Teoria de Clases o Analisis de Clases-rexaminar El Capitulo Sin Terminar de Marx

7/29/2019 Teoria de Clases o Analisis de Clases-rexaminar El Capitulo Sin Terminar de Marx

1/22

http://crs.sagepub.com/Critical Sociology

http://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/089692059001700202

1990 17: 35Crit SociolAlvin Y. So and Suwarsono

Unfinished Chapter on ClassClass Theory or Class Analysis? A Reexamination of Marx's

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Critical SociologyAdditional services and information for

http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 1, 1990Version of Record>>

by guest on February 10, 2013crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35http://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35http://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35http://www.sagepublications.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35.refs.htmlhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35.refs.htmlhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35.full.pdfhttp://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35.full.pdfhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35http://crs.sagepub.com/


2/22

Class Theory or ClassAnalysis? AReexamination of Marxs Unfinished

Chapter on Class

Alvin Y. So and Suwarsono

Department of Sociology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822. We wantto thank Val Burris, Richard Chabot, Deana Chang, Farideh Farhi, Ben Kerkvliet, HagenKoo, Peter Manicas, Ravi Palat, Yow-suen Sen, Bob Stauffer, Pat Steinhoff, and the gradu-ate students in the macro-sociology seminar for their valuable comments and criticisms.Martin Orr and the two anonymous reviewers were also very helpful in revising the paper.

Alvin Y. So gratefully acknowledges the support of the Social Science Research Institute atthe University of Hawaii in preparing this paper.An earlier version of this paper was pre-sented to theAnnual Meeting of theAmerican SociologicalAssociation at San Francisco,August 1989.

ABSTRACT: Instead of using the "cut and paste" method, this

paper adopts an in-depth approach to examine Marxs use of theterm "class" in two key writings, The Communist Manifesto and The

Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.After comparing these twoworks under the following headings the number of classes, the

linkages between economic interests and political struggles, the

relationship between class and state, the impact of class on non-class relations, and the direction of class struggle this paperargues that in the Manifesto Marx presents a structural "classtheory," consisting of a coherent set of testable propositions and

predictions. However, this paper also contends that in The

Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx develops a different historical "class

analysis" that is an interpretive scheme to make sense of changingpolitical events. In the conclusion, this paper discusses how Marxsclass theory is related to his class analysis.

Karl Marx frequently uses the term &dquo;class&dquo; in his writings, but he doesnot have a systematic treatment on this subject. It is well known that inthe last chapter of the last volume of Capital, when Marx finally tries totackle the issue of &dquo;What constitutes a class,&dquo; he has only jotted down alittle bit more than a page.And according to Engels, the editor of Capi-tal : &dquo;Here the manuscript breaks off (Marx, 1975:886).

http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/


3/22

36

It is unfortunate that Marx has not finished the chapter on class, forthis has

prompteda heated debate in the Marxist literature and led to an

one-sided presentation ofMarx in the mainstream sociology literature. Inthe Marxist literature, there is a debate between the structuralists

(Althusser and Balibar, 1968; Poulantzas, 1975) and the historians

(Thompson, 1978; Samuel, 1981) on &dquo;class.&dquo; For Poulantzas, classes aredefined principally by their place in the production processes. Poulantzas

(1975:14) points to &dquo;the structural determination of class, i.e., to the exis-tence within class practices of determination by the structure - by therelations of production, and by the places of political and ideologicaldomination/subordination.&dquo; However, for the historian Thompson, classis not a &dquo;static category&dquo; or a &dquo;structure,&dquo; but a historical process overtime. Thus &dquo;class happens when some men, as a result ofcommon experi-ences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their inter-ests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests aredifferent from (and usually opposed to) theirs&dquo; (Thompson, 1963). Whatis interesting in this structuralist-historian debate is that both proponentshave claimed Marx as their mentor and traced their usage of &dquo;class&dquo; to

Marxs writings. Since Marxs chapter on class remained unwritten, it isnot clear whether Marx would identify with the structuralists or with thehistorians.

The unfinished chapter on class has also led to a one-sided presenta-tion of Marx in the mainstream sociology literature. The chapter entitled&dquo;Social Stratification&dquo; in introductory sociology textbooks (Brinkerhoffand White, 1988; Robertson, 1987; Schaefer and Lamm, 1986), usuallybegins by saying that Marx is a great social thinker and his class analysishas immense impact on the study of stratification. However, the chapterwill immediately add that Marxs class analysis is outdated: the significanttransformations in industrial societies in the twentieth century have

rendered Marxs simplistic class analysis obsolete. To show the

inadequacy of the &dquo;one-dimensional&dquo; Marx, the chapter will hastily turnto the &dquo;multi-dimensional&dquo; Max Weber who examines not just theeconomic but also the political and social dimensions of class. However,is Marxs class analysis &dquo;one-dimensional&dquo;? Is his class analysis irrelevant

to understand the modern capitalist societies?The mainstream sociology literature has misinterpreted Marx because

it tends to rely on a &dquo;cut and paste&dquo; method to recover his unfinished

chapter on class.

The Cut and Paste Method

Dahrendorf (1959) well-known work typifies the &dquo;cut and paste&dquo;method to interpret Marx. From Marxs voluminous writings, Dahrendorfhas cut out numerous passages on class by Marx; pasted these scattered

passages together under the headings of Property and Economic Power,


4/22

37

Relations of Production, Class Situation, Class Interests, Class Organiza-tion, Class Struggle, and the Classless Society; and then claimed to have

reproduced Marxs class theory on a fairly faithful basis.Pasted under the section entitled &dquo;Property and Economic Power,&dquo; for

example, Dahrendorf (1959:11-12) has cut passages out of five differentsources of Marxs writings. The section starts by saying that

the property question, relative to the different stages of devel-

opment of industry, has always been the life question of any givenclass (Marx, 1920:459).

However, this statement is open to misinterpretation. For the

opposition of propertyless and property as such is indifferent, andnot expressed in an active relation to its inner structure, i.e., as acontradiction, so long as it is not comprehended as the oppositionbetween labor and capital (Marx, 1950:176).

Even in this specification property is still an abstraction, an

empty concept. In every historical epoch property has developeddifferently and under different conditions. To define bourgeoisproperty means no less than to describe all the social conditions of

bourgeois production.The

attemptto define

propertyas an inde-

pendent relation, a special category, an abstract and eternal idea,can be nothing but an illusion of metaphysics or jurisprudence(Marx, 1947:169).

Only if we understand property in the particular context of bour-

geois society, i.e., as private ownership of the means of production,as the control of a minority over the wealth of a whole nation, dowe in fact grasp the core of the antagonism existing in productionand creating class conflict. The power of society thus becomes the

private power of a private person (Marx,1953a:138).The essential condition of the existence and domination of the

bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of

private persons, the formation and augmentation of capital; thecondition of capital is wage labor (Marx, 1953b:89).

After Dahrendorf, this cut and paste method has become a standardized

way of presenting Marxs concept of class, and is widely practiced bysocial scientists (Bendix and Lipset, 1966; Furbank, 1985; Mackenzie,

1976; Rattansi, 1985).This cut and paste method is not without problems. First, this method

is derived from the invalid assumptions that Marx has one single conceptof class and that he uses the term &dquo;class&dquo; consistently throughout his

writings.As will be argued below, Marx actually has, not one, but twodifferent usages of the term &dquo;class.&dquo;

Second, this cut and paste method often takes Marxs passages out ofcontext. Marxs early writings are frequently quoted side by side with hismature

writings,while Marxs

philosophical writingsare

put together



5/22

38

with his economic analyses. The literature has neither examined the

different historical contextsthat

gaverise to

Marxs writings,nor

studiedin more detail the complicated issues raised. Instead, the literature simplyassumes that all Marxs work reveals the same usage of the term &dquo;class.&dquo;

Third, Marxs passages on class are often selectively reproduced with a

special purpose. For example, in the above presentation of Marxs class

theory by Dahrendorf, Marx is said to have emphasized the personifica-tion of the unity of property ownership and political control. This isbecause in Marxs time the owners of property were also the managers

runningthe

corporations.Dahrendorf

keepson

citing Marx:&dquo;the

powerof society thus becomes the private power of a private person&dquo; and &dquo;theexistence and domination of the bourgeois class is the accumulation ofwealth in the hands of private persons&dquo; (our emphasis).As a result,Dahrendorf can later denounce Marxs class theory as outdated becauseof the new developments of the stock market and the authorityless stock-holders, the emergence of a propertyless managerial class, and the sepa-ration ofownership and control in the twentieth century.

Toward an In-DepthApproach

If the literatures cut and paste method is inappropriate, what then canbe considered to be the best method to present Marxs concept of class?For Marx, the utility of the concept of class lies in its application. &dquo;Class&dquo;is such an indispensable tool for theoretical explanation, research, and

practice that the more this tool is used, the better it sheds light on societyand history.As such, to see the process by which Marx applies &dquo;class&dquo; as aresearch tool, we need to adopt an in-depth approach to study Marxs

writings: concentrate on one or two of Marxs key writings, read into thelines, and analyze the writings in detail. This in-depth approach should be

superior to the cut and paste method because it avoids diverting ourattention from an intensive examination of Marxs key writings to a

superficial treatment of Marxs numerous, but scattered, writings onclass.

Following this in-depth approach, this paper will first concentrate onMarx and Engels Manifesto of the Communist Party (hereafter referred toas CM, and as Marx [1967] because it seems unnecessary to make anysignificant discrimination between the views of Marx and Engels). In the

CM, Marx has presented a coherent class theory to explain the long-termtrend of capitalism. However, this paper will show that Marx has twodifferent concepts of class. It will be argued that Marx in The EighteenthBrumaire ofLouis Bonaparte (hereafter referred to as EB), has presenteda different class analysis to interpret the changing political events inFrance in the mid-nineteenth century.1

In what follows, Marxs class theory in the CM will be compared withhis class analysis in the EB. Our comparison will focus on the aim of the


6/22

39

writing, the level of generality, the number of classes, the linkagesbetween economic interests and political struggles, the relationshipbetween class and state, the impact of class on non-class relationships,and the direction of class struggle.

Marxs Class Theory in theCM

TheAim of the Writing. In late 1847, Marx and Engels were commis-sioned to develop a theoretical and practical party program for theCommunist League. During the high tide of the working class revolution,Marx and

Engelswere

highly optimisticabout the downfall of

capitalism.As Taylor (1967:36) points out, theCM

was written for an immediate, practical purpose, as a prelude toaction during the revolutions of 1848.... It provided both a systemof historical development and a programme for political action. Itdemonstrated that capitalism would inevitably be overthrown bysocialism and laid down, rather less clearly, how the proletariatcould bring this overthrow about.

Aiming to promote the proletarian revolution, the CM is clearly a

political work that catered to a political audience. Cottrell (1984:84)remarks that the CM was a mobilizing pamphlet designed to crystallizeand communicate the revolutionary ideology of the Communist Leagueat a time of great political optimism. Hence, theCM does not hesitate tomake sweeping generalizations and bold predictions on the role of class

struggle in history.As Hall (1977:20) remarks, what is so fatally seductiveabout the CM &dquo;is its simplifying revolutionary sweep: its elan, coupled

with the optimisticsureness

ofits

graspon the

unrolling, unstoppabletide of revolutionary struggle and proletarian victory; above all, itsunmodified sense of historical inevitability.&dquo; In the CM, Marx writes likea committed revolutionary rather than a dispassionate scientist.

The Level of Generality. In the CM, classes are central to Marxs analy-ses because class struggle has provided the motive force to propel historyforward.As Marx (1967:79) explained:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of classstruggles.... Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord andserf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and

oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried onan uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that eachtime ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at

large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

The above quotation also reveals that Marx has used the term &dquo;class&dquo; at a

high level of abstraction. In the CM, class is taken to bea

universal



7/22

40

concept: class exists in every society, and class struggle transforms history.

In the CM, class is seldom discussed ataconcrete level, embedded with

specific national or cultural traits.

The Number of Classes. If classes are so central to Marxs analyses, how

many are there in a given historical era? In the CM, Marx has presented atwo-class model, focusing on the exploitative relationship between the

oppressor and the oppressed. In capitalism, for instance, the oppressorsare the bourgeoisie who own the means of production and employ wage

laborers,while the

oppressedare the laborers who own

nothing excepttheir labor power and hence must sell themselves to the bourgeoisie forsurvival. For Marx, these two classes always stand &dquo;in constant oppositionto one another&dquo; with regard to the control of the means and the processof production, of the share of the labor product, and finally of the state.

But why has Marx focused only on two classes? How about otherclasses such as the small tradespeople, the shopkeepers, the rentiers, the

handicraftsmen, and the peasants? For Marx (1967:88), the two-classmodel is sufficient to account for the development of modern capitalismbecause the intermediate classes will &dquo;sink gradually into the proletariat&dquo;and thus will not play a key role in politics as a non-proletarian class. The

proletarianization of the intermediate classes is inevitable &dquo;partlybecause their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on whichModern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition withthe large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is renderedworthless by new methods of production.&dquo; Consequently, as capitalismadvances, class antagonism will be simplified. Marx (1967:80) predictedthat &dquo;society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two greathostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bour-

geoisie and Proletariat.&dquo;

Economic Interests and Political Struggles. In the CM, economicconflict in the production sphere can easily be intensified into politicalconflict in the state.As Cottrell (1984:37) observes, the CM &dquo;presents ascenario in which ... the gap between class as economically defined

entity and class as social force is progressively eliminated, so that itbecomes legitimate to use the one term to encompass both.&dquo; In other

words, Marx was optimistically predicting that the workers would quicklyrise up as a class, struggle in the political arena, and become actors in

making history.Marxs optimism was based on the following new conditions which

promoted working class formation under capitalism. First, there was therise of large-scale factory production, leading to an increase in the size

and density of the working class. In Marxs (1967:89) words, &dquo;with thedevelopment of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it



8/22

41

becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feelsthat strength more.&dquo;

Second, the endemic economic crises in capitalism constantly threat-ened the livelihood of workers. Marx (1967:89) explained, &dquo;the growingcompetition among the bourgeoisie, and the resulting commercial crises,make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasingimprovement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes theirlivelihood more and more precarious.&dquo;

Third, the industrial working class, compared to the peasantry, hadbetter communication among its members.

Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (TradeUnions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keepup the rate of wages.... This union is helped on by the improvedmeans of communication that are created by modern industry andthat place the workers of different localities in contact with oneanother. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize thenumerous local struggles, all of the same character, into onenational struggle between classes (Marx, 1967:89-90).

Fourth, the struggles within the ruling class also promoted workingclass formation. Marx (1967:90-91) commented:

The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle.At firstwith the aristocracy; later on, with those portions ofthe bourgeoisieitself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of

industry; at all times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. Inall these battles it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat,to ask for its help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The

bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its ownelements of political and general education, in other words, itfurnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Fifth, when the class revolution nears the decisive hour, there wouldbe the defection of a small section of &dquo;bourgeois ideologists&dquo; from the

ruling class. Marx (1967:91) argued that &dquo;a portion of the bourgeoisideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending

theoreticallythe historical movement as a whole,&dquo; would cut itself

adrift,and join the revolutionary class.

Thus, the above structural conditions facilitated working classformation.As Cottrell (1984:42-43) summarizes, the proletariat there-fore possessed the organization (both of large-scale factory productionand improved means of communication), the motivation (due toeconomic crisis and hardship), the political education (from participationin bourgeois struggle), and the theoretical vision (aided by bourgeoisdefectors) to mount a full-scale assault on bourgeois power. In the CM,



9/22

42

Marx did not foresee any major difficulty in mobilizing the workers intothe political arena.

Class and State Since the CM has stressed the unity of economicinterests and political struggle, the state is simply regarded as an instru-ment of the capitalist class - as an instrument of coercion and adminis-tration used by the capitalists to enhance their class interests. Thus Marx

(1967:82) said that &dquo;the executive of modern State is but a committee for

managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.&dquo;Marx (1967:82) further observed that advances by the bourgeoisie in

the economy are followed by similar advances in the polity: &dquo;the bour-geoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of theworld market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State,exclusive political sway.&dquo;As a result, after the bourgeoisie has becomethe ruling class, Marx (1967:88) argued that the proletariat is turned intoboth the &dquo;slave of the bourgeois class&dquo; and the slave &dquo;of the bourgeoisState.&dquo;

Class and Non-Class Relations.Aside from the primacy of class poli-tics, Marx also contended that class relations are a universal solvent thatwill dissolve other social relations such as religion, family, age, sex, andnation in modern capitalism.As capitalism advances, class relations willbecome more prominent, while other social relations will gradually fade

away.On this point, Marx (1967:82) stated that the bourgeoisie has played

the most revolutionary role in history because it

has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations ... and hasleft remaining no other nexus between man and man than nakedself-interest, than callous cash payment. It has drowned the most

heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of

philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, ... and hasreduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The

prominenceof class relations had also eradicated age and sex dif-

ferences in capitalism. Thus Marx (1967:88) contended that &dquo;differencesof age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the work-

ing class.All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use,according to their age and sex.&dquo; National relations, too, were diminishingin importance because &dquo;modern industrial labour, modern subjection to

capital, the same in England as in France, inAmerica as in Germany, has

stripped him of every trace of national character&dquo; (Marx, 1967:92).

The Direction of Class Struggle. From the prominence of class rela-tions, theCM predicted the inevitability of class revolution in capitalism.



10/22

43

The structural conditions that promoted the formation of the workingclass would propel workers to carry out the historical mission of the

proletariat revolution. Thus Marx (1967:94) optimistically foresaw that&dquo;the development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feetthe very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriatesproducts. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own

grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equallyinevitable.&dquo;

After the proletarian revolution, the proletariat would transform the

society to its class interests. Marx (1967:104) pointed out that &dquo;the prole-tariat will use its

political supremacyto

wrest, by degrees,all

capitalfrom

the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the handsof the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class.&dquo; In

constructing the new society, Marx (1967:104-105) further proposed poli-cies such as the abolition of private property, the abolition of all rights of

inheritance, the equal obligation of all to work and to free education inorder to enhance the class rule of the proletariat.

Nevertheless, Marx argued that class relations will gradually disappearin the new communist society. Since the roots of class domination and

exploitation lay in bourgeois ownership, Marx (1967:105) explained thatwhen the proletariat has taken away the old conditions of class produc-tion,

then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away theconditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes

generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as aclass.... In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes andclass antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free

development of each is the condition for the free development ofall.

Summary. In the CM, Marx has developed a class theory to explain whythe proletarian revolution is forthcoming in the near future. This class

theory views social class as a universal category and focuses on theconflict between the two fundamental classes. This class theory also

postulates that the structural contradictions of capitalist economy have

simplified class antagonism and promoted the formation of the workingclass. This class theory further predicts that class struggle will be intensi-fied under capitalism, leading to a proletarian revolution. In the newcommunist society, however, after the abolition of private property, classrelations will gradually fade away. This is a coherent class theory becauseit contains testable propositions and predictions, and because it can betested against the historical development in the twentieth century. Whileit is true that this class theory is still relatively undeveloped in the CM, it



11/22

44

has laid down the general principles that Marx would further elaborateand

prove

in his three volumes of Capital.In the mainstream sociological literature, this CM version is usually

taken as the only usage that Marx has on class.As a result, the literature

(Bottomore, 1966; Giddens, 1973; Dahrendorf, 1959) has criticized Marxfor presenting a simplified two-class model that neglects other classes andother important social relationships such as mobility, community, and

politics.We disagree with the critics because their interpretation of Marxs

concept of class tends, in Rattansis (1985:643) words, to &dquo;focus on themost simplistic of Marxs texts&dquo; and neglect the more complex analyses inthe post-CM writings. In what follows we argue that Marx has developedanother usage of &dquo;class&dquo; - which we call class analysis - for the interpre-tation of the changing political events in France in The Eighteen Brumaire

of Louis Bonaparte (EB).

Marxs ClassAnalysis in theEB

TheAim of the iWriting. Written during the high tide of revolution inJanuary 1848, theCMwas optimistic in predicting the arrival of the work-

ing class revolution. But the working class was defeated in June, 1848.

Working class revolutionaries were arrested and imprisoned, and the

proletarian movements &dquo;were ruthlessly hunted down.&dquo; As Marx

(1973:154) recalled, &dquo;over 3,000 insurgents were butchered after the

victory, and a further 15,000 were transported without having beenconvicted. With this defeat the proletariat passed into the background of

the revolutionary stage.&dquo;Writing during the ebb of revolution in 1852, Marx discarded the

political optimism expressed in the CM. Initially prepared for a magazineaudience, the EB was aimed at understanding why the 1848 revolutionhad failed and what led to the coup detat of Louis Bonaparte inDecember, 1851. The EB attempted to show how &dquo;the class struggle inFrance created circumstances and conditions which allowed a mediocre

and grotesque individual to play the heros role&dquo; (Marx, 1973:144).

In the CM, Marx made bold generalizations and sweeping statements.In the EB, however, there were detailed observations of the politicalevents to illustrate the complexityof the case.

The Level of Generality. In the CM, Marx used the term &dquo;class&dquo; at a

high level of abstraction. Class and class struggle are taken to be the

dynamic forces to transform society and move history forward. In the EB,however, Marx treated class as a concrete historical product rooted in a

given nation (France) duringa

specific historical period (between 1848and 1852). The EB brings out the historical specificity of classes - their



12/22

45

birthmarks, their culture, their experiences of struggle, and their constant

changing forms of struggles and alliances.

Take the French bourgeoisie in the EB for example. This class washistorically unique in the sense that instead of struggling to protect itseconomic interests in the name of capital, it struggled to restore the dyingmonarchy in the name of the royalists. Thus Marx (1973:165,174)observed that

this bourgeois mass was however royalist. One section of it, the

great landowners, had ruled during the Restoration and was there-fore Legitimist. The other, the aristocracy of finance and the bigindustrialists, had ruled under the July monarchy and was thereforeOrleanist.... Orleanists and Legitimists found themselves side byside in the republic, making equal claims. Each side wanted tosecure the restoration of its own royal house against the other.

The Number of Classes. The CM presented a two-class model, empha-sizing the struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed that isrooted in the structure of exploitation. The EB, on the contrary, devel-

oped a multi-class analysis.In the EB, there is very little discussion on the structure of exploita-tion in the sphere of production. Instead of focusing on the two funda-mental classes, other classes (such as the petty-bourgeoisie, the lumpenproletariat, the peasantry) played an important role in shaping the direc-tion of French history. For instance, it was the widespread support from

many classes that elected Louis Bonaparte to the Presidency.As Marx

(1973:164) explained, the election in December, 1848

was a reaction of the peasants, who had had to pay the costs of theFebruary revolution, against the other classes of the nation, areaction of the country against the town. It found great favour withthe army, for which the republicans of the National had provided no

glory and no extra pay, with the big bourgeoisie, who saw Bonaparteas a bridge to the monarchy, and with the proletarians and pettybourgeois, who hailed him as a scourge for Cavaignac.

In the EB, even a class fraction can have impact because intraclass

struggle can be very acute. Commenting on the bourgeois class fractions,Marx (1973:174) noted that

the members of the royalist coalition intrigued against each otheroutside the parliament: in the press, at Ems, and at Claremont.Behind the scenes they dressed up again in their old Orleanist and

Legitimist liveries and went back to their old tournaments.... thishad no other meaning than that each of the two great interests intowhich the bourgeoisie is divided - landed property and capital -



13/22

46

was endeavoring to restore its own supremacy and thesubordination of the other interest.

Instead of formulating a simplified two-class model, the EB, therefore,presented a complicated pattern of struggles and alliances among differ-ent classes and class fractions.

Economic Interests and Political Struggles. The CM postulated thateconomic contradictions would promote working class formation and the

proletarian revolution. In the EB, however, Marx reformulated the rela-

tionshipbetween

economyand

politics.Althougheconomic contra-

dictions are still a necessary condition for working class unity and mili-

tancy, they are by no means a sufficient condition. On this point, Cottrell

(1984:45) points out that

after their defeat in June 1849 we find them [the proletariat]submitting to political representation by the Montagne, whose

programme breaks the revolutionary point off the social demandsof the proletariat, entraining them behind the petty bourgeoisie. In

the boom year of 1850we

find the workers for ettin the revolu-tionary interests of their class for momentary easeand comfort.

In addition, the EB has developed a new concept of &dquo;representation&dquo;to denote the problematic linkages between economic interests and

political struggles. For instance, Marx (1973:238) asserted that &dquo;Bona-

parte represents a class, indeed he represents the most numerous class ofFrench society, the small peasant proprietors.&dquo;As Calvert (1982:77)comments, in the EB &dquo;a class can be represented politically by a group,even a very small group, and even by individuals who are not members ofit.&dquo;

But &dquo;representation&dquo; in the political arena means more than the artic-ulation of class interests. In the EB, once &dquo;representation&dquo; is rlized, the

representative will have autonomy and can adopt policies contrary to theclass interests of its supporters. For example, once Louis Bonaparte waselected by the peasants, he could make policies that were against theinterests of the French peasantry. Marx (1973:239) explained that small

peasant proprietors were

therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own

name, whether through a parliament or through a convcntion. Theycannot represent themselves; they must be represented. Their

representative must appear simultaneously as their master, as an

authority over them, an unrestricted government power that

protects them from the other classes and sends them rain andsunshine from above.



14/22

47

Similarly, although the party of Order consisted of the representativesof the bourgeoisie, it had also developed programs that were contrary to

bourgeois interests. Marx (1973:221) commented:

The party of Order within the parliament had also fallen out withthe party of Order outside parliament. The spokesmen and writersof the bourgeoisie, its platform and its press, to put it briefly the

ideologists of the bourgeoisie, had become alienated from the

bourgeoisie itself. Representatives and represented faced eachother in mutual incomprehension. Because the bourgeois class laterhated its representative (the party of Order), it &dquo;thus applauded the

coup detat on 2 December, the destruction ofAssembly, the down-fall of its own rule, and the dictatorship of Bonaparte, with servilecries of bravo&dquo; (Marx, 1973:232).2

Class and State. The CM treated the state as a means of enforcing theinterests of the capitalist class. However, the EB has developed the

concept of an autonomous state, as Marx (1973:238) pointed out that theFrench &dquo;state seems to have attained a completely autonomous position.

The state machine has established itself so firmly vis-,I-vis civil society.&dquo;What explains the rise of the autonomous state in France? First, Marx

(1973:186) stresses the bureaucratic power of Bonapartes state:z

In France the executive has its disposal an army of more than half amillion individual officials and it therefore constantly maintains animmense mass of interests and livelihoods in a state of the most

unconditional dependence: the state enmeshes, controls, regulates,supervises and regiments civil society from the most all-embracing

expressions of its life down to its most insignificant motions, fromits most general modes ofexistence down to the private life of indi-viduals.

Second, Marx pointed to the weakening of class power after the civilwar. For Marx, Bonapartism was the only form of government possible ata time when bourgeois power was undermined by working class insur-

gency and proletarian strength was weakened by bourgeois repression.Therefore, after posing the question &dquo;why did the Paris proletariat not

rise in revolt after 2 December?&dquo; Marx (1973:235) explained: &dquo;Anyserious proletarian rising would at once have revived the bourgeoisie,reconciled it with the army, and ensured a second June defeat for the

workers.&dquo; Moreover, Marx (1973:236) observed that &dquo;Bonaparte hadrobbed the Paris proletariat of its leaders ... The proletariat was an armywithout officers, and it was in any case unwilling to fight under thebanner of the Montagnards because of the memories of June 1848, June1849, and May 1850.&dquo;



15/22

48

Class and Non-Class Relations. The CM argued that after classrelations become prominent in capitalism, other social relations would

fade into the background. The EB, however, recognized the role of non-class relations in historical development. In the EB, Marx was especiallyinterested in examining how other social factors might have shaped thecontour of class struggle in France.

For example, Marx brought in the factors of tradition, costumes, and

languages. Marx (1973:146) opened theEB by saying that

the tradition of the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on theminds of the living ... precisely in such epoches of revolutionarycrisis they timidly conjure up the spirits of the past to help them;they borrow their names, slogans and costumes so as to stage thenew world-historical scene in this venerable disguise and borrowed

- language.

Following the same line of thought, Marx (1973:148) remarked that &dquo;the

English people had borrowed for their bourgeois revolution the

language, passions, and illusions of the Old Testament.... In these

revolutions, then, the resurrection of the dead served to exalt the new

struggles.&dquo;Marx also looked into the social factors - such as the mode of life,

culture, community, poverty, political organization, national links - thatmay affect the development of class consciousness. In so doing, Marx

(1973:238) revealed a set of negative conditions under which the French

peasants had failed to form a class:

The small peasant proprietors form an immense mass, the membersof which live in the same situation but do not enter into manifold

relationships with each other. Their mode of operation isolatesthem instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. This isola-tion is strengthened by the wretched state of Frances means ofcommunication and by the poverty of the peasants.

Under these circumstances, Marx (1973:239) concluded that &dquo;in so far asthese small peasant proprietors are merely connected on a local basis,and the identity of their interests fails to produce a feeling ofcommunity,

national links,or a

political organization, they do not forma

class.&dquo;In addition, Marx discussed the factor of ideology. The land and

finance fractions of the bourgeoisie articulated their interests throughoutdated ideologies. The landed fraction wanted to restore the Bourbonsand called itself the Legitimist, while the financial fraction declared itselfthe Orleanist. Both fractions kept on fighting the ideological battles onwho should be the next president of France.As previously explained, this

ideological division between the two bourgeois fractions finally led to therise of Louis

Bonaparte.



16/22

49

Furthermore, Marx touched upon other factors such as social mobilityand charismatic leadership. On mobility, Marx (1973:155) commented

that&dquo;as for

examplein the United States ofAmerica.

There, althoughclasses already exist, they have not yet become fixed, but rather

continually alter and mutually exchange their component parts.&dquo; On

leadership, Marx (1973:236) remarked that &dquo;France therefore seems tohave escaped the despotism of a class only to fall back beneath the despo-tism ofan individual.&dquo;

In sum, Marx in the EB argued that non-class relations - such astradition, ideology, mobility, and leadership - not only will not be eradi-cated by the growing prominence of class relations in capitalism, but willalso play a role in shaping the contour of class struggle in historical

development.

The Direction of Class Struggle. The CM predicted that economicconflict would lead to class formation, proletarian revolution, and a class-less society. The EB, however, recognized the historical contingency ofclass struggle. Workers may not win class struggles, can suffer defeat, andbe driven into the background. On this aspect, Marx (1973: 150)remarked:

Proletarian revolutions, however, such as those of the nineteenth

century, constantly engage in self-criticism, and in repeated inter-

ruptions of their own course. They return to what has apparentlyalready been accomplished in order to begin the task again; ... theyseem to throw their opponent to the ground only to see him drawnew strength from the earth and rise again before them, morecolossal than ever.

The EB, therefore, presented an ebb and flow model of class struggle.Reviewing the history of class struggles in France, Marx (1973:169)pointed out that the 1848 revolution started with the coalition of allclasses against the aristocracy. Then there was the working class againstthe rest. Then the petty bourgeoisie was defeated. The rivalry betweenthe landed and the financial fractions of the bourgeoisie commenced,followed by the rivalry between the Parliamentary and the Executive and

bythe

strugglefor

powerbetween the

partyof Order and the President.

Finally the President won them all and turned himself into an emperor in

December, 1851.As such, the EB gives no hint of the direction of class

struggle.Aclass may win some battles, may be defeated, and may latercome back to start the class struggle again. Marx (1973:191) put it well:&dquo;it seemed to have disappeared from the battlefield at the moment of

danger only in order to return at more favorable opportunity with

fighting forces of a more mass character and a bolder battle-cry.&dquo; In theEB, Marx observed the unending process of the making and remaking ofclasses as well as the constant shifting of alliances among different classes



17/22

50

and class fractions. Consequently, theEB has presented a picture that noclass is predetermined to win all the battles and the future of workingclass revolution is

contingent uponthe

existinghistorical conditions. The

EB is content with interpreting the changing political events in the 1840s,making no prediction of the coming of the proletarian revolution.

Conclusion: Class Theory or ClassAnalysis?

This paper reexamines Marxs unfinished chapter on class. It arguesthat the cut and paste method in the literature is problematic. Most

sociologists think that Marx has only one usage of class because Marxs

writings are quoted out of context and because Marxs passages on classare selectively reproduced with a special purpose. Focusing on two ofMarxs key writings, this paper has shown that Marx actually uses theterm class in two different ways: as class theory and as class analysis.

In the CM, class is used at a highly abstract level to examine the long-term historical trend. This class theory postulates that the antagonismbetween capital and labor in production is basic to the understanding ofthe historical development of capitalism. Because of the structural con-

tradictions in capitalism, the proletariat has become class conscious andengaged in a political struggle against the bourgeoisie.After eradicatingother social relations, class struggle will be intensified, leading to a prole-tarian revolution and a new communist society. In this new society, wherethere is no more class exploitation, classes and class relations will gradu-ally fade out. This paper argues that the CM has presented a coherentclass theory because Marx has specified the structural conditions underwhich the proletarian revolution would occur. This CM version seems to

lay the foundation in which the neo-Marxist structuralists have developedsuch concepts as &dquo;the structural determination of class.&dquo;This paper argues further that the EB has developed another usage of

class called class analysis. Here, Marx treats class as a historical productrooted in the specific conditions of France in the late 1840s. He presentsa multi-class model and pays attention to the intricate alliances and

struggles among different classes and class fractions. Trying to tackle the

problematic linkages between economic interests and political struggles,Marx formulates the

conceptsof

representationand the autonomous

state, and pays attention to how other social relations (language, tradi-

tion) have shaped the contour of class struggle.Attracted to the changingpolitical events in France, Marx presents an ebb and flow model of class

struggle and has made no prediction of the inevitability of the proletarianrevolution. In this respect, the EB has presented a class analysis because&dquo;class&dquo; is used as a tool to interpret the political events surrounding the

coup detnt ofLouis Napoleon between 1848 and 1852.In itself, class analysis is not a theory. There are no well-developed

propositions; different patterns of class struggle and alliance are not



18/22

51

specified; it carries no predictions and thus cannot be falsified by histori-cal reality. Instead, class analysis is just a tool, or an interpretive scheme,

to make sense of what has happened in society and history. Like a lens,the power of class analysis lies in the amount of light it can shed on theintricate interactions among human agency, political events, and struc-tural contradictions. It seems the EB version is the source through whichthe neo-Marxist historians drew their inspiration in stressing the role ofhistorical relationship, agency, culture, and experience in class analysis.

This paper, therefore, points out that Marx actually has two different

usages of the term class: a class theory that hypothesizes the long-term

structural trend of capitalist development,and a

class analysisthat is a

historical method to examine the political struggles in a concrete histori-cal situation. The differences between Marxs class theory and his class

analysis are summarized in Table 1.As such, what is the relationship between Marxs structural class

theory and his historical class analysis?And what are the contributions of

distinguishing class analysis from class theory?First of all, Marx himself has not explicitly spelled out the intercon-

nection between his two usages of class. He just lets the two usagescoexist without informing his readers which version is his favorite. Thusboth neo-Marxist structuralists and historians can easily find ampleevidence from Marx to claim that they have faithfully followed his

conception of class. However, one possible interpretation is that Marxhas never forsaken the class theory of the CM. What Marx does in theEBis to further develop the schematic class theory presented in the CM.

Consequently, Marxs class analysis should not be taken as a means torefute his class theory. In fact, when Marx applies class analysis, he writesas a historian with &dquo;class theory&dquo; well in the background. He still sharescertain assumptions of class theory, such as the structural contradictionsin capitalism generating the conflict of interests among classes. Butinstead of imposing class theory onto historical reality, Marx in classanalysis merely uses &dquo;theoretical ideas in dialogue with the evidence to

interpret particular historical processes&dquo; (Trimberger, 1984:227). In this

respect, while class theory is formulated to specify the long-termstructural trend of the emergence, the development, and the transforma-

tion of capitalism, class analysis is developed as a historical method topractice &dquo;theoretical ideas&dquo; so as to interpret short-term political strug-gles in a concrete social formation.

If this is so, what is the significance of this distinction between class

theory and class analysis? This paper, of course, is not the first one to

point out that Marx has more than one conception of class. Other studies

(such as Bodemann and Spohn, 1986; Calvert, 1982; Cottrell, 1984;Draper, 1977; Giddens, 1971; Giddens, 1973; Hall, 1977; Neale, 1983;

Ollman, 1968; Poulantzas, 1975; Rattansi, 1985; Wright, 1985) havenoted, in passing, that Marxs political writings have a different usage of



19/22

52

&dquo;class&dquo; from his historical writings, Marxs abstract analyses have used

&dquo;class&dquo; in a different way from his concrete investigations, Marx has

recognizedthe role of

otherclasses in historical

development,and Marx

Table 1. Summary ofMarx on &dquo;Class.&dquo;



20/22

53

has used the term &dquo;class&dquo; carelessly throughout his writings.3 Neverthe-less, although the above studies have noted Marxs multi-usage of the

term &dquo;class,&dquo; they have not highlighted the superiority of the in-depthapproach to the &dquo;cut and paste&dquo; method in recovering Marxs unfinished

chapter on class. In addition, they have not formulated the concepts of&dquo;class theory&dquo; and &dquo;class analysis&dquo; to capture the crucial differences inMarxs usage of the term &dquo;class.&dquo;Also, they have not systematicallycompared the different usages of &dquo;class&dquo; along the dimensions of thelevel of generality, the number of classes, the relationship betweeneconomic interests and politics, class and state, class and non-class rela-

tionship,and the direction of class struggle.And, finally, they have not

pinpointed the one-sided presentation of Marx in the sociology litera-ture, which criticizes his writings on class as simplistic and outdated.

What this paper contributes, therefore, is to reemphasize the simplefact that Marxs writings on class have provided both a structural class

theory and a historical class analysis. Since many researchers (Kaye, 1983;McNall et al., 1991; Miliband, 1989; Roy, 1984; So and Hikam, 1989;Wright, 1985) have found Marxs class theory extremely powerful in

explaining the structural transformation in monopoly capitalism, and

since they have further developed Marxs historical class analysis to

interpret the political struggles in advanced capitalist societies, it is

hoped that Marxs writings on class will receive much more attention inthe mainstream sociological literature in the near future.

Notes

1. Itmay

benecessary

to

explain whywe selected the CM and theEB for close

reading.First, why is the CM selected over other texts like Capital? The CM is important because ithas laid down "the general principles" which Marx would further elaborate in his mature

writings. In fact Engels (1967:63) in 1888 still claimed that "however much the state ofthings may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down inthis Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever." In this respect, it should notmake too much difference in selecting either the CM or Capital both texts will revealMarxs theory of class. But the CM has an edge over Capital as our choice for close readingbecause the former is more concise and eloquently written than the latter.

Then why is the EB selected over other texts like The Class Struggles in France and TheCivil War in France? These three texts share very similar approaches with respect to Marxs

usageof "class" to observe the

unfoldingof French

history.But the EB somehow seems to

be more popular than the other two works.As Engels (1963:13) remarked, the EB "was intruth a work of genius.... This eminent understanding of the living history of the day, this

clear-sighted appreciation of events at the moment ofhappening, is indeed without parallel."2. We want to note that although the concept of "representation" serves to open up new

research agendas to examine the intricate relationship among classes, political parties, andthe state, this concept is not without problems. For example, if Louis Bonaparte had made

policies that were against the interests of the French peasantry, how could Marx still claimthat Bonaparte "represented" the peasantry? In addition, an uncritical use of the concept of

representation may lead researchers to a retreat from class, attracting them to develop a"statist" perspective which focuses on state autonomy at the expense of the underlying classdynamics.



21/22

54

3. This is certainly not the place to even briefly review how the Marxists and the Weber-ians portray Marxs concept of class. It would not do justice to many books and articleswhich have been written on this subject. Suffice to say that many of them have shared the

argument of this paper that Marx has more than one usage of "class."

References

Abrams, Philip. 1982. Historical Sociology. New York: Cornell University Press.Althusser, Louis and Etienne Balibar. 1968. Reading Capital. London: New Left Books.Bendix, Reinhard and Seymour M. Lipset. 1966. "Karl Marxs Theory of Social Classes." Pp.

6-11 in R. Bendix and S. M. Upset (eds.), Class, Status, and Power. Glencoe, IL: FreePress.

Bodemann, Y. Michal and Willfried Spohn. 1986. "The Organicity of Classes and the NakedProletarian." Insurgent Sociologist 13:10-9.

Bottomore, T. B. 1966. Classes inModem Society. New York: Vintage.Brinkerhoff, David B. and Lyn K. White. 1988. Sociolog. St. Paul: West Publishing.Calvert, Peter. 1982. The Concept of Class. London: Hutchinson.Cottrell,Allen. 1984. Social Classes in Marxist Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.

Draper, Hal. 1977. Karl Marxs Theory of Revolution. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Engels, Friedrich. 1963. "Preface to the Third German Edition." Pp. 13-14 in Karl Marx,The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers.

________. 1967. "Preface to the English Edition of 1888." Pp. 59-64 in Karl Marx andFriedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. Baltimore: Penguin.

Furbank, P. N. 1985. Unholy Pleasure of the Idea of Social Class. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Giddens,Anthony. 1971. Capitalism and Modem Social Theory. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

.

1973. The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. London: Hutchinson.Hall, Stuart. 1977. "The Political and the Economic in Marxs Theory of Classes." Pp. 15-

60 inAlan Hunt (ed.), Classand Class Structure. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Kaye, Harvey J. 1983. "History and Social Theory: Notes on the Contributions of British

Marxist Historiography to our Understanding of Class." Canadian Review of Sociologyand Anthropology 20:167-192.

Mackenzie, Gavin. 1976. "Class and Class Consciousness: Marx Re-examined." Marxism

Today (March):95-100.Marx, Karl. 1920. "Die moralisierende Kritik und die kritische Moral." in Franz Mehring

(ed.),Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, 3rd edition.

Stuttgart..1947. Das Elend derPhilosophie. Berlin.___. 1950. Nationalokonomie und Philosophie. Cologne and Berlin.________. 1953a. Das Kapital, Vol. I. Berlin.________. 1953b. Manifest der kommunistischen Partei. Berlin.

________. 1973. "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte." Pp. 143-249 in KarlMarx, Surveys From Exile. New York: Pelican.

________. 1975. Capital, Vol. III. New York: International Publishers.Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1967. The Communist Manifesto. Baltimore: Penguin.McNall, Scott, Rhonda Levine, and Rick Fantasia (ed.). 1991. Bringing Class Back In.

Boulder Westview Press.

Miliband, Ralph. 1989. Divided Societies. Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Neale, R. S. 1983. History and Class. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Ollman, Bertell. 1968. "Marxs Use of Class."American Journal of Sociology 73:573-580.Poulantzas, Nicos. 1975. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: Verso.Rattansi,Ali. 1985. "End of an Orthodoxy? The Critique of Sociologys View of Marx on

Class." Sociological Review 33:641-669.



22/22

55

Robertson, Ian. 1987. Sociology. New York: Worth.

Roy, William. 1984. "Class Conflict and Social Change in Historical Perspective."AnnualReview of Sociology 10:483-506.

Samuel, Raphael (ed.). 1981. Peoples History and Socialist Theory. London: Routledge &Kegan Paul.

Schaeffer, Richard T. and Robert P. Lamm. 1986. Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill.So,Alvin Y. and Muhammad Hikam. 1989.

" Class in the Writings of Wallerstein andThompson." Sociological Perspectives 32:453-468.

Taylor,A. J. P. 1967. "Introduction." Pp. 747 in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, TheConununist Manifesto. Baltimore: Penguin.

Thompson, E. P.1963. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage.________. 1978. The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays. London: Merlin.Trimberger, Ellen K. 1984. "E. P. Thompson: Understanding the Process of History." Pp.

244-275 in Theda Skocpol (ed.), Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Wright, Erik O. 1985. Classes. London: Verso.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ruben-ananias
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Teoria de Clases o Analisis de Clases-rexaminar El Capitulo Sin Terminar de Marx

Documents