, asdehumanised, deskilled and continuous. While 'exploitation'denotes the process of the appropriation of surplus value asan economic process based in a social structure of privateownership and wage labour, 'subordination' denotes thepolitical technologies that drive this appropriation. Marx'smodel of subordination is based on a coercive concept ofpower, in which labour is compelled to sell its labour poweras a matter of physical survival, and in which workers' bodiesare physically and outwardly controlled in their every detailedmovement.


Marx's prognosis of the class outcome of this project as asocietal pattern is based on the identification of economicprocesses that will lead the immense majority of thepopulation to become subject to the subordination process.Marx identifies a number of mechanisms and stages thatdraw a range of non-proletarian classes and strata into theranks of the proletariat. The major impetus of this process isthe elimination of sources of subsistence other than wagedwork. Three historical stages to this process, correspondingwith the emergence and development of capitalism, can bederived from Marx's work. First, as increased agriculturalproductivity leads to a requirement for fewer peasants, theyare thrown off the land and thus lose their means ofsubsistence. Second, craft workers and small capitalists losetheir means of subsistence as they become marginalised bylarge-scale industrialisation. In this way, members of theseclasses are reduced to a situation in which they have nothingto sell but their labour power, and thus are coerced intoseeking waged work. As a result of this two-step process offormal subordination, people become wage-dependentproletarians. Third, Marx argues that the increasedproductivity of labour in any given sector of waged work,driven by the constant revolutionising of the capitalist labourprocess, throws workers onto the streets while leading tothe absolute extension of the wage relation into previouslyuncommodified social activities. He thus identifies a furtherstage in the process of formal subordination, which bothextends waged work and increases wage dependence byundermining people's will and capacity to independently anddirectly meet their needs through their own unwaged activity.

The extension of formal subordination to the immensemajority is driven largely by the competition-drivendevelopment and refinement of large-scale capitalistproduction, such that it embeds its supremacy, eliminatesother forms of the labour process, and spreads waged workinto more and more activities. The proletariat's antagonisticrelation to the alien power of capital is embedded as adeepening process. Furthermore, real subordination leadstowards, firstly, 'a tendency to equalize and reduce to anidentical level every kind of work that has to be done by theminders of machines'(i976: 545), i.e. 'abstract labour power';and secondly, to the obliteration of work, skill and lifestyledifferences: 'With the development of industry ... [t]he variousinterests and conditions of life within the ranks of the


proletariat become equalised, as machinery obliterates alldistinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wagesto the same low level' (Marx, 1952: 54).

Thus Marx outlines a dynamic and mutually reinforcingrelationship between formal and real subordination in theongoing construction and extension of the proletariat. Themovement, for an increasing proportion of the population,from formal subordination towards their real subordination,and their resulting circumstantial homogeneity, will occurbecause of the continuing superiority and viability of large-scale industrialised production systems, and their applicationto an ever-increasing range of formally proletarianisedactivities.

In most Marxist class analysis to the present, includingin Wright's analysis, the wage relation corresponds to theonly two genuine social classes of capitalism: the proletariatand the bourgeoisie. However, Marx's account of theproletarianisation process writes out other classes and classfractions only in its analysis of the logic of capital, which,over an extended historical period, proletarianises theimmense majority. The pure, two-class society thatcorresponds with the abstract conflation of classes to essentialcapitalist social relations of production becomes concretepractice only when the project of proletarianisation has beensuccessfully completed. Class groupings corresponding tothe stages of historical development before and during thecapitalist era resist the project of proletarianisation. Marxargues that 'the lower middle class, the small manufacturer,the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie,to save from extinction their existence as fractions of themiddle class' (1952: 57).

The proletariat itself is not bom fiilly formed in terms ofthe homogeneity of its life situation. The formal proletariatis drawn firom different class origins over an extended periodof time, while the project of real subordination follows thisuneven pattern while also meeting ongoing resistance. Priorto a theoretical point of maturity, as Marx's own historicalcommentaries also confirm, class patterns will be morecomplex, classes will be internally divided, and there willbe vestiges of non-capitalist social forms.

The view that identifies only two pre-given, well-formedclasses under capitalism conflates exploitation with class,the abstract with the concrete, and the provisional with the'real' (cf. Bourdieu, 1987). For Marx, while the abstract


foundation is posited as the ultimate historical end point ofcapitalist development, it does not equate to capitalist societyat any preceding historical conjuncture. In Marx's discourse,the practical conflation of the abstract and the concrete ispredicted only as the eventual outcome of the logic of capital,which generates increasingly extensive and intensiveproletarianisation.

Marx beyond real subordination

Within Marx's work, there are indications of complexcounter-tendencies to the prognosis that the logic of capitalwill uniformly proletarianise the class-in-itself conditionsof the immense majority. First, work practices undercapitalism develop unevenly, and do not all tend uniformlyto the same real-subordination end point. Complex anduneven class effects are implied when some areas of work donot reach this stage while other areas go beyond it. Inparticular, Marx's analysis in the Grundrisse indicates othertendencies beyond uniform real subordination of theimmense majority. Second, a class-struggle perspective thatincludes labour and capital as active makers of historysuggests an uneven process of development involving labour'sresistance and capital's counter-movement, which, in turn,implies both a more open-ended capitalist dynamic andfurther diversification of the circumstances of the wage-earning proletariat.

In Capital, Volume I, the continuing simplification andsubordination of labour to the rhythms of a developingmachine system in search of increasing labour productivityimplies formal and real subordination for the immensemajority. However, this dynamic leads to subsequentdevelopments that complicate this tendency. On the one hand,in the Grundrisse (1973: 704-709) Marx indicates theincreasing significance of mental labour in two senses. First,manual tasks become automated and production workbecomes devolved to a smaller and smaller set of workers,who become the 'watchmen' and 'regulators' of increasinglyautomated production systems. Second, raising productivityincreasingly depends on 'the state of knowledge', and thusimplicitly requires intellectual labour in the form of thegeneration and technological deployment of knowledge. Onthe other hand, the long-term effect of increasing productivity


in any sector of work is a contracting labour force, not onlyas a result of the constancy and intensity of labour'ssubordination to the rhythms of the machine system, butalso as a result of the replacement of manual labour withmachines. While real subordination partially suppresses the'fallible element' of the production process, capital canachieve this goal fully only through eliminating living labour.However, the redundancy of labour is countered by capital'ssearch for new sources of surplus value and labour's searchfor waged employment, which entails the spread of labourinto previously uncommodified areas of social activity. 'Onetendency throws workers on to the streets and makes a partof the population redundant, the other absorbs them againand extends wage labour absolutely' (Marx, 1969: 573).

Labour's resistance to real subordination leads capital todeploy counter-strategies that further encourage a diversityof work and employment experience. In Capital, Marxbriefly considers the theme of capital's counter-movementto labour's resistance. For example, 'As the number of co-operating labourers increases, so too does their resistanceto the domination of capital, and with it the necessity forcapital to overcome this resistance by counter-pressure'(Marx, Capua/, Volume I: 313, cited in Friedman, 1977: 47).

In general, class development in Capital, Volume I isexamined only from the vantage point of the economic logicof capital. This focus can be enriched by introducing thepolitical concept of capital's 'project',* and by examining thetwo-sided, class-struggle nature of that project from theperspective of labour, as well as of that of capital.

First, Marx defines the capitalist epoch around a socialproject to construct a world that reflects the dominant classinterests and ethos. Capital is above all a social relation,and its project of accumulation is based on the establishmentof specifically capitalist sets of economic rules, social normsand power relations. While the 'logic of capital' is a conceptthat suggests objective laws of economic motion, whichrelegate capitalists to being simply bearers of structuralimperatives, the concept of the 'project of capital', introducedhere, accords capital conscious will and political agency. Asbearers, capitalists experience the logic of capital as acoercive mechanism that shouts 'Compete! Accumulate!' Asbearers with political agency, capitalists consciously exploreways in which they can bend a resistant workforce to theseimperatives through a range of subordination technologies.


Both logic and project are determinants of the forms anddivisions of the wage relation and the labour process thatimpact on the forms of class structure and class struggle.

Second, capital is not the only vantage point from whichto understand the proletariat. As Lebowitz argues, 'anadequate understanding of capitalism as a whole requires usto recognize explicitly that the capital/wage labour relationis two-sided and that Capital is one-sided insofar as it merelyexplores the relation from the perspective of capital' (1992:105). A one-sided focus on the dominant project cannotaccount for the contours, rhythms and outcomes of thedialectic of class struggle. A two-sided approach to classstruggle, on the other hand, would include an account of theimpact of the capitalist project on those subject to it, seenfrom their perspective. In short, Marx's famous claim that'history ... is the history of class struggle' (1952: 40) needsto be applied in order to find the Marx beyond Capital,Volume I.

A two-sided, politicised approach requires an examinationof not only capital's project to bend labour to its will, butalso of how labour resists and adapts to the project of capital,and the way labour constructs itself according to its differinginterests and goals. Only when this second 'side' of thetheoretical project is developed can the project of capital bemore clearly understood in terms of the dialectical interactionbetween capital and labour (see Negri, 1989; Witherford,1994). A two-sided, class-struggle approach recognises thatthe project of capital to harness the power of labour is metby labour's resistance and movement; and, in turn, by capital'scounter-movement.

The project of proletarianisation is refashioned andreiterated as a part of the dialectic of contending politicaland social forces. Class patterns are not simply the productof the dominant economic logic, but are constantly being(re)shaped and (re)defined by political struggle. A historicalepoch refers only to the project of the dominant class, and isunlikely to fully characterise historical societies. Actualhistorical trajectories and outcomes are driven by this open-ended dialectic of class struggle. Therefore, the class structureof capitalism at any particular historical point may involvean indefinite number of classes and class fractions, in complexpolitical struggle with capital and with each other.

Beyond the main thrust of Capital, Volume I, Marximplicitly and explicitly indicates a number of tendencies


that profoundly complicate the prognosis of a homogeneousproletariat and a polarised class dichotomy. The logic ofcapital beyond the experience of real subordination opensup distinctions between knowledge workers, productionworkers and the unemployed. Furthermore, the spread ofwaged labour suggests horizontal diversity between sectorsof work at different stages of organisational and technologicaldevelopment, while also raising the open question as towhether all sectors of work can be fully industrialised. Inaddition, the political nature of the project of labour'ssubordination to the will of capital not only implies thecontinuing existence of capitalist agents, but also impliesthe continuing search for new mechanisms for labour'sincorporation beyond real subordination. In short,incorporating a fuller perspective of Marx's project than thatcontained in Capital, Volume I serves to reveal a number ofrelevant points of departure for examining the forms ofstructure, subordination and struggle of the contemporaryproletariat.

Contemporary forms of the proletariat

The spread of the wage relation to the immense majority isa central precondition of Marx's prognosis of thesimplification and polarisation of class structure undercapitalism. The full realisation of the prognosis depends onthe uniform application of a standardised machine systemto all sectors of work. In historical practice, the projects ofsubordination have proceeded unevenly across time, space,sector and function.

In addition, an interconnected economic and politicaldynamic indicates limits to the spread of real subordination,as well as new iterations of capital's project that move itunevenly beyond real subordination. Coexisting forms oflabour's subordination, new and old, emerge from a complexdialectic between the changing project of capital, expressedin the shift to neoliberalism, and its deeper logic.The neoliberal project of capital

The breakdown of the Fordist accumulation regime, bothnationally and internationally, opened the space for capital'sneoliberal counter-revolution. From the Iate-i97os onwards,national neoliberal projects, combined with changes to the

Formal and real subordination and the contemporary proletariat

international regulatory framework, have facilitated capital'sinternational mobility, which has in turn transformedKeynesian welfare national states into competition states(Holloway, 1994; Jessop, 2003; Cerny, 2003). Countries, onceagain, must seek 'business confidence' (Kalecki, 1943;Gamble, 2001: 131) in order to attract and retain capitalistfirms in their respective territories. Capital, on the otherhand, internationally segments its operations in order to takeadvantage of national differentials including different labour-force characteristics, such as price, skills, compliance andflexibility. In contrast with the Fordist era, when capitalmobility and competition were constrained within relativelyautocentric national accumulation regimes, this frameworkof'neoliberal globalisation' (Ryner, 1997) undermines wageincreases in the regulation of national economies, intensifiescompetition and segmentation between and within nationallylocated workforces, and encourages the state's enlistment inthe subordination project. In short, competition has becomethe central regulatory mechanism for subordinating nationalstates and their workforces to the will of capital (Petit, 1999).

At the national level, neoliberalising competition stateshave pursued a range of strategies that have directly facilitatedthe renewal and deepening of labour's subordination tocapital's requirements (King & Wood, 1999). Anti-workerregulation, reduced worker rights, 'workfare' and 'labour-market flexibility' facilitate the construction of flexible,available, compliant, insecure and segmented nationalworkforces (Standing, 1997, 1999). The workfare projectrenews the work-ethic discourse, intensifies formalsubordination, and increases the reserve army of labour andlabour-market competition. The project of labour-marketflexibility subordinates industrial-relations regulation tomarket forces, and facilitates the flexibilisation of the wagerelation and a multiplicity of divide-and-segment strategieson the parts of capitalist firms (e.g. see Yates, 1998).Combined with the vertical disintegration of companyformation expressed as the networked contractualisation ofinter-firm and labour-market relations (Sabel, 1995; Dicken,1998; Castells, 1996: ch. 3), wage-relation flexibility haspromoted the growth of old and new class positions. Inparticular, neoliberalisation has directly facilitated a re-emergence of the petite bourgeoisie and the self-employed(Dale, 1986; Myles, 1994; Gubbay, 2000); the growth of anew middle-class grouping of flexible and contracted


professionals or 'proficians' (Standing, 1997); and theemergence of a 'neo-proletariat' (Gorz, 1982).

The specific class effects of the neoliberal project ofcapital, with brief comparative reference to the Fordist era,will be discussed next. Beyond Fordism, a morecomprehensive range of old and new subordinationtechnologies are revealed, which coexist uneasily within anintensely competitive global environment that has facilitatedthe radical reassertion of capital's power over labour.Changing class effects are discussed first with particularreference to the non-contradictory groupings of theproletariat, and second, with particular reference to themiddle class.

Old and new industrial proletariats

Friedman's (1977, 1997) argument that capital pursues'responsible autonomy' in order to counter resistance arisingfrom 'direct control' orTaylorism provides an important basereference point for examining changing forms of proletariansubordination. Responsible autonomy is examined morespecifically in this context as a project whose purpose is toaddress the ongoing tension between capital's realsubordination project to directly control and bend workers'every bodily movement, and capital's need within the moreuncertain contemporary 'regime of variety' (Coriat, 1997)to have responsible workers who are versatile, trusted, self-regulating watchmen and regulators of semi-automatic andhighly sophisticated production systems. More specifically,this tension is examined in relation to the partial and unevendisplacement of the us version of Fordist Taylorism by theJapanese-inspired neo-FordistTaylorist model of global leanproduction, pioneered by Toyota (Ohno, 1988).

Contradictory limits to the continuing success of thesubordination strategies of the Fordist era underpin the 1970scrisis of its labour process and accumulation regime (Lipietz,1988; Glyn, 1990a). The Fordist 'class compromise' (Boyer,1988) achieved worker consent to real subordination, i.e.US-style Taylorism, by easing formal subordination throughthe legitimation of union representation, secure employment,social protections and rising living standards (Standing,1997)- Collectively at least, and in line with the ideology ofscientific management, the class compromise gave workers.


in common with capitalists, an immediate material interestin productivity increases. This compromise underpinnedstable economic growth not only by ensuring labour's consentto real subordination, but also to the extent that it becameinstitutionalised as a stable macro-corporatist relationshipbetween productivity and wages.

But this hegemonic compromise strategy, which was central'to achieving and maintaining stable growth through the 1950sand 1960s, is also central to explaining Fordism's declineinto crisis in the 1970s. On the one hand, the power andsecurity conceded to the Fordist industrial working class—a macro version of the welfare-for-trust, responsible-autonomy strategies of large Japanese firms—partly explainsthe crisis of the Fordist labour process. In particular, fullemployment, institutionalised bargaining power andentrenched worker expectations were both underminingworkplace discipline and driving continuing nominal wageincreases, despite declines in the rate of productivity increase(Armstrong et al., 1984; Glyn, 1990b). Inconsistently, on theother hand, productivity decline was a consequence of therelative absence of responsible autonomy in the us model ofFordist Taylorism. Specifically, the transfer of workerknowledge to capital instigated by Taylor's method, appliedas a once-only process in the Fordist context, becameentrenched as a rigid division of power and function between'conception and execution' (Braverman, 1974). That is,managerial prerogative was combined with labour's collectivesubordination to a detailed, deskilled, mindless and rigidlyfragmented technical division of labour. This approachdiscouraged worker commitment to the firm, and ensuredthat management could not use workers flexibly or as asource of productivity gain. Developments in the capitalistlabour process and methods of worker incorporation sincethe 1970s, while addressing the contradictory limits of theFordist era, apply a more comprehensive set of contradictorysubordination technologies that intensify the long-termtendencies of the capitalist labour process towards labour'sdeepening subordination.

Under Fordism, work was deskilled and real subordin-ation intensified as jobs became 'rigorously determined bythe configuration of the machine system' (Aglietta, 1979:118). Semi-automatic, neo-Fordist production systems,typified by 'Toyotism' (Dohse et al., 1985; Wood, 1993),continue down this path by further suppressing complex tasks


so that operatives can now supervise a group of machines(Aglietta, 1979: 126). However, this technologicaldevelopment provides the base firom which a range of differenttasks and functions in the daily activities of each productionworker can be combined, including machine preparation,regulation and maintenance, as well as quality control and

• troubleshooting. This development is consistent with Marx'smodel of real subordination, in which work is reduced toabstract labour power. Under Toyotism, and in contrast withthe rigid differentiation of tasks under Fordism, workersbecome more substitutable and interchangeable (see Aglietta,1979: 129; Coriat, 1995: 139). However, more significantly,optimising economies of scope (and scale) in the pursuit ofvariety and innovation within an environment of complexintegrated technology implies greater uncertainty andunpredictability within the labour process, and requiresworkers to be more mentally involved, self-regulating andcommitted—i.e. responsibly autonomous. Trust is a keydisciplinary device in ensuring that workers channel theirmental energies and not just their bodily energies, as underFordist Taylorism, towards the productivity goals of the firm.To some extent, to invest in the autonomy of workers is initself to invite them to participate in a relationship of mutualtrust. Moreover, in the historical practice of large Japanesefirms, trust has been reinforced via various forms of security,welfare and motivational discourses offered up by thecompany (Dore, 1993).

The responsible-autonomy aspect of the lean-productionmodel is consistent with the logic of Taylorism, even thoughit represents a significant development beyond the rigidmodel of us-style Taylorism. Taylor's project was to take theknowledge in workers' heads and transform it into a detaileddivision of labour that directly subordinates and deskillsworkers. While this only happens once in the us model,thereafter providing the basis for the rigid conception/execution distinction, it happens repeatedly as an integralpart of workers' daily experience in the more innovativeJapanese interpretation of Taylorism (Moody: 88). Workerinput, both physical and mental, is harnessed to therefinement of a dynamically intensifying 'one best practice'based on the continuing application of 'time and motion'tools (Moody, 1997: 88;Tomaney, 1994: 170). Furthermore,while company welfare schemes were used to shore up workertrust in the company, such a strategy is undermined by the


global intensification of inter-firm competition that pushescompanies to pay closer attention to the multiple dimensionsof competitiveness, including the reduction of costs (Coriat,

1997)-The other aspect of the global lean-production system,

generating numerical flexibility and reduced wages, is thewidespread use of subcontracting companies—often locatedin low-wage, newly industrialising countries—for producingcomponents (Moody, 1997; Coriat, 1997). Workers insubcontracted firms are likely to experience productionsystems closer to us-style Fordism or earlier, 'bloodier' formsof the machine system, but without the social protectionsassociated with the Fordist era (Lipietz, 1987). Intenseformal subordination correlates with strategies of absolutesurplus value—implying low wages, long hours, despoticworkplace discipline and the ability to hire and fire at will—which at least parallel the experience of the firstindustrialising capitalist countries in the nineteenth century.This new industrial proletariat is also segmented: frominsecure day workers in the 'informal sector' and 'bloodyTaylorist' sweatshops, to the relatively better and more stableconditions of permanent workers in more technologicallydeveloped industries (Deyo, 1993: ch. 5, ch. 6; Davis, 2004).

Lipietz's map (1993,1997) of a 'third international divisionof labour' identifies an international coexistence of divergingproduction paradigms in the advanced capitalist world, with'Kalmarism' or post-Fordism at one pole, and 'neo-Taylorism' at the other. Identified in between them is the'inconsistent hybrid' of 'Toyotism', which combines withina single production network and society a core, responsiblyautonomous production workforce engaged in final assembly;and insecure and directly controlled subcontracted workersengaged in component production. However, theintensification of competition between firms—and betweencapitalist countries—has pushed all the advanced capitalistcountries towards more and more neo-Taylorised andneoliberalised versions of Toyotism. On the one hand,progressive experiments such as Kalmarism in Sweden, newproduction concepts in Germany, and the Saturn project inthe USA have given way to neo-Taylorist/Toyotist productionsystems (Rehder, 1994; Springer, 1999; Danford et al., 2005).On the other hand, neoliberalisation of the wage relation,implying increased labour-market flexibility and increasedformal subordination, facilitates a low-cost, flexible

io6 Capital & Class #91

peripheral labour segment while also reducing security forthe core (Standing, 1997, 1999; Burchell et al., 1999). Inshort, the advanced capitalist world is converging towardsneo-Taylorist/neoliberal versions of Toyotism. In the newlyindustrialising countries, in comparison, formalsubordination is more intense, and the forms of realsubordination have tended to be pre-Toyotist. A degree ofupwards convergence towards the inconsistent hybrid isfostered to the extent that more established newlyindustrialised countries have moved towards more fullyfledged lean-production systems. But this development iscountered by the continuing movement of capital to employlow-wage workforces in even newer industrialising countries,in subcontracted component production and light industry(Amsden, 1990; Lo, 1999).

The implications of these developments for the classstructure of the global industrial proletariat are complex. Ata global level, formal proletarianisatioh spreads toincorporate more and more of the world's population. Inaddition, uneven convergence towards more neoliberalisedversions of Toyotism implies a degree of global proletarianhomogenisation. Nonetheless, new capitalist industrialisationcombined with neoliberal globalisation is linked with theemergence of an international structure of industrialproletarian segmentation, which continues to differentiatethe workforces of the advanced capitalist economies fromthe low-wage workforces of newly industrialising countries.In the advanced countries, furthermore, while the core andits security continue to decline, important differences stillremain between core and periphery in terms of work andemployment relations. In a parallel way, the new industrialproletariat of the newly industrialising capitalist countriesis stratified in terms of degrees and types of subordination.In short, the circumstances of the global proletariat are notuniformly reducible to a common pattern of formal and realsubordination. Nonetheless, forms of both formal and realsubordination have spread and deepened within the overallglobal trend towards neoliberalised Toyotism.

Post-industrial capitalism, the socialised proletariat,and the neo-proletariat

Marx's prognosis of the absolute spread of waged work isalso radically confirmed by the formal proletarianisation ofa wide range of social activities beyond the industrial factory


and its mass workers. Negri constructs a proletarian unityand knowledge-based autonomy in the 'socialised proletariat[that occupies] the factory without walls' (Negri, 1989: 204).In contrast, Gorz's (1982) neo-proletariat, which engagesin low-skill temporary work on the margins of the 'abolitionof work' and in the 'new servant' jobs, now constitutes themajority and spearhead of the proletarian movement. WhileNegri in particular examines contemporary forms ofproletarian subordination and 'decomposition', both writersstill tend to offer optimistic political constructions of differentparts of the new post-industrial proletariat as representingthe unity and vision of the entire proletariat.

Nonetheless, each writer's analysis can be interpreted asidentifying important cleavages in the contemporary classstructure of the proletariat. Negri's conception aggregatesMarx's (1973) polyvalent skilled worker with knowledgeworkers in the fields of communication, information andsocial reproduction (Negri, 1989: 209). The knowledge-intensive sectors of the post-industrial proletariat that Negrifocuses on can be distinguished from the rising neo-proletariat; and Gorz's neo-proletariat, similarly, can bedistinguished both from core production workers and fromthe knowledge-intensive sections of the post-industrialproletariat.

For Gorz, the post-industrial phase of capitalism involvesthe transformation of the Fordist mass working class—themajor proletarian agent of the project of the Keynesian welfarestate—into an elite minority, on the one hand; and the growthof the neo-proletariat to become the majority in the post-industrial era, on the other. The neo-proletariat is createdon the terrain of the abolition of work through automation,the spread of waged labour into new activities, and theflexibilisation and contractualisation of the wage relationdriven by neoliberal and capitalist interests. Gorz definesthe neo-proletariat as follows: 'The majority of the populationnow belongs to the post-industrial neo-proletariat which,with no job security or definite class identity, fills the area ofprobationary, contracted, casual, temporary, and part-timeemployment' (1982:69). The neo-proletariat is thus basicallydefined in terms of a flexibilised wage relation thatdifferentiates it from the more secure wage relationcharacterising the experience of core production workers.

The return of unemployment, labour-market flexibility,reduced social protections and workfare policies all

io8 Capital & Class #91

contribute to increasing insecurity among wage earnersgenerally (Standing, 1997,1999; Burchell et al., 1999; Sennet,1998). However, the new environment has been adapted byfirms in order to segment their workforces into a permanentcore with relative wage and employment security, includingsocial-wage provisions; and the peripheral neo-proletariat,whose formal subordination is radically intensified byincreased wage dependence, employment insecurity andwelfare retrenchment. The two conditions of formalsubordination—the loss of independent subsistence and thegaining of waged work—increasingly diverge (Przeworski,1985: 60) in the real time of the neo-proletariat's way of life:thrown onto the streets one week, and employed in wagedwork the next. The neo-proletariat is the most insecure sectionof the broader proletariat, because it includes those who areconstantly moving between the two states of formalsubordination: of either being without work, or employedin temporary work. In short, although not necessarilysubordinated by the machine system, the neo-proletariat isintensely subordinated in a formal sense (see Allen, 1996;Theodore, 2003).

Within the neo-proletariat itself, however, there aredistinctions in the employment relation and in workexperiences as well. In terms of the employment relation,first, polarising tendencies undermine the homogeneity ofneo-proletarian experience. At one pole, flexi-workers arebeing reintegrated into a regime of absolute surplus value—low wages and long hours—via a portfolio of part-time andtemporary low-paid jobs (Green, 2001; Basso, 2003). At theother pole, the long-term unemployed comprise a relativelypermanent neo-proletarian core that, although de-proletarianised by free time, tends to be socially disadvantagedand subject to social exclusion, poverty and vilification(Strandh, 2001; Clasen et al., 1997; Bauman, 1998; Wilson,1996). Second, neoliberal/capitalist attempts to reconstructthe category of the self-employed through a proliferation ofsubcontracted employment relations, and through politicalsupport for small businesses, challenges the wage-relation-based mechanism of formal subordination and exploitation.Although ambiguously located between the petite bourgeoisieand the neo-proletariat in a formal sense, self-employmentcan be just a way of returning to early forms of the exploitationof dependent labour (Rainbird, 1991; Linder, 1989). Thisargument is reinforced by the similar but more desperate


employment situation of the 'own-account workers' of thegrowing 'informal proletariat' that inhabits the city slums ofthe developing capitalist world (Davis, 2004).

Third, neo-proletarianised work within industrialisedproduction systems can be distinguished from neo-proletarianised work primarily located in the service sectorthat is not, and is unlikely to become significantlyindustrialised. On the one hand, within industrialisedworkplaces in both industrial and service sectors, neo-proletarianised work is likely to correspond with older formsof technology and low-skill jobs. Some neo-proletarianisedwork is also subject to varying degrees ofTaylorisation, and/or to new technological means of surveillance and control(Bemie et al., 1998; Parenti, 2003). Overall, the disposabilityof neo-proletarians (see Barkan, 2000) extends Marx'sdiscussion about filling the pores in the working day in orderto increase relative surplus value. In addition, such peripheralworkers serve as a filter and disciplinary mechanism for thecore workforce.

On the other hand, many jobs in the service sector involvecustomised services to individual clients that are not directlyamenable to mass-production techniques. These neo-proletarian forms of work are closely linked to theemergence of new servants in personal services in thehospitality, tourist and domestic sectors, such as tour-guides,bartenders, cooks, house-cleaners, gardeners, childminders,and so on (Gorz, 1994; Myles, 1995).

The non-middle-class proletariat can be fractionalisedin a number of different ways. Core production workers inthe advanced capitalist societies can be distinguished fromthe new industrial proletariat in the industrialising countries;and the post-industrial neo-proletariat can be distinguishedfrom both the more knowledge-intensive fractions of thepost-industrial proletariat and the informal proletariat ofthe developing capitalist world. These groups are furtherfiragmented by the application of a range of different strategiesof subordination that provide even more detailed forms ofstratification. Skill, wage and security hierarchies thatcorrespond to differing forms and degrees of subordinationare linked to national and international patterns ofsegmentation in a process that not only underminessolidarity, but also intensifies divisions and competitionbetween segments. Examination of the middle classcomplicates the class structure of the proletariat still further.

n o Capital & Class #91

The embarrassment of the middle class

The provisional middle class includes a range of positionsthat both fall between and overlap with those of thebourgeoisie and the proletariat. This section takes Wright'sanalysis as a useful point of departure for examining theclass status of the middle class, and for further evaluatingMarx's proletarianisation thesis.

Wright's model

Wright's (1976) original formulation of contradictory classlocations identifies the rise of a set of intermediate wagedpositions between capital and labour, as a consequence ofthe separation of capitalist ownership and management thatoccurred with the growth of large firms on the one hand,and the Taylorist separation of conception and execution(Braverman, 1974) on the other.

A hierarchy of salaried middle managers performs a rangeof capitalist functions—such as accounting andadministration—that were previously combined in theindividual capitalist entrepreneur. More specifically, a classof wage-worker managers is created as part of this delegationof capitalist function, but also as a result of the Tayloristproject of the real subordination of labour, which requiresmanagers to implement and coordinate that project.

In Wright's second-generation formulation (Wright, 1985,1986, 1989), the labour-process dimension is removed bythe defining of exploitation purely in terms of inequalitiesin the distribution of productive assets. Exploited andexploiter positions are evidenced according to a method thatcontrasts an ideal non-exploitative income level (roughlyoperationalised as a per-capita share of total assets, or themedian income) with actual incomes. Middle-class strataare classified along two axes: along one according to the'net positions' of 'exploiter', 'neither exploiter or exploited',and 'exploited'^ and along the other according to differenttypes of 'property assets', including 'organization assets'(managers) and 'skill assets' (experts) (Wright, 1986). Whilethe former axis seems to violate the basic idea ofcontradictory class locations, the latter distinction, presentedin terms of different types of exploitation, has an implicitoccupational dimension.


Consistent through both phases of his writing is Wright'sview that:

the positions aggregated under the rubric 'middle class'are not really in a class at all. Rather, they should beviewed as locations which are simultaneously in morethan one class, positions which I have characterized as'contradictory class relations within class relations' [or]... more precisely, contradictory locations withinexploitation relations. (1986: 115, 128)

Only the essential classes of the dominant mode of productionare assumed from the outset to be real classes, while themiddle class comprises a hybrid collection of contradictoryclass characteristics with no class character of its own. As ifin some delicate balancing act Wright holds onto theorthodox Marxist view that capitalism generates only twomutually defining classes in antagonistic relation, andaccounts for the existence of other positions that fit neitherand both class positions at the same time, whilesimultaneously claiming to remove vestiges of the 'Weberian'influence. Nonetheless, a second, contradictory line ofargument in Wright's work indicates that the middle classcould be viewed as a real class because of'the distinctivenessof [its] location within exploitation relations' (1986: 126).

An alternative analysis

The broader terrain of the middle class can be investigatedby applying criteria of class identification associated withboth the bourgeoisie and the proletariat: business ownershipand capital function, on the one hand, and formal subordin-ation and real subordination on the other. In general, thecombination of these criteria, each of which also can bedifferentiated, serves to distinguish between middle-class strata.

Much of the middle class is formally proletarian, in thatit receives wages and does not own businesses. The featuresof the middle class that distinguish it from non-middlefractions of the proletariat, however, are the semi-autonomous forms of labour associated with professionalstatus, and/or its function as an agent of capital. The criterionof capital agency identifies managers and engineers whoimplement rather than being subject to projects of labour's

" 2 Capital & Class #91

real subordination; and it also includes people such asteachers, journalists and economists, who perform theideological functions of capital. The 'professional project'(Macdonald, 1995), encompassing a range of old and newoccupational fields, some of which overlap with capitalagency, continues to resist both formal and real subordinationby maintaining professional control and autonomy.Professionals tend to have a level of income and securitythat eases formal subordination by providing the likelihoodof high levels of personal assets and independent income.

The existence of the middle class is compatible with theCommunist Manifesto's prognosis before the theoretical pointof capitalism's maturity. However, it is hard to see how thispoint will ever completely be reached. First, Taylorismgenerates managers and engineers who oversee the projectof labour's real subordination. The move towards moreautomated systems reinforces the centrality of engineers andtechnicians (Sabel, 1995), while the changing forms ofcapital's project will continue to require professional human-resource managers. Additionally, capital's 'hired prize-fighters' appear to be permanent, if for no other reason thanthat the projects of capital require ideological agents. Inshort, integral to large-scale capitalism and the broadersocietal projects of capital are professionals who perform itsnecessary technical and ideological functions.

Second, the professional project, in general, politicallyresists proletarianisation. Members of professions attemptto define and control the knowledge, practices, size andboundaries of their professions, while excluding and de-legitimating competing forms of knowledge andoccupational practice (Freidson, 1994). Professionals resistthe Taylorist project of the transfer of knowledge and powerand, through their control of the field of knowledge andthe labour supply, maintain high income security as well.Doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants and academics, andmore recently managers, engineers and journalists, areexamples of participants in the professional project. Inaddition, a number of new professions have become moreprominent in the present phase of capitalism, and theirmembers include designers, researchers, public-relationsspecialists and professional sportspeople. People workingin a number of trades—e.g. as plumbers, carpenters,electricians, mechanics and hairdressers—can also have thisprofessional character to some degree.


Third, the increasing centrality of innovation andadvanced technology to contemporary capitalism impliesthe continuing knowledge intensification of labour (Hodgson,1999). Such developments include the ongoing existenceand growth of semi-autonomous and knowledge-intensiveoccupations—from engineering and management to research,science and academia—that will remain substantiallydifferent from the work of the Taylorised industrialproletariat, even though their tendency towardsproletarianisation seems likely to continue. Also, trades andprofessions that involve customised services continue to resistthe mass industrial logic of real subordination.

This relatively permanent, core middle class as sketchedout above has work and employment relations thatdistinguish it from both the non-middle-class proletariatand the bourgeoisie. However, variations on thischaracterisation reveal both proletarianising and'bourgeoisifying' tendencies. In terms of the former, aspectsof some professional work can be proletarianised througha detailed division of labour that separates out the low-skill aspects of the profession, producing associated effectsin terms of subordination. For example, some white-collarworkers perform delegated, routine administrative functionsof capital within the real subordination context of a semi-Taylorised paradigm, and receive low wages that indicateformal subordination (Braverman, 1974; Crompton &Jones, 1984; Baldry, 1998). In short, proletarianisingtendencies apply to the routine, subsidiary and less skilledparts of professions and capitalist functions. Nonetheless,many non-Taylorised waged professionals are themselvessubject to a range of governance technologies, which, inthe absence of mechanisms for achieving formal and realsubordination, seek to secure their responsible autonomythrough projects intended to align their subjectivity withthe goals of the firm (Miller & Rose, 1990; Heisig, 1995).Additionally, in the current era, proleta-rianisation strategiesapplied to professional fields, especially in the public sector,have become more likely as a result of neoliberalisation,which promotes greater managerial prerogative, increasedemployment insecurity, segmentation and state restructuring(Krause, 1996; Smyth, 1995). Investment in higher educationby the newly industrialising countries, and the consequentincrease in a professional labour supply that is cheap andglobally available online, also encourages the proletarian-

" 4 Capital & Class #91

isation of various professional occupations in the advancedcountries.

In terms of a tendency towards 'bourgeoisification', thereare two major ways in which professionals and capitalistagents can be directly identifiable as non-contradictorymembers of the bourgeoisie. First, some professionals areeither self-employed or own and control their owncompanies; and indeed, self-employed work and smallbusinesses have been contractually and politically promotedby the neoliberal project. In particular, there has been agrowth in highly qualified professionals or 'proficians' whohave their own consultancy companies, and who enter intoproject contracts with large companies (Standing, 1997,1999;Sabel, 1995). More generally, self-employed professionalsand tradespeople can become capitalists as they expand theirbusinesses, employing waged employees to directly performthe core work of the profession, or to engage in subsidiarytasks. Second, high-level managers or the companyexecutives of large firms perform the primary executivefunctions of capital, and have salaries that enable them tobecome significant owners of capital.

The middle class has a complex structure, encompassingpositions that are directly contradictory; positions that tendeither towards the proletariat or the bourgeoisie; andpositions that have a unique character different from boththe bourgeoisie and the proletariat. A self-employedprofessional with a median income (neither exploiter norexploited, in Wright 's model) could be viewed asrepresenting an ideal typical and distinctive middle-classposition that has neither proletarian nor capitalistdimensions. However, much of the provisional middle classhas ambiguous and overlapping boundaries with either theproletariat or the bourgeoisie, while some groups moreunambiguously tend towards proletarian and bourgeois classpositions. The middle class is thus stratified into groupsthat infiltrate the entire class structure. In addition, at amicro level, Grusky and Sorensen (1998) argue that well-formed middle-class occupations can be defined as'disaggregate classes' that have clear boundaries, entail classidentity, and exhibit agency in the pursuit of strategicinterests in relation to the capitalist project and to otherdisaggregate class actors. Such occupational integrity canbe linked both to competition within an occupational field,and stratification across the middle class.


In summary, the middle class is a hierarchical andheterogeneous collection of disaggregate classes. However,the middle bulk of occupational groupings—albeit withblurred boundaries, continuing divisions and oftencontradictory class influences—can be provisionally viewedas an aggregate class that has a similar experience of workas professional experts, and is linked to similar levels andtypes of income, education, lifestyle and habitus. Nonetheless,some middle-class positions have been and continue to beproletarianised, while other positions are linked to fullmembership of the capitalist class. Although the project toproletarianise middle-class occupations continues, Marx'sprognosis of the 'de-occupationalisation' of work ischallenged by limits to the project and logic of realsubordination. In sum, the proletarianisation of the middleclass is frustrated by the renewed viability of small andmedium-sized businesses—a viability linked to thesubcontractual structure of contemporary ownership ofcapitalist firms, capital's ongoing need for delegated agents,limitations to the industrialisation of some forms of work,and the persistence of professional occupations that moreor less successfully continue to resist the capitalist projectof subordination.

Concluding remarks

Wright conflates class with exploitation, while Marxdifferentiates the forces that generate classes from classesthemselves. Wright remains locked into an abstract, two-class model, even though Marx distinguishes abstract andconcrete models of class development under capitalism. Incontrast with Wright's analytical Marxist class theory, whichremoves history, power and the labour process, Marx's classanalysis focuses on power and the labour process, and thelogic of their development in future capitalist history.

For Marx, a social class is based on its homogeneity oflife situation. The formally subordinated proletariat is thusa provisional class. Only when other circumstantialdistinctions are obliterated does the proletariat become afully formed class-in-itself. Furthermore, only whencapitalist development eliminates or marginalises all othersocial classes will the societal pattern of classes concretelyconform to the essential abstraction of Marx's two-class

II6 Capital & Class #91

model. This historical prognosis is complicated by a moretwo-sided and politicised class-struggle perspective, by thecontinuing function of middle-class agents of capital, by theongoing survival of the professional project, by inherentlimits to the project of real subordination, and by the unevenmultiplicity of old and new forms of proletariansubordination and fragmentation. Different forms, degreesand combinations of subordination and incorporation bothreflect and construct the uneven diversity of proletarianexperience in ways that do not accord with a proletariatdefined as a homogeneous class with a common life situation.

In the current era of global neoliberalism, Marx'sproletarianisation thesis is radically cotifirmed by the spreadingand deepening of formal subordination into more and moresocial activities in the advanced capitalist societies, and byongoing proletarianisation in the industrialising capitalistsocieties. However, an exatnination of the different forms anddegrees of subordination reveals not only a more complexinternal division of the proletariat than that predicted by theproletarianisation thesis, but also a more complex and dynamicunderstanding of the subordination project of capital. For thosefiractions of labour that have limited strategic power relative tocapital, old and new forms of coercive subordination arereinvented in the contemporary era. In some situations, however,the coercive approach is not viable. First, the imposition of theTaylorist version of real subordination in post-Second-World-War conditions, in which labour had con-siderable politicalpower, was achieved only by a class com-promise that easedformal subordination. In short, acceptance of the realsubordination of Fordist mass production was exchanged forincreasing wages and security. Second, collective resistance toreal subordination and the present need to 'mine the gold inthe workers' heads' indicate the rationale for responsible-autonomy strategies. Third, the persistence of various kinds ofsemi-autonomous labour also necessitates responsible-autonomy strategies in order to align subjectivity with the goalsof the firm. In sum, the coercive forms of subordination thatoutwardly control the physical bodies of workers can bedistinguished from hegemonic forms of incorporation thatinwardly control workers' hearts and minds in order to winconsent and commitment (Gramsci, 1972; Burawoy, 1985).

Negri's analysis of the contemporary post-industrialproletariat continues Gramsci's theme of the 'interiorisation'(Hardt & Negri, 2000) of proletarian subordination. Negri


identifies new mechanisms of subordination, more powerfuland insidious than Marx's real subordination, which not onlycontrol the bodies and programme the minds of proletarians,but as part of a process of class 'decomposition' also divide,isolate and eliminate them. Marx's work does touch onthemes beyond 'control'. However, Negri's approach pointstowards a view of subordination that corresponds with theshift from Marx's focus on industrial capitalism—in whichthe project is centrally about machine control of the body—towards information capitalism, in which the project alsoincludes mind management, underpinned by the newinformation and communication technologies. Certainly,future research on the theme of subordination and classstructure would need to investigate more thoroughly theextent and consequences of this shift.

This paper has focused class theory on Marx's conceptsof formal and real subordination. It represents an attempt,inspired by Bob Carter (1995), to bring labour process andlabour-market themes back into the foreground of Marxistclass theory. An adequately developed class theory, however,would require, a fuller examination of changing forms ofsubordination beyond Marx's two-step model. In addition,a much wider range of criteria—including agents and notjust structures, and including criteria beyond production andeconomic relations that generate class effects—need to beexamined. Likewise, a more fully developed Marxist classanalysis would need to construct class maps includinginformation on the numerical sizes of the different groupingsthat comprise the proletariat, as well as more directlyconfronting the problem of the proliferation of ambiguousclass positions.

Finally, Marxist class theory needs to reconsider itspolitical analysis in the light of the diversity of proletarianexperience. Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, rightlystressed that 'communists [should] point out and bring tothe front the common interests of the entire proletariat' (1952:61). However, the construction of the contemporaryproletariat in ways that obscure the problem of proletariandiversity can- also be counter-productive. The identificationof circumstantial variation is a necessary precondition forthe development of a fuller class analysis, capable ofconsidering the potential societal projects and the actualforms of political consciousness of different proletariangroupings—and capable of considering, too, the strategic

ii8 Capital & Class #91

question of how to use this knowledge in order to constructa global, counter-hegemonic proletarian movement.

References

Aglietta, M. (1979) A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: TheExperience (Verso).

Allen, J. & N. Henry (1996) 'Fragments of industry andemployment: Contract service work and the shift towardsprecarious employment' in R. Crompton, D. Gaille & K.Purcell (eds.) Changing Forms of Employment: Organisations,Skills and Gender (Routledge).

Amsden, A. H. (1990) 'Third World industrialization: "GlobalFordism" or a new model?' in New Left Review, no. 182, pp.5-31-

Armstrong, P., A. Glyn & J. Harrison (1984) Capitalism SinceWWII: The Making and Breakup of the Great Boom (Fontana).

Baldry, C , P. Bain & P. Taylor (1998) 'Bright satanic offices:Intensification, control and Taylorism' in P.Thompson & C.Warhurst (eds.) Workplaces of the Future (Macmillan Business).

Barkan, J. (2000) '50 ways to say you're fired', in Dissent, Fallissue, pp. 73-77-

Basso, P. (2003) Modern Times, Ancient Hours: Working Lives inthe Twenty-First Century (Verso).

Bauman, Z. (1998) Work, Consumerism and the New Poor (OpenUniversity Press).

Bemie, M., H. Ramsay & A Panteli (1998) 'Developments incomputing work: Control and contradiction in the softwarelabour process' in P. Thompson & C. Warhurst (eds.)Workplaces of the Future (Macmillan Business).

Bhaskar, R. (1978) A Realist TTteory of Science (Harvester Press).Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction (Routledge).

(1987) 'What makes a social class? On the theoreticaland practical existence of groups' in Berkeley Journal ofSociology: A Critical Review, no. 32, pp. 1-18.

Boyer, R. (1988) 'Wage/labour relations, growth and crisis' inR. Boyer (ed.) The Search for Labour Market Flexibility: TheEuropean Economy in Transition (Clarendon Press).

Braverman, H. (1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital: TheDegradation ofWork in the Twentieth Century (Monthly ReviewPress).

Burawoy, M. (1985) The Politics of Production (Verso).Burchell, B., D. Ladipo & F. Wilkinson (eds.) (1999) Job

Insecurity and Work Intensification: Flexibility and the ChangingBoundaries ofWbrk (Joseph Rowntree Foundation).

Carchedi,- G. (1975) 'On the economic identification of the new


middle class' in Economy and Society, vol. 4, no. i, pp. 1-86.Carter, B. (1995) 'A growing divide: Marxist class analysis and

the labour process' in Capital & Class, no. 55, pp. 33-72.Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society (Blackwell).Cerny, P. G. (2003) 'What next for the state?' in E. Kofman &

G. Young (eds.) Globalization: Theory and Practice(Continuum) pp. 203-221.

Clasen, J., A. Gould & J.Vincent (1997) Long-Term Unemploymentand the Threat of Social Exclusion: A Cross-National Analysis ofthe Position ofLong-Term Unemployed People in Germany, Swedenand Britain (Polity Press, in association with Joseph RowntreeFoundation).

Coriat, B. (1995) 'Incentives, bargaining and trust: Alternativescenarios for the future of work' in International Contributionsto Labour Studies, no. 5, pp. 131-151.

(1997) 'Globalisation, variety, and mass production:The metamorphosis of mass production in the newcompetitive age' in J. R. HoUingsworth & R. Boyer (eds.)Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions(Cambridge University Press) pp. 240-263.

Crompton, R. & G. Jones (1984) White Collar Proletariat:Deskilling and Gender at Work (Macmillan).

Dale, A. (1986) 'Social class and the self-employed' in Sociology,no. 20, pp. 430-34.

Danford, A., M. Richardson, P. Stewart, S. Tailby & M.Upchurch (2005) 'High performance work systems, labourcontrol and the production worker' in P. Stewart (ed.)Employment, Trade Union Renewal and the Future ofWork(Palgrave Macmillan) pp. 187-212.

Davis, M. (2004) 'Planet of slums: Urban involution and theinformal proletariat' in New Left Review, no. 26, March-April, pp. 5-34.

Deyo, F. C. (1993) Beneath the Miracle: Labour Subordination inthe New Asian Industrialism (University of California Press).

Dicken, P. (1998) Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy(Paul Chapman).

Dohse, K., U. Jurgens &T. Malsch (1985) 'From "Fordism" to"Toyotism"? The social organisation of the labour processin the Japanese automobile industry' in Politics and Society,vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 115-146.

Dore, R. (1993) 'What makes the Japanese different?' in C.Crouch & D. Marquand (eds.) Ethics and Markets: Co-operation and Competition within Capitalist Economies(Blackwell) pp. 66-79.

Friedman, A. (1977) 'Responsible autonomy versus directcontrol over the labour process' in Capital & Class, no. i,pp. 43-57-

Friedman, A. (1997) 'Managerial strategies of labour control'.


paper presented to the annual conference of the BritishSociological Association, tJniversity of York, March.

Freidson, E. (1994) Professionalism Reborn: Theory, Prophecy andPolicy (tJniversity of Chicago Press).

Gamble, A. (2001) 'Neoliberalism' in Capital & Class, no. 75,pp. 127-134.

Giddens, A. (2002) Sociology (Polity).Glyn, A., A. Hughes, A. Lipietz & A. Singh (1990a) 'The rise

and fall of the golden age' in S. A. Marglin & J. B. Schor(eds.) The Golden Age of Capitalism (Clarendon Press) pp.39-126.

(1990b) 'Productivity and the crisis of Fordism' inInternational Review of Applied Economics, vol. 4, no. i, pp.28-44.

Gorz, A. (1982) Farewell to the Working Class: An Essay on Post-Industrial Socialism (Pluto Press).

(1994) 'The new servants' in Capitalism, Socialism,Ecology (Verso).

(1999) Reclaiming Work: Beyond the Wage Based Society(Blackwell).

Gramsci, A. (1972) The Prison Notebooks (Lawrence and Wishart).Green, F. (2001) 'It 's been a hard day's night: The

concentration and intensification of work in late twentiethcentury Britain' in British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol.39, no. I, pp. 53-8.

Grusky, D. B. &J. B. Sorensen (1998) 'Can class analysis besalvaged?' in American Journal of Sociology, vol. 103, no. 5, pp.1187-1234.

Gubbay, J. (2000) 'Shifting classes: Interactions with industryand gender shifts in the 1980s' in Sociological Research Online,vol. 5, no. 3.

Hardt, A. & A. Negri (2000) Empire (Harvard tJniversity Press).Heisig U. & W. Littek (1995) 'Trust as a basis of work

organisation' inW. Littek &T. Charles (eds.) The New Divisionof Labour: Emerging Forms ofWork Organisation in InternationalPerspective (Walter de Gruyter) pp. 17-56.

Hodgson, G. (1999) Economics and Utopia (Routledge).Holloway, J. (1994) 'Global capital and the nation state' in

Capital & Class, no. 52, pp. 23-49.Jessop, B. (2003) The Future of the Capitalist State (Polity).Kalecki, M. (1943) 'The political aspects of full employment'

in Political Quarterly, no. 14, pp. 321-31.King, D. & S. Wood (1999) 'The political economy of

neoliberalism: Britain and the United States in the 1980s' inH. Kitschelt, P. Lange, G. Marks & J. D. Stephens (eds.)Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism (CambridgeUniversity Press) pp. 371-397.

Krause, E. (1996) Death of the Guilds: Professions, States and the


Advance of Capitalism (Yale University Press).Lebowitz, M. (1992) Beyond Capital: Marx's Political Economy of

theWorkingClass (Macmillan).Linder, M. & J. Houghton (1989) 'Self-employment and the

petty bourgeoisie: Comment on Steinmetz and Wright' inAmerican Journal of Sociology, no. 96, pp. 727-35.

Lipietz, A. (1987) Mirages and Miracles: The Transformation ofGlobal Fordism (Verso).

Lipietz, A. (1988) 'Accumulation, crises and ways out' inInternational Journal of Political Econorrvy,vo\. 18, no. 2, Spring,pp. 10-43.

Lipierz, A. & D. Leborgne (1993) 'Conceptual fallacies andopen questions on post-Fordism' in M. Storper & A. Scott(eds.) Pathways to Industrialisation and Regional Development(Routledge) pp. 332-348.

Lipietz, A. (1997) 'The post-Fordist world: Labour relations,international hierarchy and global ecology' in Review ofInternational Political Economy, vol. 4, no. i, pp. 1-41.

Lo, D. (1999) 'The East Asian phenomenon: The consensus,the dissent, and the significance of the present crisis' inCapital & Class, no. 67, pp. 1-23.

Macdonald, K. M. (1995) The Sociology of the Professions (Sage).Marx, K. & F. Engels (1952 [1848]) The Communist Manifesto

(Progress).Marx, K. (1973 [1857]) Grundrisse (Penguin).

(1976 [1867]) Ca/)Hi2/, Volume I (Penguin).(1969 [1861]) Theories of Surplus Value, Wolums II

(Lawrence and Wishart).Miller, P. & N. Rose (1990) 'Governing economic life' in

Economy and Society, vol. 19, no. i, pp. 1-31.Moody, K. (1997) Wbrkers in a Lean World (Verso).Myles, J. & A. Turegun (1994) 'Comparative studies in class

structure' in Annual Review of Sociology, no. 20, pp. 103-124.Myles, J. (1995) 'Post-industrialism and the service economy'

in D. Drache & M. S. Gertler (eds.) The New Era of GlobalCompetition (McGill-Queen's University Press) pp. 351-365.

Negri, A. (1989) The Politics of Subversion: A Manifesto for theTwenty-First Century (Polity).

Ohno, T. (1988) The Toyota Production System (ProductivityPress).

Parenti, C. (2003) 'The new Taylorism, surveillance, work anddiscipline' in The Soft Cage: Surveillance in America, FromSlavery to the War on Terror (Basic Books).

Petit, P. (1999) 'Structural forms and growth regimes of thepost-Fordist era' in Review of Social Economy, vol. LVII, no.2, pp. 220-43.

Piore, M. & C. Sabel (1984) The Second Industrial Divide (BasicBooks).


Poulantzas, N. (1975) Classes in Contemporary Capitalism (NewLeft Books).

Przeworski, A. (1985) Capitalism and Social Democracy(Cambridge University Press).

Rainbird, H. (1991) 'The self-employed: Small entrepreneursor disguised wage labourers?' in A. Pollert (ed.) Farewell toFlexibility (Blackwell).

Rehder, R. (1994) 'Saturn, Uddevella and the Japanese leansystems: Paradoxical prototypes for the twenty-first century'in International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol.5, no. I, pp. 1-31.

Roemer, J. E. (1982) A General Theory of Exploitation and Class(Harvard University Press).

Ryner, M. (1997) 'Neoliberal globalization and the crisis ofSwedish social democracy' in Economic and IndustrialDemocracy, no. 20, pp. 39-79.

Sabel, C. (1995) 'Meta-corporations and open labour markets:Some consequences of the reintegration of conception andexecution in a volatile economy' in W. Littek & T Charles(eds.) Ihe New Division of Labour: Emerging Forms ofWorkOrganisation in International Perspective (Walter de Gruyter).

Sennet, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character: The PersonalConsequences ofWork in the New Capitalism (W. W. Norton &Company).

Smyth, J. (ed.) (1995) The Changing Labour Process in HigherEducation (Society for Research into Higher Education, &Open University Press).

Springer, R. (1999) 'The end of new production concepts?Rationalisation and labour policy in the German autoindustry' in Economic and Industrial Democracy, no. 20, pp.117-145.

Standing, G. (1997) 'Globalization, labour flexibility andinsecurity: The era of market regulation' in European Journalof Industrial Relations, vol. 3, no. i, pp. 7-37.

Standing, G. (1999) Global Labour Flexibility: SeekingRedistributive Justice (Macmillan).

Strandh, M. (2001) 'State intervention and mental well-beingamong the unemployed' in Cambridge Journal of Social Policy,vol. 30, no. I, pp. 57-80.

Theodore, N. (2003) 'Political economies of day labour:Regulation and restructuring of Chicago's contingent labourmarkets' in Urban Studies, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 1811-1828.

Tomaney, J. (1994) 'A new paradigm of work organization andtechnology' in A. Amin (ed.) Post-Fordism: A Reader(Blackwells).

Wilson,W.J. (1996) WhenWorkDisappears:TheWorldoftheNewUrban Poor (Alfred Knopf).

Witherford, N. (1994) 'Autonomist Marxism and the


information society' in Capital & Class, no. 52, pp. 85-125.Wood, S. (1993) 'The Japanization of Fordism' in Economic and

Industrial Democracy, no.14, pp. 535-555.Wright, E. O. (1976) 'Class boundaries in advanced capitalist

societies' in New Left Review, no. 98, pp. 3-41.(1985) Classes (Verso).(1986) 'What is middle about the middle class?' in J

Roemer (ed.) Analytical Marxism (Cambridge UniversityPress).

(ed.) (1989) The Debate on Classes (Verso).(1997) Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis

(Cambridge University Press).Yates, C. (1998) 'Defining the fault lines: New divisions in the

working class' in Capital & Class, no. 66, pp. 119-147.

formal and real subordination and the contemporary proletariat

Documents