 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| HOME
|
How successful have Marx's successors been in writing his unfinished chapter on social classes?
'Here the manuscript breaks off...'
These are Frederick Engels' fateful words at the end of the third and final volume of Capital. Marx's magnum opus ends abruptly just as the author was beginning his discussion of the actual definition of 'What constitutes a class?' . This being the case, Marxist scholars have had to try and piece together an adequate definition, so that class is able to fulfil all the roles set for it in the rest of Marxist doctrine. A suitable definition must be found that allows for the structural determination of class, and also the formation of class consciousness required for class conflict and struggle. On top of this, the definition must stand up to modern empirical evidence of the rise of the middle class, and non-class based social divisions. The argument below will set out the attempts of modern scholars to form this definition, and assess their success or failure in meeting these criteria.
An important distinction that arises from Marxist literature is the difference between a klasse an sich or class in itself, and a klasse für sich or class for itself. Briefly, a class in itself is a class defined solely by its position in the relations of production. In other words, the proletariat is a class in itself simply because of each individuals lack of ownership of means of production, and the necessity for all of them to sell their labour power to capitalists. In order for the proletariat to become a class for itself, the economic criteria (the class in itself) must be added to by 'class consciousness, by the consciousness of common interests and by the psychological bond that arises out of common class antagonisms' (1). Before the problems of the transition from class in itself to class for itself are examined, the idea of class in itself will be examined.
Marx clearly provides a structural definition of class. This means that class is determined by position within the process of production. The relations of production, therefore are the main determinate of the social class structure. In a capitalist society, for example, there is a class of bourgeoisie, who are the owners of the means of production, and there is the proletariat, who own only their own labour force, and are obliged to sell it in order to get sustenance. A functional definition such as this overcomes many problems created by other measures of social class. To define class in terms of income immediately creates other problems such as where to place boundaries, and how to define income. The popular manual/non-manual worker distinction is very convenient in empirical studies, but is far too crude for any subtle abstract analysis. Few will disagree that this type of definition of class is what Marx intended.
Marx predicted that the general trend of classes in a capitalist society was for society to become progressively more polarised. This means that the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat should grow, as capitalists accumulate capital, and can therefore further exploit the working class. The visible rise of the middle class, however, poses a serious problem to the structurally determined view of class. At first glance, because most of the 'new middle class' are salaried managers and 'experts', they would seem to fall under the title of proletariat, as they own no means of production, and sell their labour power in order to survive. Most scholars find this description inadequate, as in reality, the political and ideological beliefs of the 'new middle class' fit in more with the bourgeoisie than the proletariat. Neo-Marxists now face the problem of explaining the 'new middle class' and incorporating this into Marxian doctrine.
Using slight variants on the same theme, several Marxist scholars have devised a method of describing the middle class as a 'contradictory class position'. Each formulation of this system is based on a slightly different view of class in general. The first of these is Stanislaw Ossowski's two criteria of class determination. His primary criterion is based on ownership, and as such corresponds to the example above - of class based on property relations. He adds to this a second criterion of work. This leads to the possibility of someone own means of production, but also working with those means. This area of the effectively self-employed takes the form of the intermediate class between the non-working owners and the propertyless workers. This intermediate class, as defined by Ossowski seems too narrow to be an accurate description of the 'new middle class'. Kolakowski (2) is guilty of the same narrowness. It does not include a large proportion of what we would call the 'new middle class' in the intermediate classes, such as managers and experts.
Erik Olin Wright defines class not simply as an ownership relation, but one of exploitation. He takes his lead from John Roemer who follows an extensive investigation into an economic definition of exploitation. Both Wright and Roemer conclude that the economic relations lead to relations of exploitation, and so have similar descriptions of the 'new middle class' to Ossowski and Kolakowski. Wright sees the 'new middle class' as being both exploited and exploiter, in that they tend not to own means of production, but may be able to extract surplus value form others either by simply being small employers themselves, or by owning certain 'skill or organisation assets'. In both the above descriptions of the position of the 'new middle class' an idea of 'contradictory class positions' is put forward. This means that the middle calls is defined because it seems to have attributes of both the bourgeoisie and proletariat. This is a helpful definition, but shows the awkward nature of the middle class for Marxist doctrine.
Up to this point, the investigation has been into the structural determination of classes in themselves. It can be seen that the problem of the rise of the 'new middle class' can be explained in terms of contradictory class positions. The test for this explanation of the middle classes comes when the transition to a class for itself is considered. A class for itself is how class struggle and ultimately revolution should, according to Marx, manifest itself. Continuing from the structural determinist view of class, and ignoring for a while the problems posed above, the 'classical' Marxist view of the transition is illustrated by G. A. Cohen. He claims that the structure of capitalism is such that it encourages the collectivisation of the proletariat, simply through the nature of the industrial mode of production. This couples with the class consciousness of mass experience of exploitation, and political organisations and associations will be formed.
The structural determinist view does not give an adequate answer to several questions surrounding class conflict. Firstly, there is no indication how the middle classes fit in to this picture. There is no indication of how a group with a 'contradictory class position' would act in this purely structural determination. The behaviour of the middle class for itself would appear to be schizophrenic, as it takes structural attributes from different classes. Secondly, the description of the formation of class consciousness is very vague. It has been made clear that class consciousness is required for class conflict. Georg Lukacs explains that,
'for a class to be ripe for hegemony means that its interests and consciousness enable it to organise the whole of society in accordance with those interests.' (3)
The actual formation of that class consciousness remains unclear. Generally, Marxists assume it will somehow automatically arise out of shared experience and exploitation. This assumption is difficult to justify.
Nicos Poulantzas puts forward a suggestion which side-steps the problem of the formation of the class consciousness. He claims that the degree of actual class consciousness is simply a matter of the historical situation at that time and place. In a capitalist society, no matter of time and place, there is class struggle, be it overt or implicit. The relations of exploitation are determined by the relations of production, but the political and ideological superstructure also help to define the class. These are determined by the economic base, so this remains an essentially structuralist position. He claims,
'the process of production and exploitation is at the same time a process of reproduction of the relations of political and ideological domination and subordination' (4)
The political and ideological position of the class, which is usually seen as a manifestation of the class consciousness, is here shown to be already determined by the economic structure. Poulantzas shows that the class consciousness visible at any particular time and place has been determined by the structural position of the class, as well as any historical and geographical factors which may affect the actual visible discourse.
Class struggle can now be seen as determined by the economic structure, and therefore will always exist, even if the class in question may not yet have any form of political association. The potential for actual overt struggle is set by the structure and the dominant mode of production.
It has been seen how neo-Marxists attempt to reconcile Marxist ideas with the problem of classes. Some criticisms are still levelled at the Marxist perception of class.
Firstly, followers of Max Weber criticise the fact that production-determined division are treated as primary. Frank Parkin claims that divisions such as race, religion and gender are equally salient, and are very often the basis for conflict. Marxist doctrine ignores these divisions, or treats them as secondary. Each type of division can be explained in Marxian terms. Ethnic or racial divisions are mainly geographical, and therefore play no part in the abstract nature of the economic structure. They are only added on top of the economic relations. Religion can either be viewed as part of the superstructure, and as such plays a role in the discourse and ideology of class divisions. It is also to a large extent historical.
Secondly, criticism comes from the feminist lobby. They argue that domestic labour has been ignored by Marxist philosophy, and should be included. Women can be seen as exploited, yet have played no significant role any class struggle. It is possible to include the family into the base and superstructure, and thus include women in the overall picture of a Marxist view of class.
In conclusion, neo-Marxists all agree on the basic nature of a class in itself. The structural determination of class is not questioned. Problems arise when the middle class has to fit into what is basically a dichotomous model. This problem also arises when looking at class struggle and consciousness. The vague nature of the creation of a class consciousness leaves Marxian doctrine open to criticism. It is possible to fend off most of the Weberian and feminist critics, and still remain on fairly solid ground. The unfortunate timing of Karl Marx's demise has left a large gap in Marxist doctrine. Modern Marxists continue to patch the whole in response to modern criticisms, but essentially, the body of Marxist philosophy survives.
- Stanislaw Ottowski The Marxian Synthesis 1963
- Leszek Kolakowski (1978) also puts forward two criteria, giving similar results through slightly different criteria. The first is the property criteria, the same as that of Ossowski. The second divides the propertied into the capitalists (those who acquire surplus value directly), and the landowners (those who acquire it through rent), and divides the propertyless into wage-earners (non-owners of means of production) and self-employed (those who own some means). As they are both initially based on the property relation, they both yield similar results, and have similar problems.
- G. Lukacs, Class Consciousness 1967.
- N. Poulantzas Classes in contemporary capitalism 1973.