Marxist and Neo-Marxist Theories of Class

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. A Brief Account of Class Theories

2. Marx’ Theory of Class and Class Struggle

3. Class Analysis of Max Weber

4. Neo-Marxist Class Theories
4.1 Class in Neo- Marxist Political and Economical Structuralism
4.2 The Role of the State in Neo- Marxist Class Theory

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Ever since the early beginnings of human civilization there has been the startling question of what constitutes and determines one’s social relations. Is the character of society as a whole shaped by the social forces existent in it or is the social differentiation a product of a particular political or cultural system? While apparently even the most ancient societies exhibited a clear distinction between those who exercised power and those who did not it has been left to numerous philosophers to provide sufficient and satisfying answers to the questions of where this distinction originates from and how, if at all, it can be justified.

A usual and logical starting point is whether one believes if an original stage or a state of nature had existed from which the first societies emanated. Indeed, the state of nature and its characteristics have been one of the most persistent themes in political philosophy. Interpretations ranged from perceptions of the state of nature as a “state of war” (Hobbes) to rather romanticized ideas of an innocent savage world (Rousseau) and, finally, to the theory that it had been the ideal, although primitive society characterized by harmony between and among humanity and nature (Marx). Depending on these interpretations one could attempt to somehow restore this original stage or at least certain features of it or to utilize it as a justification for the building of society. A constant state of war is not desirable after all.

If a state of nature had existed, what happened in it that started what we perceive of as human civilization? Virtually all of the great thinkers agree that the appropriation of property played in one way or another a significant role in this process. For Rousseau, whoever was the first to appropriate property is the one to blame for civilization’s evils such as war and poverty.^[1]

Once the first claim to property had been made both the claim and the property had to be defended and justified and thus the foundations for society’s political, legal and maybe even cultural institutions were laid. Logically, these were to a large extent shaped by the interests of those possessing property.

It is on these assumptions that modern class theory is built. Although the idea of economic determinism, i.e. the belief that the entire life is dependent on one’s economic situation, had been present long before it was Karl Marx who was the first to develop a comprehensive framework around this idea. This paper attempts to outline the important features of Marxian class theory and to introduce some of the developments which took place in its tradition.

1. A Brief Account of Class Theories

The social composition of a society is likely to be in an interdependent relationship with its political, structural, and cultural characteristics. Theories regarding the “social dimension” of Comparative Politics therefore constitute one of the main pillars of the discipline’s conceptual framework.^[2] It is widely accepted that humans are social beings who form groups based upon certain shared attributes in order to promote common interests. The problem however is to determine what develops first: the common interest or the group? Although this question may seem rather simple answering it in one way or the other leads to far- reaching consequences. The liberal view generally emphasizes the supremacy of the individual. The individual has a particular interest and forms a group with other individuals who happen to have the same or a similar interest. Thus, the process of group- building is generated because its individual members realize that the prospects of achieving their interest will be greatly enhanced if they combine their efforts. It follows from this that an individual in order to pursue different interests could be a part of several groups which have no connection which each other. Robert L. Dahl introduced the term “polyarchy”, i.e. “rule of the many”, describing a society in which “the democratic goal is still roughly and crudely approximated, [but] in the sense that non- leaders exercise a relatively high degree of control over leaders”.^[3] A polyarchic society allows its citizens to articulate and pursue their individual interest which will lead to an “organizational pluralism”. The consequence of the competing interests of groups and individuals is “conflictive pluralism”, but this conflict will be tamed “through institutional devices in the context of polyarchy”.^[4] Essentially society becomes a market place and the state may either participate or play the role of a mediator.

In contrast to this there is the assumption that humans are naturally group- oriented; i.e. they form groups because it is a part of their nature. If this is true, it is quite logical to conclude that group- building does not necessarily have to be a conscious process. Groups may not be formed by people but rather according to one or several attributes people share. People who have certain attributes in common will usually be made aware of that fact by others. This is for instance the case if racial attributes are applied: For white racists, a black is a black regardless of the African region he may hail from. The Nazis in Germany labelled people as Jews no matter if they were actually practitioners of that religion or not. In India, the attribute determining one’s place in the caste system is birth.

As we have seen there is a great variety of attributes and this leads us to the question which of them are legitimate, or which of them are the crucial ones in determining the social affiliation of people.

A “class” can be understood as a distinctive social group whose common attribute is a similar economic situation of its members. Thus, a class comes into existence because people are bound by an “economic determinism”, i.e. one’s economic situation is the decisive factor in life’s development.^[5]

However, even among those viewing the economic position as the most important feature disputes arise over the question what the significance of this assumption is. Thus, we are confronted with different concepts such as exploitative and exploited classes (Marx) or the ruling class (Pareto). While Karl Marx builds his entire concept of historic materialism upon economic determinants the elite theorist Wilfredo Pareto criticises Marx for doing so because he believes that other attributes matter as well in shaping a common interest. Therefore these attributes should not be totally disregarded. According to Pareto, Marx’ error “stands in having changed [...] interdependence [of attributes] to a relationship of cause and effect”.^[6]

In our times people are accustomed to think of upper, middle, and lower classes. Again, these are connected to economic factors such as income but there won’t be many objections to the argument that attributes such as education or profession play a role as well.

The sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf made an attempt to bridge Marx’ and Pareto’s conceptions of class while at the same time incorporating pluralist ideas of individual motivation as the basis for group- building as well. According to Dahrendorf, class conflict is a result of political, not economic, factors. Thus, the conflict is between those who have political power and those who have not. Furthermore he asserts that classes seem rather to be “composed of individuals who appear to have individual ends in view, not group ends”.^[7]

Notwithstanding the fact that the importance of attributes other than economic ones has been generally acknowledged class theory has to a large extent evolved from the Marxian perception of class and class struggle. Marxist and Neomarxist class theories shall therefore be the focal point of this paper.

2. Marx’ Theory of Class and Class Struggle

“Philosophers have explained the world; [but] it is necessary to change the world”.^[8]

As the Marxian conception of class and class struggle is an integral part of his historical analysis it seems appropriate to briefly discuss his main ideas.

The arguably most significant intellectual influence on Marx came from another German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel developed his concept of dialectic which is based on the assumption that only through the contradictions between opposing partial truths (thesis and antithesis) a higher truth (synthesis) can be attained.

In his analysis of historic development Marx arrived at the conclusion that production is the most dominant force in human history on which any social order is based. The obvious reason for this is “the simple fact that human beings must have food, drink, clothing and shelter first of all …”^[9] Production should be understood in the broadest sense: it comprises the entire economic activities in a society. Production depends on the forces of production, which are the sum of the means of production and labour forces. People have to enter into relations of production which they cannot influence. As obviously everyone possesses a certain degree of labour power what is decisive in determining one’s relation of production is whether he has access to means of production or not. The more advanced a society becomes the more important is access to or possession of means of production. In an agrarian society one may be able to produce sufficiently enough to secure survival by simply using his own hands but in an industrialized society, notwithstanding an information society, this will become increasingly difficult.

According to Marx, society can therefore be divided into two basic classes: one is in possession of means of production, the other is not. It follows from this that those who are in possession of means of production are able to dictate the relations of production to the have- nots; i.e. the latter have to enter into relationships of production less favourable to them. As therefore these relationships obtain an exploitative character Marx distinguishes between an exploiting class and an exploited class.^[10]

[...]

^[1] Wolff 2006, p.138

^[2] Chilcote 2000, pp. 83ff.

^[3] Robert L. Dahl cit. in: Waste 1987, p. 1.

^[4] Dogan 1990, p. 65.

^[5] Michels 1949, pp. 10 ff.

^[6] Pareto cit. in Michels 1949, p. 19.

^[7] Lopreato/ Hazelrigg 1972, p. 4.

^[8] Karl Marx cit. in: West 1958, p. 29.

^[9] Friedrich Engels cit. in: Worsley 2002, p. 39.

^[10] Johari 2006, p. 328.