"CLASS"
As an Analytical Category
RCP, Chap 2
“Class” in 19th Century England
 Self-evident
 Especially
“working class”
 Bipolarity in wealth, income, power
 Often used loosely, but commonly
contradicted Classical Liberalism’s
concept of atomistic society
“Class” in Marx-1
 Concept
of “class” goes with capitalism
 capital = social relationship
(not just money or machines)
 social
relationship = centered on work
 “class” defined vis à vis work
 work is imposed by some on others, so ...
“Class” in Marx-2
 those
who impose work = capitalist class
 those on whom work is imposed = working
class
 imposition  antagonistic relationship
Objections to Category of
“Class”





Bipolarity of early capitalism
changed by rise of “middle
class”
Dickensian dichotomy between
rich & poor, owners & workers
Mediated by middle layers,
middle income
Conclusion: capitalist - worker
distinction is inadequate
Should be replaced by “strata”
etc.
Marxist Responses
 empirical
response: concentration of power
 empirical response: bipolarity continues on
global scale
 theoretical response: “class” is not a
sociological category
Marx’s Concept of “Class”
Elaborated
 two
dimensions of concepts:
 class-in-itself
 class-for-itself
Class-in-itself
 common
characteristics
 like a sociological “classification”
 similar to philosophical concepts such as
“being-in-itself” (Sartre)
 “being-in-itself” = “being which is what it is
and is not what it is not”
Working class in-itself
 those
who work
 includes blue, white collar workers
 includes managers who organize
 includes engineers, scientists, etc.,
who invent, create
 19th Century = factory workers +
 Today = almost everyone
Capitalist Class in-itself
 those
who impose work
 includes CEO’s, managers, overseers
 includes everyone who internalizes
imposition of work
 19th Century = owners, managers
 Today = almost everyone
Class-for-itself
 Common
struggle
 Category of self-activity
 Similar to philosophical concepts like
“being-for-itself”(Sartre)
 “being-for-itself” = “being which is what it
is not and is not what it is”
 “being-for-itself” = human being (for Marx,
Sartre and many others)
Working class-for-itself-1
 working
class defined by resistance to, and
struggle against, imposed work
 everyone works, but not everyone struggles
against it
 some just “do their job”; some struggle
 this self-activity can take many forms
- forms have evolved over time, e.g., from
“combinations” to “craft unions” to “industrial
unions”to “rank & file insurgency”
Working class-for-itself-2
 “working
class” also defined by struggle
FOR alternative ways of being
 FOR “what we will”= multiplicity
 FOR time & energy to be citizens
 FOR time & energy for education
 FOR post-capitalist worlds
Working class-for-itself-3
 Struggles
FOR alternatives ways-of-being
which succeed  that “working class” is an
inadequate category
 Gauchos were only partly “workers”
 Gauchos were hardly “capitalists”
 Gauchos were “gauchos” --something
“other”, outside the class relationship
Capitalist class-for-itself-1
 Capitalists
EXPAND THE IMPOSITION of
the rules of the capitalist game
 e.g., centrality of work
 e.g., markets, money, profit
 capitalists DEFEND against attacks
 capitalists CO-OPT alternatives
Individuals & Class-1
 “class”
has been defined in terms of
activity and behavior
 only individuals “behave” in this way or
that way
 BUT clearly individuals are often in the
situation of both having work imposed on
them AND imposing work on others
(including themselves)
Individuals & Class-2
 Implication:
“class” concerns the ROLES
individuals play vis à vis the current social
system
 Class roles for individuals are often
contradictory
 No “pure” capitalists or workers
(Madame Defarge was wrong)
Individuals & Class-3
 Internal
contradiction can mean:
- schizophrenic lives
- volatile, contradictory behaviors
- fanaticism as solution
e.g., professional revolutionary
e.g., workaholic
 endless balancing act
“Class” Composition
 Both
classes are heterogeneous
 So, composition of classes must be analysed
 Composition is dynamic, changes with the
class struggle
1) Political Recomposition, e.g., formation
of combinations
2) Decomposition, e.g., Combination Acts
“Class” and Revolution-1
 “working
class” is agent of revolution
 “gravediggers” of capitalism
 Revolution “explodes” capitalism
 Revolution replaces capitalism
 BUT does NOT replace one system by
another
 Rather a system is replaced by diversity
“Class” and Revolution-2
 what
might characteristics be?
 working class struggle AGAINST work
means in post-capitalist society people will
only work to live, working class will be
abolished
 working class struggle FOR multiple
alternatives means post-capitalist society
will be multiple: societies
20th Century Socialism
 claimed
to build one-class society of
workers, workers’ state
 reproduced capitalist glorification of work
 reproduced class antagonisms of capitalism
 amounted to “state capitalism”
 rife with class struggle
 which brought it down
21st Century Revolution?
 Are
Zapatistas the embodiment of Marx’s
vision of an explosive revolution that
destroys domination and liberates diversity?
--END--