Theories in Marxian Class Theory

[JazzRemington]

From my blog:

It is often charged against Marx that his theory of classes is too narrow. Marx, as well as all other Marxists and Marxians, believed that ultimately any society was made up of material classes: ruling class, working class, etc. The ruling and the working class are the only classes to have existed since the dawn of civilization. All others were incidental to certain periods in the historical development of the productive forces.

But the charge that Capitalist society has two classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat, is a simple one. Some Marxists and communists hold this view, and this is the content of the charge levelled against them: that they have too simple or narrow a view of society.

This does not mean to say that there these two classes do not exist. They do, but rather there are other classes and that these two classes are themselves simplifications.

The existence of classes depends on what "level" of society one is looking at. Abstracting the different "layers" of society, and isolating them from one another will provide us with ultimately three different spheres of a society: the economic structure, the legal structure, and the ideological structure. But we must note here that society does not appear this ideally. When one looks outside, one does not see these structures as one would the buildings, trees, and the sun. Rather, these are abstract concepts based on objective, empirical observation. In practice, it can be very difficult at times to separate the three from one another because they depend so much upon one another that at times they can "blend into" each other.

The economic structure is the sum total of production relations, distribution relations, what form the productive forces take, how things are made, consumption, etc. This is the material basis for any society.

The legal structure includes all laws, law enforcement, the military, and methods by which the economic structure, as well as society itself, is protected. This also includes the functionings of governments.

The ideological structure includes religion, education, and the media. It is concerned with promoting the general, dominant belief that is appropriate to the economic structure. This is not to say that all activity that happens in this structure is geared toward the defense of the economic structure, but rather there is a tendency toward it.

As one can possibly see, the legal and ideological structures are influenced by the economic structure. That is not to say that it 100% determines said structures, but rather provides a general direction in which they are to go in terms of shape and character.

But what does this have to do with classes? Simple: depending on what "structure" people operate in is there class, with a general tendency to describe them based on their relation to the means of production, because all structures must live based off of some relation to the means of production (if it is only by just consuming the products made in some way).

For example, classes within the economic structure are pretty simple. Since we are dealing with relationships to the means of production at the level they exist, we can conclude that effective ownership of the means of production and living off of others' labor constitutes one being called "bourgeoisie" and the ownership of labor and working for others constitutes one being called "proletariat."

The ruling class operate within the legal structure. They include politicians, presidents, kings, dictators, etc. Also included is their auxiliaries, such as their assistants, diplomats, etc. What is important to note here is that the legal structure also includes the military and law enforcement. We can consider these people auxiliary to the ruling class.

But could we consider auxiliaries to a class a class in itself? Certainly, they form a distinct physical body from the people composed within the ruling class (i.e. an active soldier is not an active politician) and they do tend to have a sort of class-like consciousness. But, their material interest rest on the defense of the economic structure (as well as the legal structure), so we must consider them simply auxilieries, and not a class proper; however, we can treat them as a class for analysis purposes. But properly speaking, they are not a distinct class from the ruling class, but merely an auxilery.

The ideological structure is a strange one because many times people operating within the legal and economic structures have functions within the ideological structure. Examples would be, a society may have a theocratic government and the church is made up of the legal structure, a multimedia firm that produces television shows run as per a Capitalistic enterprise, and a school run by or as a business.

To sum thus far, we have ultimately three empirically and objectively observable classes within a Capitalist society: the ruling class, the proletariat, and the bourgeoisie.

But these classes are broad and general. What if we wanted to study indepth any divisions within the three? And what if we wanted to study a group of people who exhibit signs of being a class, but are not a class proper?

For the first instance, we can subdivide the three classes into others: governers, presidents, congressmen, senators, financial bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, industrial bourgeoisie, proletariat, lumpen-proletariet, upper class, lower class, middle class, producers, consumers, etc. All of these classes have relations to one of the three classse and to the economic structure, by way of owning, producing, and/or consuming

For the second instance, we can do obviously lump any group of people who share similiar characteristics into a group (or a class) to study for a specific reason ad hoc. If we wanted to study high school students, we would abstract and isolate high school students, and study them. But, a class is defined as any (material) group of people who share the same material interests and who are within the same position in the economic structure. Thus, classifying "students" as a material class would be troublesome because while they do consume commodities (a place within the economic structure), so do just about everyone else within a Capitalist society.

[Floyce White]

You omitted the relations that make classes permanent: property, the family, and inheritance (or lack thereof). Without these institutions, the legal and ideological structures serve an unknown attribute of production.

"Servants" are people who serve other people. The servants of all structures of society serve the owners. This makes the owners the rulers and the ruling class. Any designation of "class" for the sake of argument can then be compared and contrasted to the ownership relation to see if the for-the-sake-of-argument label is correct.

[KC]

The ideological structure includes religion, education, and the media. It is concerned with promoting the general, dominant belief that is appropriate to the economic structure. This is not to say that all activity that happens in this structure is geared toward the defense of the economic structure, but rather there is a tendency toward it.

This is wrong. By isolating the superstructure and discussing it as a thing-in-itself, your analysis removes it from reality and essentially kills it. This is because superstructure is a relation between people and therefore between classes and as such you can't remove it from these relations without fundamentally changing it.

Also, superstructure isn't "concerned" with doing anything. Here you've gone so far as to treat it not only as something independent of society, but something that's conscious! This is most certainly false.

The tendency towards bourgeois ideology is because of bourgeois rule.


For example, classes within the economic structure are pretty simple. Since we are dealing with relationships to the means of production at the level they exist, we can conclude that effective ownership of the means of production and living off of others' labor constitutes one being called "bourgeoisie" and the ownership of labor and working for others constitutes one being called "proletariat."

Labour power, not labour. Also, working for others does not constitute a "proletarian". Slaves, serfs and some petty-bourgeois work for others and they most certainly aren't proletarian. What makes one a proletarian is the dependence on the selling of their labour-power.


The ruling class operate within the legal structure. They include politicians, presidents, kings, dictators, etc. Also included is their auxiliaries, such as their assistants, diplomats, etc. What is important to note here is that the legal structure also includes the military and law enforcement. We can consider these people auxiliary to the ruling class.

This is an incorrect analysis as well. The ruling class doesn't necessarily include politicians. Also, the state isn't controlled by the ruling class; the purpose of the state is to maintain bourgeois rule and nothing more. This does not mean that it is controlled by the bourgeoisie.


To sum thus far, we have ultimately three empirically and objectively observable classes within a Capitalist society: the ruling class, the proletariat, and the bourgeoisie.

This is very strange. The bourgeoisie is the ruling class, so I don't know what you mean by "the ruling class".


For the first instance, we can subdivide the three classes into others: governers, presidents, congressmen, senators, financial bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, industrial bourgeoisie, proletariat, lumpen-proletariet, upper class, lower class, middle class, producers, consumers, etc. All of these classes have relations to one of the three classse and to the economic structure, by way of owning, producing, and/or consuming

The majority of these are occupations (governers, presidents, congressmen...) or bourgeois socioeconomic terms (upper class, lower class, middle class...).


If we wanted to study high school students, we would abstract and isolate high school students, and study them. But, a class is defined as any (material) group of people who share the same material interests and who are within the same position in the economic structure. Thus, classifying "students" as a material class would be troublesome because while they do consume commodities (a place within the economic structure), so do just about everyone else within a Capitalist society.

Students can be stated as a class by the common usage of the term, but not by the Marxist theoretical definition.

[JazzRemington]

This is wrong. By isolating the superstructure and discussing it as a thing-in-itself, your analysis removes it from reality and essentially kills it. This is because superstructure is a relation between people and therefore between classes and as such you can't remove it from these relations without fundamentally changing it.

Why? What's wrong with isolating something for the sake of discussion and analysis?


Also, superstructure isn't "concerned" with doing anything. Here you've gone so far as to treat it not only as something independent of society, but something that's conscious! This is most certainly false.

I'm not treating anything "apart from society." If you noticed, I wrote a little bit about how I was only isolating the structures for analysis reasons and that all of them are apart of society. But what I meant here was that the people operating within said structures reinforce and/or defend the reigning economic structures.


The tendency towards bourgeois ideology is because of bourgeois rule.

No shit. It was the same under feudalism with the nobles ruling and the prevailing ideology was right of kings and other monarchical beliefs. The relationship between the economic structure and the superstructure isn't anything new and unique in Capitalism.


Labour power, not labour. Also, working for others does not constitute a "proletarian". Slaves, serfs and some petty-bourgeois work for others and they most certainly aren't proletarian. What makes one a proletarian is the dependence on the selling of their labour-power.

As I said, a proletariat owns his labor power (which was my fault for not mentioning) and depends upon being employed (or rather, working for others). Certainly, in the past the working class had to work for others but this was for legal reasons since they were obligated based on slavery or being a serf. By "owning his labor power" I meant that the proletariat owned his labor power 100% (not 0% as a slave or partially as a serf).


This is an incorrect analysis as well. The ruling class doesn't necessarily include politicians. Also, the state isn't controlled by the ruling class; the purpose of the state is to maintain bourgeois rule and nothing more. This does not mean that it is controlled by the bourgeoisie.

The politicians make the laws. What is important here is that the people within this structure make laws designed to defend the economic structure and enforce said laws. Politicians are part of the ruling class because they make the laws that defend the Capitalist economic structure. While they are not bourgeoisie proper, they none the less enforce the laws that protect their situation in Capitalism. Certainly there are times when they make laws that hurt them, such as when they made lawful collective bargaining in the US. But by separating the function of government from the economic structure (e.g. they were in twined together under feudalism with the nobility being the dominant economic class and the ruling class), the bourgeoisie effectively created another class of people that rule in their general interests.


This is very strange. The bourgeoisie is the ruling class, so I don't know what you mean by "the ruling class".

Perhaps I should have made it clear in the text, but I take being the dominant class as being different from being the ruling class. In Capitalism, the bourgeoisie are the dominant class but they are not the ruling class (e.g. they do not make or enforce the laws). Whereas under previous arrangements such as Feudalism, the nobles owned the land the serfs worked on (were the dominant class) and they made the laws and enforced them (were the ruling class). As I said prior, as soon as the bourgeoisie crafted a form of social organization that removed government from the economic structure, they effectively created another class that is strictly designed to promote their general interests.


The majority of these are occupations (governers, presidents, congressmen...) or bourgeois socioeconomic terms (upper class, lower class, middle class...).

Perhaps, but my statement still stands I believe.

[KC]

Why? What's wrong with isolating something for the sake of discussion and analysis?

You can't isolate superstructure because it is by definition a social relation. Divorcing it from those social relations leaves nothing to analyze.


The politicians make the laws. What is important here is that the people within this structure make laws designed to defend the economic structure and enforce said laws.

Yes and no. Not all laws are designed to defend the economic structure. This is why I said that the role of the state is to defend bourgeois rule and isn't controlled by the bourgeoisie.


Politicians are part of the ruling class because they make the laws that defend the Capitalist economic structure.

What do you mean by "ruling class"? You mean politicians are bourgeois?


While they are not bourgeoisie proper, they none the less enforce the laws that protect their situation in Capitalism.

So are you saying they're bourgeois or not?


Perhaps I should have made it clear in the text, but I take being the dominant class as being different from being the ruling class. In Capitalism, the bourgeoisie are the dominant class but they are not the ruling class (e.g. they do not make or enforce the laws).

So your "ruling class" is the state? The state is an institution, not a class. Being a part of the state doesn't make one belong to a special class.


Perhaps, but my statement still stands I believe.

It doesn't stand if you maintain those terms.

[JazzRemington]

You can't isolate superstructure because it is by definition a social relation. Divorcing it from those social relations leaves nothing to analyze.

I was taking the social relations that constitute the superstructure and isolating them to arrive at my three-pronged analysis. For purposes of analysis it is useful, but as I noted in practice and in material reality it is impossible.


This is why I said that the role of the state is to defend bourgeois rule and isn't controlled by the bourgeoisie.

Ultimately, yes. But by economic structure it is meant (in part) production relations, in which the bourgeois rule byway of their property ownership. So by defending the dominant economic structure, they are by extension defending bourgeois dominance.


What do you mean by "ruling class"? You mean politicians are bourgeois?

I mean ruling class as the people who operate with the government or the State. They design the laws and generally enforce them (if not, they delegate that function to the military or police).

As I noted earlier, because of the "split" that separated government and the economy following the bourgeois revolutions the members of the bourgeoisie are not, say, members of Congress or Parliament. Certainly, there may be individuals members of said institutions that are members of the bourgeoisie, but by and large I do not think that every last member is, or at least a majority.

[KC]

I was taking the social relations that constitute the superstructure and isolating them to arrive at my three-pronged analysis. For purposes of analysis it is useful, but as I noted in practice and in material reality it is impossible.

I suppose if you meant it that way then it makes sense, although it is a very strange way to put it.


Ultimately, yes. But by economic structure it is meant (in part) production relations, in which the bourgeois rule byway of their property ownership. So by defending the dominant economic structure, they are by extension defending bourgeois dominance.

Which is what I said. This doesn't, however, imply bourgeois control of the state.


As I noted earlier, because of the "split" that separated government and the economy following the bourgeois revolutions the members of the bourgeoisie are not, say, members of Congress or Parliament. Certainly, there may be individuals members of said institutions that are members of the bourgeoisie, but by and large I do not think that every last member is, or at least a majority.

True, but I don't see how this justifies classing those involved in the state apparatus as a new class, much less a "ruling class". In fact, I think that defining the state as a "ruling class" and the bourgeoisie as the "dominant class" distorts the actual reality of the situation. The bourgeoisie is the ruling class, and maintains its rule through the state. By saying the state is the ruling class you are implying a primary conflict between the state and those it rules over, which diverts from a class analysis of the situation. I'm not sure if you meant it like that, but that's what it sounds like.

Such statements are dangerous as they lead to a vulgarization not only of theory, but practice as well.