marx's use of class by bertell ollman

7/25/2019 Marx's Use of Class by Bertell Ollman

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxs-use-of-class-by-bertell-ollman 1/9

Marx's Use of "Class"Author(s): Bertell OllmanSource: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 73, No. 5 (Mar., 1968), pp. 573-580Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2775559 .

Accessed: 25/09/2013 20:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2775559?origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://www.jstor.org/stable/2775559?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



Marx'sUse of Class

Bertell ilman

ABSTRACT

We

attempt

to

derive

Marx's

theory

of

class

through

he

way

he uses the

term,

ather

than through n interpretation

f his most general tatements n the subject,which s how

class has usually been approached.

Class is seen to refer o

social and economicgroupings

based

on

a

wide

variety

of standards whose interrelations re those Marx finds n the

real society under examination.By conceptualizing unity

of apparently distinct ocial

relations,

class

in

Marxism

s

inextricably ound up withthe truth f Marx's own anal-

ysis. ts utility s

a function f the

adequacy of this analysis.

What are the classes intowhichMarx

places the nhabitants f

capitalist ociety?

In Capital,

he

says

that

n

developed api-

talist ociety here s

only a capitalist

nd

a

proletarian

lass.' The

former,

ho are

also called

the

bourgeoisie,

re describedn

the CommunistManifesto s ownersof

themeans f ocialproductionnd

employ-

ers

of

wage abor. n

the same

place,

the

proletariat

re

said to be the class

of

modern wage-laborers

who, having no

means of productionf

their

wn, are re-

ducedto selling heirabor-powern order

to

ive. 2

But,

though

Marx

believed

uro-

pean capitalismwas sufficientlydvanced

for a

Communist evolution o occur,he

asserts elsewhere

n

Capital

that

three

classes-capitalists,

roletarians,nd land-

owners- constitute

n

theirmutualoppo-

sition

the

frameworkf

modern ociety. 3

For

Marx, he andowner lass s composed

of

owners

f

arge tracts f and and is al-

most lwaysfeudal n origin. as the tand-

ard by whichMarxassessesclass member-

ship altered?4

Even where he basis for distinguishing

classes ppears

to

be

a

group's

elations o

the prevailingmode

of

production,

he

question s

not the

simple

one

of

whether

there re two

or three

lasses,

orMarx

ap-

plies this label to several othereconomic

units.

Two

outstanding xamples

re the

petty bourgeoisie nd the peasants. The

formerre small

shopkeepers

ho

own

no

meansof production r, sometimes, very

tiny morsel, nd employat most a few

workers; nd the atter re theowners f

small

plots

of and which

hey

farm hem-

selves.

Their

respective elationso thepre-

vailing

mode of

production

n

capitalism

are not

those

of the

capitalists, he prole-

tariat, or

the

landowners.Where, then,

does Marx place small businessmen nd

peasants when

he

talks of society being

made

up

of three

lasses? Also, it is not

easy to draw he inebetween hese lasses.

I

Karl

Marx, Capital

(Moscow,

1957), II, 348.

2

Karl Marx

and Friedrich

Engels,

The Com-

munistManifesto,

translated by

Samuel Moore

(Chicago, 1945), p. 12.

3Marx,

Capital

(Moscow, 1959),

III, 604.

'

The

landownersare

included as one of

the

three great

social classes

mentioned n

Marx's

Introduction o the

Critiqueof

Political

Economy

andare referredoas a separate lass na number

of

other

places

( Introduction,

Contribution

to the

Critique

f

Political

conomy,

ranslated

by N. I.

Stone

Chicago,

904],p.

305).

In

The

Eighteenth

rumaire

f Louis

Bonaparte, ow-

ever,Marx

treats

hem

s a section

f

the bour-

geoisie,

laiming hat

large anded

property,

e-

spite

ts feudal

oquetry

nd prideof

race, has

been rendered

horoughly

ourgeois y

the

de-

velopments f

modern

society

(Marx,

The

Eighteenth

rumairef

Louis

Bonaparte n

Marx

and Engels,

elected

Writings

Moscow,

951],

,

248).

573

This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:33:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions







574 THE AMERICAN

OURNAL F SOCIOLOGY

At what

point does a small businessman

stop beingpetty

bourgeois nd becomea

capitalist?

How

much

and

does

a

peasant

have

to own beforehe becomes

a land-

owner?

Shouldwe

admit s classes ll thegroups

mentioned,here re

stillother lementsn

thepopulation

hat are difficult

o

place.

Are farm

aborers, or nstance,

roletari-

ans

or

peasants?

The inclusionof

rural

wageworkers s proletariat

s required

o

give validity o Marx's

claimthat

the pro-

letariat ontains

hevast majority f peo-

ple in capitalist society.5

He must have

been

aware

of the fact hat ndustrial

age

earnerswere a clearminorityn capitalist

Germany

t thattime.6 n at

least oneoc-

casion,Marx states

xplicitly

hat farm a-

borers

are

proletarians;yet,

the

whole

weight

f his treatment

f

the

proletariat

s

workers

n

industry rgues against

this.7

And,whenever

Marxparticularizes,

t is of

industrial orkers hat

he speaks.

Beyondthis,

here s an

indication hat

Marx

sometimes

xtends he

class

of

prole-

tarians

o

nclude mall-holdingeasants

s

well, s

whenhe states,

The owning eas-

ant does notbelong o theproletariat,nd

therewhere

he

does belong

o

it

by

his

po-

sition,

e does not believe that

he belongs

to

it. 8 Marx's

point

s thatbecause

of his

indebtedness

o various capitalists,

the

mortgage

n his

property,

tc.,thepeasant

does

notreally wn

his

plot of

and, nd is

actually

working

or

omeone

lse.

Bring-

ing the

peasantry ntothe proletariat

may

help accountfor

Marx's divisionof ad-

vanced capitalist

society nto two main

classes; the landowners nd the petty

bourgeoisie,we can assume, have

been

swept

underthe

rug

of

capitalist. Most

often

n

his writings,owever,

he

peasants

are referred o as a separate

class whose

distinctive ualities are aptlysummed p

in the phrase, class of barbarians. 9

Marx's contradictoryttempts

o

cate-

gorize

he

ntelligentsias extremelyeveal-

ing of the problems encountered

n

a

straight

conomic ivision

fsociety.

Usu-

ally,

he

speaks

of

doctors,awyers,

ournal-

ists,professors, riters,nd priests s the

ideological epresentativesndspokesmen

of the

bourgeoisie.10 eferring

o petty

bourgeois oliticians nd writers,

arx

ex-

plains thatwhatmakes themrepresenta-

tives f

this

lass is the factthat

n

their

mindsthey do not get beyond the limits

which he

atter

o not

get beyond

n

life,

that

they are consequently riven,

theo-

retically,

o

the ameproblem nd

solutions

to whichmaterialnterestnd social

posi-

tiondrive he atterpractically. '1

The relationshipetween he

ntelligent-

sia

and

the

capitalist

lass

is further

lari-

fiedwhere

Marx says

the

deologistsf

a

class

are

those who make

the

perfecting

ofthe llusion f theclassabout tself heir

chief

ources

f

ivelihood.

his,

he

claims,

is based on a division f labor

inside

the

class between

mental nd

physical

work.12

Though

it

would appear

to

be general,

Marx

carefully

estricts

is

own

applica-

tion of this

principle

o

the

bourgeoisie.

From

commentsuch as these,

he ntelli-

gentsia

nd

the

capitalists

tand

forth

s

brothers,

imilar t

the

core,

who are mere-

ly specializing

n

differentreas

of

capital-

ist

work. '13

'

Marx

and

Engels,

The German deology,trans-

Iated by R. Pascal (London,

1942), p. 69.

'See Edward Bernstein,

volutionarySocialism,

translated y

Edith

Harvey (London, 1909), p.

106.

'Marx says, The capitalist

tenanthas ousted

the peasant, and the real tiller f the soil is just as

much a proletarian, wage

worker, s is the urban

worker (H. Meyer, Marx on Bakunin:

A

Neg-

lected Text, Etudes de Marxologie, edited by

M. Rubel [October, 1959],

p. 109).

8

Ibid.,p. 108.

Marx,

Capital, III, 793.

10

Marx,

The

Class

Struggles

n

France,

Se-

lected

Writings,

,

129.

Eighteenth

Brumaire, op. cit.,

p.

250.

2

German

deology,

pp. 39,

40.

13

In

the Communist

Manifesto,

he

ntelligentsia

are

referred

o

as

the

paid

wage-laborers

f the

bourgeoisie

Communist

Manifesto,p. 16).

Marx's

terminologyhere

suggests

a

strong

likeness be-

tween

the intelligentsia

nd the

proletariat.

None-

theless,

he context

makes it

clear

that

their real

place evenhere s within hecapitalist lass.








MARX'SUSE OF

CLASS

575

Though hey

re usually ubsumed

nder

the capitalist

lass, this does

not preclude

Marx,on occasion,

from scribing

o

the

intelligentsia

status,

ot ustas a class,

but

as a cluster fclasses. n Capital,Volume

I,

forexample,he

speaks of them s

the

ideological

lasses. 14 If Marx sometimes

putsthe

ntelligentsiamong he

capitalists

and

sometimes

uts

them n their wn,

he

is obviously

hanging is criteria or

decid-

ingwhatconstitutes

class.

Besides referringo

capitalists,

roletar-

ians, landowners,

ettybourgeoisie,

nd

peasants,

class

is

also

used to

refer o

groupscarved

out of society

on another

basis thantheirrelations o the modeof

production.

uchgroups

requentlyontain

members rom

woor more f

the conomic

classesdealt

with bove.What

Marx calls

the

ideological

lass,

for xample, eems

to

be based on the

role

these

peopleplay

in society t

large,rather han

n produc-

tion.

The ruling lasses, nother

ocial

unit

found

n

Marx's writings,ppears

to have

been marked

out

by

the

same

measure:

those

ndividuals ho

take part

n

running

the country r who help decide how it

should

be run are

its members.'5n Great

Britain, he

ruling lasses are

said to

be

composed of the

aristocracy,

money-

ocracy, and

millocracy. '16

hus, they

include both

capitalistsand

landowners,

mostof whom

belong

to the aristocracy.

The

millocracy

efers o owners

f

fac-

torieswhich roduce

materials

or lothing:

and the moneyocracy,r

finance

ristoc-

racy,

refers o

bankers

nd the ike,

who

earn their ntrancentothecapitalist lass

as hirers f

wage labor

and by virtue

f

theirmonetary

ealings with industrial-

ists.17

Marx also speaks

of a lower middle

class

which

ncludes the small manufac-

turers, he shopkeeper, he artisan, the

peasant. 118

his class, t appears, icks up

some members from

all the economic

classes

mentioned

arlier.What s the cri-

terion by which Marx

determineswho

belongs

o the

ower

middle lass? Judging

by

its

membership,t could be income,

power, r

even

distance rom he extremes

of

nvolvement

n the

class struggle.

One

last example:

what are we to make

of the

group Marx calls the dangerous

class, otherwise nownas the Lumpen-

proletariat, hich s said to be composed

of

the social scum,

hat passively otting

mass thrown ff y the

owest ayers f old

society ?19

t

is

spoken

f

elsewhere

s a

recruitinground or

hieves nd criminals

of all

kinds, iving

n the

rumbs

f

society,

peoplewithout definite

rade, agabonds,

peoplewithout hearth

r a home. 20

y

what standarddoes Marx

judge

member-

ship

n this

lass?

It

seemsto

be a

gather-

ing place for all the unemployed oor,

though

Marx's

term,

dangerousclass,

suggests certain ctioncriterion

s well.

The

Lumpenproletariat

ell

their services

to the

bourgeoisie,

ho use them

s

strike-

breakers,

abor

spies,

and

fightersgainst

the

workers

n

times

of

revolution. uch

are their actions which make them

the

dangerous lass. 2'

The

plurality f

criteria

Marx uses

in

constructing

lasses

s

reminiscentf

pres-

ent-day onfusionn this ubject. t is not

enough

to

argue-as some

have-that

1 Marx,

Capital, ranslatedby Samuel Moore

and Edward Aveling Moscow, 1958), I, 446.

'f

Of this class, Marx says, the class, which

is

the rulingmaterialforce of

society, s at the same

time ts ruling ntellectual orce

(German deol-

ogy,p. 39). Though Marx

uses the expression rul-

ing class in ways which suggest more functional

definition,

his statementdoes

serve

notice where

the real power

of

any ruling

class lies for Marx.

6Marx,

The Future

Results of

BritishRule

in

India,

SelectedWritings,

, 321.

'Elsewhere,

the latter

group,or

some

part of

it-the

big money enders nd usurers-is labeled

a class

of

parasites (Capital, III, 532).

Communist Manifesto,p. 27.

19

bid.

20

Class

Struggles

n

France,

Selected

Writings,

I, 142.

'

Engels,

it is

worth noting, has even more

referents or class than Marx, especially

n

Ger-

many: Revolution and Counter Revolution.








576

THE AMERICAN OURNAL

F SOCIOLOGY

Marx's

idea

of

class

develops

over

time,

for many

of

the complications

we

have

drawn

ttention

o are

found

n

thesame

work

r

in

writings

f the same

period.

f

readers f thisarticlewill checkthecita-

tions

which

correspond

o

my footnotes

1,

3, 9,

14, and 17,

they

will ee a

sampling

of the

various

ndapparently

ontradictory

uses

of class

in

the

volumes

f

Capital.

The

conclusion

emains

hat,

for

variety

of

purposes,

Marx

divides

ociety

p

in

as

manydifferent

ays, peaking

f

the

parts

in

eachcase

as

classes.

Anyattempt

o

explain

Marx's

practice

must

tartwith

the admission

hat

Marx

uses this term oosely,oftenputting t

forward

s a synonym

or group,

fac-

tion,

r layer.

This

was

only n

keeping

with

the imprecise

se

of

class

which

Rolf

Dahrendorf

nforms

s was typical

f

hisperiod.22

Where

Marxspeaks

of

ruling

classes,

groups

or factions

ould

be

substituted

or

classes'

without

nyalter-

ation

in

the

meaning.

Marx

himself ses

ruling

lass

and

rulingfaction

nter-

changeably

n

one instance

o

refer

o

the

same

people.23

Groups could also be

substituted

for

classes

without any

change

of

meaning

in the

expression

ideological

lasses ;

and

either

group

or layer

would

serve

for class

where

Marx talks

ofthe

dangerous

lass.

With

all due

allowance

made for

loose

word

usage,

however,

Marx

cannot

escape

the

more

erious

ccusation

f

having

litter

of standards

orclass

membership

nd

of

changing

hemwithout rior

warning.

The

implications

f

this disorder

for

Marx's class

analysis fsociety houldnot

be carried

oo

far,

ince

Marx's tripartite

division

of

society

nto capitalists,

role-

tarians,

nd

landowners

s

the prevalent

one,

and

it is

also

the classification

ost

in

keeping

with

his

other

heories.

ence,

we

may

in

fairness

ub

it the

Marxist

system

f

classes.

The other

lasses

men-

tioned

anbe made more

r less

consistent

with hisdivision

n the

basis of

hints

Marx

dropsbut

nowhere evelops.

These

hints

are found n his expressions,subdivisions

of classes

and transitionlasses. 24

he

former

elps us

comprehend

ccupational,

income,and

functional

nits

withinthe

threegreat

lasses based

on differing

ela-

tions o

theprevailing

modeofproduction.

Millocracy,moneyocracy,

nd shipbuilders

are all subdivisions

f

the

capitalist

lass,

just

as

skilled

and unskilled

workers re

subdivisions

f the proletariat.

The concept f

transition

lass can

be

used to justify eavingout of the more

general

presentations

f the class

system,

those groups

which re

in

the

processof

disappearing.

mall-holding

easants

and

petty

bourgeoisie

re among

the classes

Marx sees

disappearing

n his own day.25

A stumbling lock

to taking his

way out

is

that transition

lass

is a highly

ub-

jective

concept

even within

Marx's

own

analytical

framework;

ny class,

after

ll,

can be viewed s passing

out

of the

pic-

ture, depending n the timespan under

consideration.

We

saw

Marx

claim

that,

in

fullydeveloped

apitalism,

nly capi-

talist

and a proletarian

lass exist;

there-

fore,

f

this

s the

period

one has

in

mind,

all

other

lasses are

transitional.

fter

he

proletarian

evolution,

owever,

he

capi-

talist

class, too,

disappears;

and,

when

communismrrives,

he

proletariat

s

well

dissolves

nto

the

community.

ll

refer-

ences

to transition

lasses,

therefore,

f

they retoconvey nymeaningt all,must

make explicit

he

time

period

under

con-

sideration.

Marx's only

attempt o present

con-

nected

ccount f

class appears

t the

end

22Rolf Dahrendorf,

Class

and

Class

Conflict

n

Industrial

Society,

translated

y the author

(Lon-

don,

1959),

p. 4.

3 Class

Struggles

n France,

Selected

Writings,

I, 130.

24Marx,

The Bourgeoisie

and

the

Counter-

Revolution,

SelectedWritings,

, 63;

Eighteenth

Brumaire,

electedWritings,

,

253.

2

Communist

anifesto,.

16. Many

groups,

such

as the petty

bourgeoisie,

all

ntoboth

of the

above categories;

hey

re a subdivision

f

the capi-

talist

class and,

for

the period

in which

Marx

is

writing, transition lass as well.








MARX'SUSE OF CLASS 577

of Volume

II

of

Capital,

but, unfortu-

nately, e never

ompletedt.26Fromthese

fewparagraphs,

e learn thatwagelabor-

ers, capitalists,

nd landownersonstitute

thethree argeclassesof modern ociety,

Yet, he admits hat, ven

n

England

where

capitalism

s

mostdeveloped,

thestratifi-

cation

f

classes

does not

appear

n its

pure

form.

Middle and intermediatetrata

ven

hereobliterateines of demarcation

very-

where

although

ncomparably

ess

n

rural

districts, han

n the

cities).

He

believes

that

developments

n

capitalist ociety

re

speedilyreducing ll such strata

ntothe

capitalist

or

proletarian lass.

The

land-

owners, oo, reshortlyogo the ameway.

With

the

growing

divorce between

the

meansof production

nd labor,Marx sees

all

workers

ventually ecoming

wage

la-

borers.

As

for

apitalists,

he trend oward

increasing oncentration

n

industry

n-

larges heholdings

fsome ust as

it forces

others nto

the

proletariat.

Marx

replies

o his

own

question,

What

constitutes class? with another,

What

makeswage aborers, apitalists,

nd land-

lords constitutethe three great social

classes?

The

fragment

e left

behind

on-

tainsonly

he first

art

of his

answer:

At

first

lance-the

identity

f

revenues

nd

sources

of

revenue.

There

are

three

great

social

groupswhosenumbers,

he individ-

uals forming

hem, ive on wages,profit,

and

ground

ent, espectively,n

the

reali-

zation

of their

abor-power,

heir

capital,

and

their

anded

property.

Marx recog-

nizes thatthis standard lso enables

phy-

sicians and officials o be spoken of as

classes,

for

theybelong

o

two

distinct

groups receiving

heirrevenues rom ne

and

the

same

source.

The

samewouldalso

be true

of

the infinite

ragmentations

f

interest nd rankinto which the

division

of

social labor splits aborersas

well

as

capitalists nd landlords-the

atter, .g.,

into owners of

vineyards, armowners,

owners

f

forests,

mine

ownersnd owners

of fisheries.

ere,

the

manuscript

reaks

off.When

concentratingn theproblem f

class,

Marx

takes a

stand against

ffixing

this

abel to all kinds f ocial nd

economic

groups,which s something e himself as

guilty

f.

From

our

study of

Marx's use of the

term class, we can

suggest owhewould

have finished his

account.The

qualifica-

tions

for onstituting class that

capital-

ists possess and physicians o not are

as

follows:

he

capitalists ave a direct

per-

atingrelationshipo

the

mode

of

produc-

tion,while

hysicianso not; the

capitalists

have

distinct conomic nterests the

size

of theirprofit)based on these relations

which

place

them n

conflict iththepro-

letariat and

landowners,

he

other two

groupsdirectly

nvolved

n

capitalistpro-

duction,while

the

economic

nterests

f

physicians-thougheaning toward those

of

the

capitalists

n

present ociety-are

really ompatible ith he

nterests f any

of

the

hree

reat

lasses;

the

apitalists

re

conscious

of

their

uniqueness

s

a

class

with

nterests

hat re

opposed

to

those

f

the two other main classes in society,

while

hysicians,

ven

f

they

re

conscious

of

themselves

s a

distinct

roup,

do

not

view their

nterests s being opposed

to

thoseof

others;

the

capitalists re organ-

ized

in

one

or more

political

arties,

which

work o

promote

heir

nterests,

hile

phy-

sicians-despite

their

pressuregroup

ac-

tivity-have

no

such

organization;

nd,

finally, apitalistsexhibit

a general

cul-

tural

ffinity,way

of

ife

nd

set

of

social

values, which mark them offfrom the

proletariatnd the

andowners,

hile

phy-

sicians

s a

group

have

no

such

distinguish-

ingfeatures.27

A

thread

which uns

hrough

ll of these

criteria s the

hostility class

displays

for

'Unless otherwise

ignified,hat

follows omes

from apital, II, 862-63.

'

Whether

he

culture, ay of

life, nd social

valuesof

capitalistseally iffer ore rom

hose

of other sections

f

the

population han the

equivalentttributesf physicians

s not at issue.

All that

oncernss s thatMarxthoughthey id,

for

thisbeliefwas an importantlementn

his

constructionfclasses.








578

THE

AMERICAN OURNAL

F

SOCIOLOGY

its

opponentclasses. Whether

n work,

politics,or

culture, n

essentialdefining

characteristicf

each class

is

its

antago-

nism in

this same

sphere to others.For

the capitalists, hiscan be seen in their

hostile

relations o the

workers nd the

landowners t the

pointof

production,

n

their

political

struggle o promotetheir

interests t the

expense of these classes,

and

in the

cultural

sideswipes

they

are

forever

directing

gainst them. Of the

bourgeoisie, arx

says, The separate n-

dividuals

orm class

n

so far s

they ave

to carryon

a common attle

against an-

other

lass: otherwiseheyare

on hostile

termswitheach otheras competitors. 28

This common

attle s fought n

as many

fronts s there re

criteria or onstituting

a

class.

On

each

front,

t

is the

fact of

battle

tself

which arns achside

ts abel.

Hence,

Marx calls a society

where nly ne

class

exists,

uch

as occurs

fter

he prole-

tarian

evolution, classless

ociety.With-

out

an enemy, he

antagonistic ature of

the

proletariat isappears nd with

t

the

designation

class. Who

is

the

enemy?

is a question hat can be asked whenever

Marx

uses

class.

The secret f

class

in

Marxism

ies hid-

den

in

the

socialist

philosopher's oncep-

tualization

f it

as a

complex

ather

han

a

simple relation.

n

class

Marx

con-

flatesa

numberof

social ties

(relations

between

groups

based

on

various stand-

ards)

which are

generally reatedsepa-

rately.

He

views

them s

interactingarts

of an

organicwhole,

he

ociety

n

question,

such thatdevelopmentn any one neces-

sarily ffects

more

r

ess,

ooner

r

ater)

the

others.

he

mistake

made

in

virtually

all

treatments

f this

subject,

a

pit

we

could

only climb out of

after

falling

n

ourselves,s

to seek

after unidimensional

meaning.

But, by this

maneuver, lass is

distorted

o

the

number f

majorelements

left

unreported.

he

various

criteria

for

establishinglass,

therefore,imply

eflect

the

wealth of

social

relations

hat

Marx

seesbound

up in

it.

Only

n

advanced

capitalism

s

it possi-

ble

for

group

o

qualify

s

a

class on

all

the criteria have listed.Hence, Marx's

assertion

hat

class is

a

productof

the

bourgeoisie. 29

o take

just one

instance,

the

absence

of

effective

ommunication

n

earlier

periods

inhibitsthe

exchangeof

information

nd

contactswhich

s

essen-

tial for

class

formation.

n

awareness f

common

nterests

s well

as

co-ordinated

action

to promote hem

re

impossibilities

for

people

iving

n

scattered

ommunities.

But

if class

is a

product

f

capitalism,

howcan Marx speak of all historys the

history

f class

struggle r

refer-as he

frequently

oes-to the

distinguishingo-

cial

divisions

f

previous

pochs

as class-

es ?30

To

answer

this

query is

also to

demonstrate

ow

he

was

able to refer

o so

many

groups in

capitalist

society

as

classes. It is

simplythat

Marx

applies

this

abel

if

a

group

measures

p

to only

some

of the

above

standards.

Whichthese

are varies

with

his

purpose

n

making

he

particularlassification.his is thenubof

the

explanation

or

Marx's

apparent

on-

fusion

ver

class.

If

we

want

to

discover

the

relevant

riteria

n

each

case,

we

must

follow

up

our

question,

Who

is the en-

emy?

with

one,

Why

are

they

the

en-

emy?

Nothing

hat

has

been

said

absolves

Marx

from he

accusation

f

using

class

2

German

deology,

pp.

48-49.

29Ibid.,p. 77. This is not to

say that everycapi-

talist ocietyhas a fully

eveloped ystem fclasses.

Marx

refers

o

the United

States as a place where

although lasses lready exist, heyhavenotyet be-

come

fixed,

ut

continually

hange

nd

interchange

their elements

in constant flux

( Eighteenth

Brumaire, SelectedWritings,

, 232). Marx

never

adequately explains this

exception.

s

He says, The history f all

hitherto xisting

society

s

thehistory

f class

struggles

Commu-

nistManifesto,

.

12). In a footnote o the

1888

Englishedition, ngels qualifies his

wherehe says,

that is, all

writtenhistory. He points out that

in

1848 Marx and he did not know

about the

existence f

primitive

ommunism

ibid.).

n

any

case, Engels' qualification

does

not affect ur

use

of

this

statement.








MARX'S

USE

OF CLASS

579

loosely,

ut

it shouldhelpus comprehend

what

ies

behind his

usage.3'

Whether

t was

proper

f Marx to

apply

the abel

class on the

basis

of

only

few

ofthe relevant riterias opento dispute,

but

thathe could

notwaitfor ll of

them

to be

satisfied efore

usingthis

term

s

clear.

Otherwise, e would

have defined

himself ut

of the running,

or even

the

capitalists

nd theproletariat

re

occasion-

ally seen

to

be

without omeof

the

requi-

site attributes.

e

says

of the

proletariat,

for xample,

Thus this mass

s already

class

in

opposition

o

capital,

but

not

yet

a class for tself. 32

he missingngredient

is class consciousness, he proletariat's

comprehension

f

their ife

situation

nd

their cceptance

f the interests nd

ene-

mies

which ccrue

o t.

Elsewhere,

Marx suggestsheproletariat

are

not

a class, because

they ack a class-

wide

political

organization.

n a letter o

Kugelmann,Marx

speaks of his program

for

he

GenevaConference

f the

First n-

ternational

s helping the

organizationf

the

workers

nto class. 33

n theCommu-

nistManifesto, e specificallyinks hisup

with

the formationf a

politicalparty.34

Insofar

s class consciousness

emains he

achievement f a few, nd

before uch a

party

exists,

the

proletariat,

ven

in the

most

advanced

capitalistic ocieties,

ack

twomajor qualifications

or onstituting

class.35 similar reakdown

ouldbe made

of

the capitalists

nd, in fact, of

all the

grouns

Marx

calls

crJq.p36

There

is a still

more formidable bjec-

tion

to Marx's

use

of class.

Besides

changing

is

standards

when

moving

rom

one group

o

the

next,

hesame

group-as

indicatedby its popularname-may be

given

ts measure

y a variety f

tandards.

Depending n

his purpose,Marx

maymean

by proletariat

ll wage

earners,he sim-

plest

and largest

net

of all. Or

he

may

meanthosewho

pass oneor any

few fthe

income,

ultural, olitical,

nd

social tests

that

have been isted.

With

the

hift

n

cri-

teria, here s

a shift, ften f

hugepropor-

tions,

n

the

number fpeople

referredo.

This

explains, f course,

why ome

groups

-peasants, rural workers, ntellectuals,

and shopkeeperseing

the

prize

examples

-are sometimes ound

n one class

and

sometimes

n

another.

his objection

might

have

proved atalfor hose

wishingo com-

prehend

Marx's views

bout

his contempo-

raries

f certain rends

were not

apparent

in

his

use of class abels.

Generally, arx's

comments

n the

proletariat

nly apply

to industrial

age earners,nd

his descrip-

1

To make his

pluralityof

standards

explicit,

whichwe would have liked,would have made it

necessary or Marx

to tellmore than

he had time

for.

t

is

simply that the

requirements

f

getting

on

with his

task of the moment

orcedhimto

sub-

sume

a greatdeal of

therelationshe was

treating.

On the one

occasionwhen

he soughtto sketch

out

the

main relations n

class, death

intervened.

2Marx, he

Poverty f

Philosophy

Moscow,

n.d.), p.

195.

'

Marx,

Letters

o

Dr.

Kugelmann

London,

1941), p.

19.

'

Communist anifesto,

. 26.

35

These deficiencies

re closely

related. ncreased

class consciousness dvances the cause of

political

organization y

creating reaternterest

n it, while

organizational

ctivity

heightens lass

consciousness

throughthe

propaganda it

makes

possible. Both

deficienciesisappear

with the

further evelopment

of

the

capitalistmode of

production:Marx

says,

The

organizationof

revolutionary lements s

a

class

supposes the existence

of all the

productive

forces

whichcould be

engendered

n

the bosom

of

the old

society (Poverty f

Philosophy,

. 196).

3'

The mostexplicit

tatement f this

duality

oc-

curs

n

regard

o the French

mall-holdingeasants,

of

whom Marx

says,

In

so far

as millions of

families iveundereconomic onditions f existence

that

separatetheir

mode of

life, heir nterests

nd

their

culturefrom

those of other

classes, and put

them n

hostileopposition to

the atter, hey form

a

class. In so

far as there s

merely local inter-

connection

between these

small-holding easants,

and the

identity f their nterests

egets no com-

munity, o national bond

and no political

organi-

zation

among them, they do

not

form a class

( Eighteenth

Brumaire,

elected

Writings

, 303).

It

appears that

economically

and

culturally

the

peasants are a

class,

but

as regards lass

conscious-

ness and

politics,they are

not.








580

THE

AMERICAN OURNAL

F SOCIOLOGY

tions

of

capitalists re

usuallymeant for

large

merchantsnd bankers s well

as for

the ownersof

the means of production.

These are the chief

characters n Marx's

realistic rama,Capital.

This

brings

s to

thenext nd, formany,

obvious question, How useful s

Marx's

concept f class'?

But, if our statement

of what

Marx meantby class -garnered

from is

actual use of the term-is

correct,

thisquestion imply

masks another

more

profound

one concerning he utility

of

Marxism tself. y

conceptualizing unity

of

apparently

distinct

social

relations,

class is inextricablyound up

with the

reality ftheunity o posited, hat s, with

the truth f Marx's ownanalysis.

For the

interwovenriteria

Marx used forunder-

standing

hat onstitutes class represents

the result f his empirical

ocial studies.

It

is

only,

n

other

words, ecause

Marx

found

groups

n his

society

with different

relations

o

the

prevailing

modeof produc-

tion,

sets of

opposing

economic nterests

based

on these

relations,

corresponding

cultural

nd

moraldifferentiation,

grow-

ing consciousnessmongthesegroupsof

their

uniqueness

nd accompanying

nter-

ests,

and-resulting

fromthis

conscious-

ness-the

development

f social and

po-

litical organizations

hich

promote

hese

interests

hat he constructed is

peculiar

concept

of class.

Of

overriding

mpor-

tance

s

that class

in

Marxism s not ust

a

label

for

groups

arved

ut

of society

n

the basis of

a

discernible

et of

standards,

butexpressess wellthe nvolvednterac-

tionwhichMarx believed

he uncoverede-

tween

hese

tandards.37

hen ritics,uch

as R. N.

Carew-Hunt, herefore,

sk com-

plainingly orMarx's

definitionf class.

they re asking, n

effect, or the

latter's

analysis

of

capitalist lass society;

and

it

is understandablehat Marx had difficulty

in reconstitutinghis analysis

n

the form

of a definitionor class. 38

For thosewho accept Marx's version f

capitalist ocial relations,hekey concepts

in which t is couched re second nature;

class serves as a necessaryvehiclefor

conveyingwhat Marx taught.

For

those

who do

not

shareMarx's

analysis,

r

some-

thing lose to it, usinghis concept class

can onlydistort hattheyhave to say. We

are

not nterested ere n

theutility f this

concept s an aid

in

presentingMarxism

when the

purpose

s

to criticize he doc-

trine.Nor should our conclusion e taken

as an argument gainst using the word

class

in

somenon-Marxistense, s long

as

this s

made clear. One can define he

word class to suit practically ny end,

but it

is altogether nothermatter o use

Marx's concept class in ways other han

he did himself.

Words

re

the

property

f

anguage,

ut

concepts-and class

is

both

word nd a

concept-belong

o a

particular hilosophy

(way

of

viewing

he

world)

and share

n

all ofthe atter's niqueness. s a concept,

class

cannot e detached

rom

he truc-

turedknowledget seeks to express nd

of

which

t

is,

in

the

ast

analysis,

n

integral

part.

Does

Marx

provide

n

adequate

ac-

count f

social

relations

n

capitalism?

t

is

on the

nswer

o this

uestion hat

heutil-

ity of Marx's conceptof class hinges.39

37The interaction fferedhere is not

meant to

be

complete.

One

whole

area

which has not been

taken account of at all has to do with

the role of

class

in

Marx's

theory

of

alienation.

'R. N. Carew-Hunt,

The Theory nd Practise

of Communism London, 1963), p. 65. As we have

indicated,one possible exception to this rebuke s

the short, unfinished hapter on class in Capital,

III, 862-63.

S It is our view that the same analysis could be

made of Marx's other key concepts- class strug-

gle, value, surplus-value, freedom, labor-

power, alienation, etc. Like class, each ex-

presses an aspect of the social reality Marx

believes he uncovered, and,

like

class,

the

full

meaningMarx attaches to these concepts an only

be decipheredby examininghow he actuallyuses

them n his writings.All of them

are

equally un-

available

to

those

who

would

use

them

to

express

non-Marxistviews.

This content downloaded from 128 104 46 206 on Wed 25 Sep 2013 20:33:51 PM


marx's use of class by bertell ollman

Documents