Using Marx to Understand the Working Class in the Philippines

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

In the Philippines, service workers outnumber workers
in industry and agriculture. Wage workers are the majority, but
there is substantial nonwaged employment. Marxist categories as a
relational theory of social classes can unpack these characteristics
of the working class. Production relations and the labor theory
of value are relevant concepts. The working class is defined by
its situation—it is the propertyless mass who must sell their labor
power in return for wages to the capitalist class who own the
means of production. Thus, service workers are no less proletarian
than industrial workers. Moreover, service workers engaged in
the supply chain of commodity production—from engineers
designing products to workers transporting goods to wholesale
and retail employees laboring at the point of sale—all contribute
to the creation of value and surplus value. Proletarianization
subjugates sections of the working class and even independent
producers to the industrial regime characterized by division of
labor and mechanization of work. Capitalism simultaneously
creates, destroys, and reconstitutes sections of the working class
as it develops. For Marx, the working class is composed of the
army of labor and the reserve army. The reserve army of labor
is the nonwaged population or the urban and rural poor in the
Philippines. They are the semi-proletariat, which connotes their
similarity yet distinctiveness from the proletariat.

Introduction
 

A furious debate erupted amid the distribution of government
aid for the poor who were affected by the COVID-19 lockdown
(Venzon 2020). Self-proclaimed “middle class” individuals criticized
the social amelioration program which targeted the poorest 18 million
households. The former found it unfair, since as taxpayers, they did
not receive aid despite being similarly affected by the pandemic.
Some of the critics were small entrepreneurs, but others were just
wage earners who proudly accepted the middle-class label given
by the media and the government. The uproar died down when the
government announced assistance for the “middle class” in the form of
wage subsidies for workers furloughed due to the lockdown. The fact
that “wage subsidies” mollified the grievances of the alleged “middle
class” should have alerted opinion makers to the misclassification.

With income as the criteria, minimum wage earners are classified
as middle-income and thus are described as the middle class. This of
course raises the question of the appropriate definition for social classes.
How can the working class be distinguished on a more rigorous basis
from other classes? What are the present characteristics of the working
class in the Philippines? This would be important in avoiding confusion
over terminologies and also in clarifying categories for the purposes of
policy making.

Thus, it makes sense to interrogate the dynamics of the working
class in the Philippines today. This paper seeks to use concepts developed
by Karl Marx—such as proletarianization, value, and surplus value—in
understanding the character of the working class. The paper reviews
the basis for defining social classes and affirms the relevance of Marxist
analysis. The succeeding sections discuss the development of the
working class in the Philippines and its current composition. A key
section uses Marx’s analytical categories to unpack the question of
nonwaged workers and service workers. The final section proposes
policy changes in light of the paper’s findings.

Using Marx to Understand the
Working Class in the Philippines
Benjamin B. Velasco
Assistant Professor, School of Labor and Industrial Relations (SOLAIR),
University of the Philippines Diliman (UP Diliman)
Co-convenor, Program on Alternative Development, University of the Philippines
Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS)
bbvelasco@up.edu.ph


Read the full article here: https://cids.up.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Velasco.-Marx-and-the-Working-Class.pdf