One of the possible criticisms against my observations on the class concept could be that I made it in the narrower sense of the term. Marx, on the other hand, critics may say, used the term ‘class’ in the wider sense and hence my observation should be either ignored or condemned.

It was a misfortune in history to note that Marx was never a worker himself, and hence never qualified to become a member of the “working class.” But it was he who successfully created a class exclusively and extensively for workers, i.e. “working class.” Marx never worked as a worker, never worked with workers and, hence, never knew workers with work.

But, all the same, he, was the successful creator of ‘working class.’ All his knowledge on workers were either academic or something derived from studies and observations which were also, in fact, academic in nature. He had no practical experience either about work or workers and the entire knowledge acquired on workers was imaginary, theoretical, or superfluous.

Hence his assessment of workers tends to fail.

Marx detached from working class realities

Marx, without being a worker himself and without being associated with work, created an exclusive class, which, since his appearance in the philosophical world, came to be known as the “working class.”

My contention is that this movement would have been completely different had Marx engaged himself as a worker. Nevertheless, he had created a class with workers to be the fighters of revolution which was dear to him. But since then, class struggle, working class movements, revolution, communism, and Marxism have become inseparable terms. That, in fact, is the significant historic contribution of Marx.

Marx was able to create a working class consciousness which ultimately culminated in the creation of fallacious working-class movements.   

Marx always thought that workers were working very hard to meet both ends together. He never knew that workers were aspirational and were working hard in order to get out of the ‘working class’ and enter the portico of bourgeois class. The consistent endeavour of workers has always been to exit the working-class way of life at the first available opportunity. All hitherto existing history of working-class movements was the story of this exceptional carving to become capitalists with a definite desire to exploit fellow workers.

This desire is conscious, deliberate and determined.

Majority of today’s capitalists were yesterday’s workers and the majority of tomorrow’s capitalists shall be from today’s workers. It is an ongoing social process though it is also true that a majority of today’s workers shall remain as workers in spite of their hard work. At the same time, it could also be averred that a minority of tomorrow’s workers shall be from the category of today’s capitalists owing to their failures.

Such historic truisms prove beyond any scope for doubt that the classification of man into different categories shall not stand the test of time. It is at best only temporary in nature. This historic fact underlines the irrelevance of class. The concept has been academically erected and, hence, is impure, imperfect and a philosophical sacrilege.

Despite hard work and positive inclination, if a worker continues to remain a worker only, then it must be understood that there lies some mistake with the economic policies of that society. Opportunities shall arise in those societies where politicians consider economics as the centre theme of political activities.

Put differently, politics is the economic will of the society expressed in philosophical terms.  

Nobody likes to be a permanent worker and even a good number of workers do not like to be known as workers. Hence, they may find satisfaction if some adjectives are added in their trade names. Any form of ranking that enables social status or stratification is aspired by all form of workers, be it in the government, non-government or even unorganised sectors. As a result, even those who shout slogans like ‘Working Class Zindabad’ shall uncompromisingly insist on addressing them with their amusing identities that define their position in the social pecking order.

The moment a slogan-shouting demonstration is over, the greediness of career and wealth shall again haunt them. The desire to go up and ladder and achieve added adjectives shall alone lead them. They shall meekly submit themselves before the holocaust of a "class-struggle" for growth with a view to presiding over the fellow workers with whom they were earlier in workers’ solidarity.

Working class unity thus becomes a delusion to gather various aspirational segments of the work force, otherwise segregated into innumerable ranks and divisions. Naturally, when segregated into such fragmented structures, the committed concern of every average worker could be to aspire for and achieve higher growth and status and ‘class’ transformation.  

Why worker-capitalist stratification is illogical

“The proletarian has nothing to lose but their chains. They have the world to win”.

This is the closing sentence of the Communist Manifesto. This literal outburst is meaningless in the practical sense.

In addition to the elaborate explanation provided in the manifesto, Marx defined the act of workers through his primary work in “capital.” Here, he provides us with a unique formula to evaluate the market act of the worker. The formula is C-M-C (Community-Money-Community) and M-C-M (Money-Commodity-Money).

According to Marx, a worker has nothing to lose as he goes to the market of labour and sells his sole community, labour, and in turn obtains money with which he purchases commodities for his bare existence. As per Marx, at the end of the process of C-M-C, he once again retains his original position of having ‘nothing to lose’.

Put differently, whatever the worker earned by selling his labour has been exhausted for his survival and he once again continues in the “nothing to lose” category. Marx infers that this process goes on forever and that the worker always continues in the horror of “nothing to lose” category until his death.

The capitalist, on the other hand, is the person who has got anything to gain. He goes to the market of labour with money and purchases the one and only productive commodity, which is the labour power. The capitalist then engages it in the production process and sells that product and in return obtains money 1. As per Marx, at the end of the process of M-C-M-1, the capitalist not only gets the money that he invested in the process but also earns an added value which is 1. According to Marx, this process or cycle goes on forever and the capitalists continue to amass more and more wealth on account of the accumulation of added values in the capital.

Hence the capitalist is in the exploiter category. Here, I beg to differ from Marx’s findings on both counts. First, let us take the case of n.

The worker, who has “nothing to lose,” goes to the labour market, sells his commodity of labour power and obtains money with which he purchases the commodities for his survival. After completion of the process of C-M-C, the worker is left with a little bit of balance of money.

I will seek to revise the original formula of Marx from C-M-C to C-M-C-m. That is Commodity-Money-Commodity-money.

I call this surplus money, which an alert or ‘self-conscious’ worker saved from his earnings. This worker, who meticulously accumulates surplus money over a period of time, shall consequently become an owner of money with which he can surely change the course of his destiny, or, rather, the metamorphosis of worker to a capitalist. That is why I would like to always say that a major segment of today’s capitalists were yesterday’s workers.

Now, let us examine the case of M-C-M capitalists who have “got nothing to gain.” He goes to the labour market with his money, purchases the commodity of labour, engages in production and sells the finished product in the market and in return obtains money, and incurs in loss. Total success is not possible in the process of production. By conservative estimates, a marginat least al percentage of the process may end in failure.

Accordingly, the formula of M-C-M will, then, have to be re-written as M-C-m and that is Money-Commodity-money. By the accumulated loss of the processes, over a period of time, the capitalist will have to undergo metamorphosis to become a worker. That is why I always would like to say that a small percentage of today’s capitalists shall be tomorrow’s workers.

On the other hand, all that what is happening in the labour market is in no way completely good.

Today, a good number of unemployed manage to get a job by giving bribes. This is a normal practice in countries like India where people are encouraged to invest huge amounts in the form of bribes and other sundry expenses in order to get a visa to land in the Gulf countries.

In all the above-mentioned situations, the original formula will have to be re-written as M-C-M-C-m. That is the unemployed, like a capitalist first enter into the market with money to spend for bribe and sundry expenses. He then sells his commodity of labour power commodity and receives the money with which he could purchase commodities for his existence and is left with a balance of money.

This is not a simple narration, but something that is happening day in contemporary times. Here, may I ask the Marxist if he sees any difference between the act of a worker and that of a capitalist. There is no difference at all!

Today, the world has developed so much that one need not have money to start either a business or an industry. What is required, instead, is nothing but proper ideas, determination, and efficient management skills. For those with these dynamic qualities, funds are not at all a problem. There are plenty of credit organisations which are only eager to dump sufficient funds at one’s disposal.

In that case, the formula of M-C-M will have to be re-written as C-M-C-M-m. At first, the entrepreneur mortgages his properties and securities which are commodities in character with which be obtains money. He uses it to purchase commodities for production along with labour power and sells the finished product and at the end of the process, is left with a balance of money. Now, this is the usual practice followed by almost all so-called capitalists.

May I ask to Marxist – is there any material or substantial difference between M-C-M-C-m of the worker and C-M-C-M-m of the capitalist?

To me, both the worker and the capitalist are attempting acquire money, the former through the form of balance and the latter through the form of profit. What I am trying to establish is not something contradictory in nature but purely the impossibility of the classification of man either into a worker or capitalist or anything else? Each and every man is possessing the elementary essence of human instincts with which any man can become anything.

It is the same man who becomes both a worker and a capitalist. This divisive observation of Marxism is responsible for the concept of class and classification of man. Class concept is a myth; but Marx, the outstanding philosopher, made this myth appear as real.

That is one of the most important contributions of Marx which was a turning point in the history of mankind.

I am of the strong belief that man can develop any quality at the shortest possible time, a quality which man alone possesses in abundant quality. This is because man is essentially in possession of necessary pre-requisites, is the form of genes, with which he can develop any of the qualities at a given time of course, at the cost of all others. As long as things are going smoothly, he will continue to be known in that category, but the moment he completely fails in that particular category, he could be transported to an altogether different from and mode.

Hence, I boldly uphold the view that is the same person who becomes anything and everything, be it an emperor or a beggar. In philosophy, the difference between an emperor and a beggar is almost negligible.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class annihilation; something that may retort back.

Left to me, I consider that, it is the class concept which provides credence to both Aristocracy and Kingdom. And it is because of this vital reason, I always consider that the theory of class struggle is piloting the cause of aristocracy.