ऑर्डनन्स फेक्टरी के मजदूर हडताल पर जा रहे ऐसी खबर सुनकर हमारे बिच के एक मार्क्स वादी साथी का मानना है कि,उन फेक्ट्रीयों के मजदूर अमानविय है,और इसी आधार पर वे एक पर्चा भी बनाने वाले है। उनका मानना यह भी है कि ,दुध डेअरी या दुध फेक्टरी के मजदूर मानविय है।
सवाल है कि क्या सही है,और क्या गलत ।गृप मे इस पर लिखित चर्चा होकर क्या सही क्या गलत हमे समझना है।नही तो हम उलझित(confused)रह जायेंगे। Marx (and Engels) had visualised the "working class" as the "gravedigger" of the capitalist order. This, to my mind, they did based primarily on two, somewhat independent, propositions. I. The basic dynamic underlying the evolution of human societies - *in general*. The "forces of production" - the technology of production (together with corresponding organisational structure), in a given society, tends to grow continually and, in the process, come into conflict with the (largely static) restraining "relations of production" - the pattern of ownership and control over the "means of production" or productive assets. When the accumulating tensions reach a critical level, the "forces" break out of the shell of "relations". A new set of "relations" - in correspondence with the obtaining "forces" as the outcome of continual evolution, comes into force. The social order changes - it transits to a higher plane. II. *Something exclusive to capitalist order.* A capitlalist economic order, by its very nature, experiences the inexorable urge to raise the proportion of "fixed capital" (the machineries) vis-a-vis the "variable capital" (the labour) and that gives rise to an inescapable "tendency of the rate of profit to fall". In order to counteract, the "capital" keeps raising the level of "exploitation" or generation of "surplus value" - the part/fraction of the "production" (by the "labour") that the "capital" skims off, leveraging the obtaining "relations of production". That continually keeps accentuating the "contradictons" - the conflicts, between "capital" and "labour". It, eventually, resolves itself by way of overthrow or abolition of "capital" by "labour". The "relations of production" undergo (radical) transformation. As one can clearly see, *the second notion perfectly dovetails into the first.* *The mutual fit is just brilliant.* (To what extent the corrollaries/predictions - emanating from this "brilliant fit", fit with the actual historical developments is, however, a different issue altogether.) And this is how the "labour" - or working class, is considered the "revolutionary force", the gravedigger of capitalism. (As a slight digression, in this schema, only a producer of "surplus value" qualifies as "labour" or worker and, consequently, the "revolutionary force" - under capitalist order.) It's also quite self-evident that the gravediggers come from *within* the *system*. They're not *external* to the *system*. Hence, till the* system* is abolished (by them), they work from within and *with* the system. So, whether dairy workers or armanent factory workers, both, in their normal discharge of duties, work *for* capitalism. It applies to *all* workers. So, in a way, the "work" they petform is "immoral" as it helps to sustain the exploitative and historically outmoded capitalist order. In a (different) way, it's profoundly "moral" as this very "work" makes them "worker" - the (would-be) gravedigger of the capitalist order. Beyond the above schema, things can be looked at in quite a different light. Works may broadly be categorisied as: (i) socially useful, (ii) not-so useful or even useless and (iii) positively harmful. The "moral" status of a "work" would be evaluated in terms of those above broad categories. Even when the workers of an armament factory refuse to discharge (*only*) a part of their duty, they don't stop producing armaments - means of large-scale murder, altogether. So, as per the second schema the only "moral" thing for them would be to walk out of their workplace - cease to be "workers" of armament factories. Regardless of (deemed) "morality" or "immorality", workers - barring some stray exceptions, are least likely to positively respond to such an absolutist "moral" call. The determination of "morality" - as can be seen from above, could be quite a tricky business. It's also contextual. So, we, usually, go by our horse sense. My brush with Marx is, admittedly, way less than exhaustive. To be more accurate, rather cursory. On top of that, quite a bit rusted too. So, comments/corrections would be highly welcome. Sukla -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyouth/CACEsOZjSxeHRj-o0tVyjroaL2Tfiz%3DD6Wq%3DK-FSvFpHEoXvPyA%40mail.gmail.com.
