ABSTRACT
We have already mentioned in Chapter 2 that our version of Marxian theory conjoins the methodology of overdetermination and the entry point of class (understood as processes pertaining to surplus labour) in order to define a unique economic cartography. In this chapter, we explicate further on this alternative economic cartography in a manner that suits our subsequent intervention with respect to development and dislocation. In the process of developing such a Marxian theory, we will be highlighting the contribution of each concept in the subsequent discussion on development-connected dislocation and resettlement.
Given the labour process that underlies the production of goods and services, Marxian theory begins with a fundamental distinction between necessary labour and surplus labour. The total labour time exerted by the direct producers in the process of the production of goods and services can be divided into necessary labour and surplus labour. Necessary labour comprises of the performance or ‘doing’ that pays off (in money or kind) for the socially determined basket of goods and services needed to sustain the worker or the direct producer. The necessary labour equivalent of labour time is remunerated. Performance of labour beyond necessary labour is called surplus labour. No payment is made to the direct producers for this surplus labour. Consequently, the labour process involving the production of goods and services embodies three components of labour time: (i) labour time that is embodied within the purchased means of production for which payment (in money or kind) has already been made; (ii) necessary labour time for which the direct producers are remunerated; and (iii) surplus labour time which remains unremunerated. The concept of class, following Marx, flows from the component of surplus labour (Resnick and Wolff 1987: Ch. 3). Surplus labour can take the form of surplus produce if the goods and services
(use values) are consumed without being monetarily exchanged. For example, in the household, the surplus labour performed by, say, a woman takes the form of surplus produce, which could be consumed by the men and children of the household. Here, surplus produce is that which is beyond the necessary
labour equivalent set aside for the woman (Fraad et al. 1994). Alternatively, surplus labour can take a value form expressed in money if the use value is exchanged for a price (exchange value). In the case of the latter, the value equivalent of surplus labour that is contained in the commodity is defined as surplus value. Together, surplus value (expressed as money) and surplus produce (expressed as use value) constitute the discretionary funds waiting to be distributed to the rest of society. Whether materializing as surplus produce or surplus value, surplus labour
is appropriated by some entity and distributed by the same entity (the appropriator). This distribution of surplus is necessitated because numerous individuals and groups activate various processes that provide conditions of existence to the processes of performance and appropriation of surplus labour. For securing these conditions of existence, the condition providers must be paid from the appropriated surplus. Thus, additionally, there are processes of distribution and receipt of surplus labour. The four processes of performance, appropriation, distribution and receipt of surplus labour are together denoted by the concept class which, for analytical convenience, is often subdivided into fundamental class process or FCP (performance and appropriation of surplus labour) and subsumed class process or SCP (distribution and receipt of surplus labour) (Resnick and Wolff 1987: Ch. 3). We define class struggle as struggles over class processes in which con-
tingently formed individual and social actors participate (Resnick and Wolff 1987: Ch. 3; Chakrabarti and Cullenberg 2003: Ch. 1 and 3). Class struggles take shape over the existence, size, manner and form of performance, appropriation, distribution and receipt of surplus labour. The critical point in Marxian theory is that the struggle is over an entity in society – here, class as processes of surplus labour. This understanding of class struggle is sharply distinguished from the traditional conception of class struggle as struggles between conscious, action-oriented people divided into groups named as classes. Class is a process and not a pre-given group of action-oriented people; the object of class struggle pertains to the process of surplus labour and not power, property or income. The agents of such struggles could come from various backgrounds and not necessary and exclusively belong to those personifying the site of the process over which the struggle is taking place. This implies that class struggle does not follow automatically from structurally given class positions; the agents and also the actual form of any class struggle materialize from a creative social practise that is contingent, open-ended andwhose result cannot be predicted; not only are class actors (those who struggle over class processes) contingent, but even the result of class struggle cannot be predicted. In contrast, struggles over non-class processes (race, gender, caste, etc.) are non-class struggles.
