Jamaica's class structure in 2030 - An exercise in futurology (Pt 1)

Trevor A. Campbell, Guest Columnist

According to the exalted vision of Jamaica's political managers and technocrats, the year 2030 is the date - if all things go as expected - that the island will have completed the process of transformation from a relatively underdeveloped capitalist country into a developed capitalist country.

What will the class structure, at that point, look like? How will we know when we have finally passed over the threshold underdeveloped capitalism and into the realm of developed capitalism?

In order to fully appreciate the significance of these questions, it might be useful if I elaborated on some of the points that were made regarding the issue of social class in my earlier article 'Rise of robots signals fall of workers' (Sunday Gleaner, January 22, 2012). This will set the stage for Part 2 of our discussion.

In the piece referred to above, it was stated:

"The vast majority of the population of the United States (the most developed capitalist country in the world) belongs to the working class. That is to say, the US working class is made up of a wide cross section of occupation groups which include health-care workers, engineers, educators, factory workers, office attendants, retail clerks, dock workers, lawyers, public servants, police officers, and so on. Over the last 30 years, we have seen the accelerated proletarianisation of occupations that were once synonymous with being so-called 'middle class'."

This essentially means that as the productive forces of a capitalist country become more developed, the technical and social division of labour becomes more complex, while the class structure becomes more simplified. In other words, fewer and fewer individuals own and control the means of production, while the vast majority of the population have no other option but to sell their labour power. This process is irreversible, within the context of the capitalist mode of production.

Terms such as 'upper class', 'upper middle class', 'middle class', 'lower middle class', 'underclass', etc., are of very little analytical value in the realm of scientific analysis. They do not help us in clarifying the specific economic relationships between the social classes in capitalist society. These terms are used to classify individuals primarily on the basis of the size of their incomes, and not on their relationship to the means of production (the tools) or how the social classes economically relate to each in the society.

Class structure in a modern capitalist society

What follows is a brief summary of the main social classes and strata and their role in capitalist society:

The capitalists/bourgeoisie:

These are the owners of the means of production. Their assets include factories, transportation facilities (air and shipping lines, rail), banks, mines, telecommunications, the media, retailing establishments, etc.

In the context of contemporary capitalism, economic activities are organised by corporations which are managed by professional managers, on behalf of the owners and shareholders. Whatever sector their capital is invested in, they must adhere to the basic law of capital accumulation. This means that the money invested, as capital, must be continually expanding on a greater and greater scale.

Capitalists begin the process of whatever form of economic activity they are involved in with a specific sum of money, and at the end of the cycle they expect to significantly increase that amount. In other words, these corporations are profit-making entities. Managers are hired and fired on the basis of whether or not they meet the expectations of the investors.

The petty bourgeoisie

This class is of a hybrid nature. It shares characteristics of both the bourgeoisie and the working class/the proletariat. That is to say, the individuals within this class own their own tools but they also labour, in order to survive. They do not sell their labour power. What they sell are the products of their labour or their services. In some cases, they may even hire a few workers.

This class could include medical doctors, accountants or architects who operate their own practices, as well as highly trained craftsmen/women such as tailors, furniture makers, small farmers, dressmakers and beauticians who operate their own shops.

Again, it is not the size of their income which determines their class, it is their relationship to the tools/the means of production. This class occupies a position that is extremely precarious, in that their operations must either grow into a full-fledged capitalist enterprise, or face the prospect of being completely ruined.

If the latter happens, the individuals are cast down into the ranks of proletariat. The really unlucky ones - particularly those with very limited formal education - might not be able to sell their labour power, and therefore might join the ranks of the permanently unemployed.

The intermediary strata/the intelligentsia:

This group includes a whole range of individuals, from all class backgrounds, who manage the affairs of state. They are to be found in the upper echelons of corporate management, the judiciary, the civil service, the political system, the system of law enforcement as well as educational and cultural institutions.

In the main, they are formally trained professionals whose role is to manage the social and physical infrastructure that is required for the production and circulation of capital as a whole. As such, the role of the intermediary strata is defined by the need for resolving whatever technical and social barriers stand in the way of the process of capital accumulation and managing the social contradictions that simultaneously emanate from this convulsive process.

Their job evaluation is ultimately based on the degree to which they are able to provide real solutions to the challenges facing the various segments of capital and the working class. In the event that they prove incapable of meeting these expectations, they are perceived as intellectually impotent and socially useless, and the institutions they manage, or those where they received their training, are called into question.

The working class/the proletariat:

The individuals within this class do not own the means of production and must, therefore, sell the only commodity they own that is of any real economic significance - that is, their labour power (their physical and mental energies).

In spite of the wide variation in skill sets, education and training and the variety of workplaces in which they labour - which is reflected in the quantitative differences in income - what is qualitatively distinct about this class is the fact that they are separated from the tools, and are therefore compelled to sell their labour power to the owners of tools, in order to economically survive.

The worker sells his/her labour-power (a commodity), receives a wage, and with that money purchases other commodities (food, clothing and shelter) to replenish the energy that was consumed in the process of work. Unlike the capitalist, who starts the cycle with money and ends up with more money, the worker starts the cycle with his/her commodity (labour-power) and ends up with commodities (consumer articles) that are required for the replenishing of expended energy. The former ends up with more wealth, while the latter ends up, in many instances, with consumer debt.

Just as the capitalists are compelled to search for the lowest possible price (all other things being equal) for the commodities (including labour power) in order to be competitive, the workers are also compelled to try to secure the best possible price for their labour.

Two recent articles in the Wall Street Journal - 'The 'War' For Top Talent in Silicon Valley' by Deborah Gage (December 29, 2011) and 'Average Silicon Valley Tech Salary Passes $100,000' by Pui-Wing Tam (January 24, 2012) - aptly illustrate how this process is being played out under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution.

The S&T revolution is accelerating the pace at which the workers' skills become obsolete and their labour power devalued. The new tools require a new set of skills which older workers might not be able to master in a timely manner. The shortage of workers with the specific skills that are required in a particular industry leads to a rise in the price of labour power, as the competition among the capitalists for that labour intensifies.

There are essentially three strategic responses by industry leaders to this situation.

• The first is to make demands on the State to rapidly increase the supply of labour power that is endowed with the required skills.
  
• The second is to go where there is a greater supply of the labour that is needed, or import it.
  
• The third option is to encourage aspiring engineers to design tools that can replace the need for many labourers. These upcoming entrepreneurially minded engineers know very well that the only way they are going to be able to attract the attention of a well-endowed venture capitalist firm is if they can demonstrate that the software programme they are working on is going to be a labour-saving tool for the companies who will be purchasing it. Of course, we can see all of these strategies being implemented worldwide.

In Part 2, we will discuss the implications of what has just been outlined for Jamaica's class structure in the future.

Trevor A. Campbell is a political economist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tcampbell@eee.org.