Theories in Social Structure and Class

[JazzRemington]

Below is a paper I am 99% done with (I'm still working on the conclusion). I will post one section per post and provide footnotes on only sections that need expounding (thus, I will not provide references for quotations or information. I figure I am trusted here enough to not make something up but I will provide reference if asked). This is a first draft and probably would require some tweaking before it is in a publishable state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Introduction
Karl Marx’s theory of class has always been one of the most debated and contested features of his many theories of society, history, economics, and politics. The most essential definition of class, according to Marx and most Classical/Orthodox Marxists, is any group of people who share a similar position in the production relations of any given economic system or society. By extension they would share similar material interests. Mostly what constitute a class would be 1) ownership, control, and use of the means of production and 2) how the people make their living. By the first instance, just about everyone within any society has a relation to the means of production, either in the form of owning them or not owning them. The second instance relates to whether the people sell their labor power or live off the surplus labor of (and/or the surplus value created by) others. According to Marx, classes are social because they are “carved out of” the production relations of society. Society is the sum total aggregate of human relationships so any relationship between people is considered a social phenomenon because 1) there are many other similar relationships and 2) in a basic and simple way, a relationship can only be considered a “valid” one if there more of the same in society.

In any Capitalist system there are thought to be two main classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. There also exists several other classes, such as the lumpen-proletariat and the petti-bourgeoisie, but for the most part only the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are considered important. Proletariat is defined as the group of people who 1) do not own the means of production (or at least do not have free access) and 2) make their living off the sale of their labor power (all of which they own). The bourgeoisie are the opposite: they 1) own the means of production and 2) make their living off the surplus labor of the proletariat. It is obvious that these two classes are in a revolutionary contradiction with one another as the bourgeoisie gains at the proletariat’s loss and vice versa.

The other classes, mainly the lumpen-proletariat and the petti-bourgeoisie are known as “fence sitters” because they could go either way in a revolution. The lumpen-proletariat are those individuals who do not have any relation to the means of production but yet make their living off the surplus labor of the proletariat and the petti-bourgeoisie are individuals who 1) own the means of production and 2) make their living off their own labor (i.e. they are self-employed). The lumpen-proletariat makes its living of the labor of the proletariat but does not contribute to production by having a relationship to the means of production. They could either aid the revolution or hinder it because the Capitalist system is the only system in which they could make their living. The petti-bourgeoisie could also aid or hinder the revolution because as individuals they tend to move up to full bourgeoisie or down to proletariat.

A second notion that is often debated over is the nature and composition of social structures. Marx wrote that there were essentially two structures within society: the base and the superstructure. The base was the economic structure and was composed of relations of production. The superstructure was the “out growth” of the base and contained all ideologies, religions, and laws that were geared toward defending the legitimacy of the dominant economic structure (thus, the superstructure defends and promotes the legitimacy
of the base).
But the classical/orthodox method of determining classes seems a little narrow and with its own problems. This does not mean that it is faulty and should be done away with. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie are still the most important classes in any Capitalist society and they, along with the lumpen-proletariat and the petti-bourgeoisie, do still exist. For instance, how could one define the bourgeoisie as the ruling class of a Capitalist society when it does not make the laws itself or have members sit in government or the State? Also, how would one define the police or the military? In terms of social structure, are there really only two basic structures within a society? If there are more, how would they interact? It is these questions we wish to discussion and through our discussion we will suggest some methods of strengthening or even updating the Marxian notion of class theory and social structure.

[JazzRemington]

2.0 Introduction to Marxian Social Structures
We cannot discuss the notion of social classes without having a good understand of the conditions from which they immerge. To do this, we must know what is meant by concepts such as society, social structures, productive relationships, and productive forces. This section we will examine the definitions of these terms, so as to provide a stable ground to work with for our coming discussions.

Society itself is the sum total aggregate of human relationships. These relationships are often pre-existing for individuals and they are often born into them. Certainly, it would be erroneous to state that society, in this sense, existed before the individual because by doing so we would be asserting that a relationship between people existed before the people themselves. But as soon as a relationship has been established, the people who are born into it after its creation have no choice of their situation and find themselves in conditions made for them and not by them. These relationships tend to influence the individual and vice versa. But because these relationships had existed before the individual and are more numerous than he or she, it is often difficult for an individual him or herself to change them on his or her own. It usually takes collective action to perform such a feat.

Within any society there are relationships that serve important functions. These functions include production and distribution of goods, the defense of society, and the preservation and promotion of social values and beliefs. The relationships that perform these functions are known as “social structures” and there are three essential and related structures:(1) the economic structure, the legal structure, and the ideological structure. What is important to note about these structures is that they are merely a practical and more efficient way of studying those relationships that serve the aforementioned functions. They are not separate, isolated, independent entities with their own consciousnesses but rather are “blanket terms” for aggregates of human relationships. All three of these structures collide together in reality so in practice it would be difficult to speak of a function that is purely belonging to one structure instead of another. When we speak of the functions of a particular social structure, we are merely speaking of the functions of the human relationships that constitute them.

The economic structure of a society essentially deals with ownership of the means of production, production relations, distribution relations, and the methods of production. Essentially, relationships that deal with production and distribution constitute the economic structure of a society. The production relations are how people relate to one another in producing for society. This is usually centered on ownership of the means of production, the tools and materials that are used to produce. For example, A may work for B in a Capitalist society, but such a relationship usually implies that A lacks access to the means of production and is selling his labor power to B, who owns the means of production. The economic structure determines the limitations or boundaries of any given society.

The legal structure of society is those relationships that deal with the preservation, restoration, and defense of the economic structure. This is usually a structure that is closely tied to the economic structure, but often includes relationships that do not fall strictly within said structure. C may defend A’s ability to work for B and B’s ability to have A as an employee. C may also defend A’s ability to live against B, who wants to kill A. As we can see, the relationships within the legal structure usually involve C making laws for A and B to follow.

The ideological structure of a society is geared toward promoting the dominant beliefs of any society, as conditioned by the economic structure. These include mass media campaigns, religion, advertisements, certain news programs, cultural works, etc. Relationships within this structure include those between an artist and his or her fans, advertisers and the public, etc. In essence, D would produce what amounts of propaganda defending the relationship between B and C.

Footnotes
1. The author wishes to point out than he will be using a fourth structure, class structure(s), which will stand for the aggregate of all class relations in any given society. It is not to be used in conjunction with the three social structures being considered here. The term “class structure” is merely used for its convenience.

[JazzRemington]

2.1 The Social Structures in Operation
In practice, the above noted social structures tend to collide and “melt together,” so that the strict boundaries of their functions become nearly impossible to comprehend. But they as structures do relate to each other as the individuals within them relate to one another, as hinted above in their respective definitions. Here we will discuss the ways they interact with one another and we will provide concrete examples of such interactions throughout history.

The most important part of human beings is that 1) they are social and 2) operate toward their material interests, whatever they are. In a broad sense, humans are driven toward securing their necessities such as food and shelter. This leads them to produce and to devote much of their existence to producing. But in the process of production humans “enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only within these social connections and relations…does production take place.” Because production of goods often requires cooperation, humans are drawn together for the act of production and because of this cooperation they begin to influence one another in profound ways. For example, when humans settled down and began to cooperate to produce via agriculture it was looked down upon to shirk from one’s duties to the community. Thus, the first inklings of morality and ethics developed through their production relations.

Because of the effects production relations have on the shape and nature of society, we assert that the economic structure is the “base” of any society. But the economic structure is merely how things are used, in a sense. What is used by those relations within the economic structure? The productive forces, which is the term used to denote the combination of the instruments and implements that are used by humans in production and actual human labor power. This includes the tools, knowledge, skill, brain power, and raw materials used by human labor power. The forces of production are the raw energy that is channeled by the economic structure into producing goods and services.

The economic structure of any society, as noted above, is the sum total of relations of production (which in itself includes ownership of the means of production), the method of production (such as how things are produced technically), and how things are distributed. The structure mainly deals with the production of goods and services and their distribution. The economic structure tends to create the limits and boundaries of the development of the other two structures. This is counter to the Classical/Orthodox Marxist belief that the economic structure determines definitely what the nature and structure of society will be. For example, governments set up by the various bourgeoisie revolutions in the 17th and 18th centuries instead of setting up governments that were ran specifically by the bourgeoisie themselves in reality set up governments that would be responsive to their material interests.

The dominant economic structure (Capitalism) determined the limits of the new government, meaning that as long as it defended the Capitalist relations it was considered legitimate. The goal, then, of the legal structure is to 1) provide a legal basis for the economic structure and 2) defend it byway of the State and its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. In medieval England the dominant economic structure was A worked a plot of land owned by B in exchange for protection from C. Part of A’s product was given up to B as payment. This was made legitimate by various laws that A was forced to oblige if he were to continue to receive B’s protection. Any other relationship was considered illegal because A had a legal obligation to work for B. But an “underground” relationship was forming in the towns by fleeing peasants seeking freedom from their lords. These fleeing peasants were being employed by town craftsmen as help in their trades and even made some money. This relationship, of course, was considered illegal because the peasant was bound by law to work for his lord. Many years later, and after many revolutions in the forces of production, these employers managed to obtain leverage against the nobility and eventually crafted a government that was responsive to their material interests by freeing the peasants from their legal bondage and their land. The relationships burgeoning in the towns during the reign of the feudalist government did away with the bound servitude of serfdom and welcomed in the free laborer who could come and go as he wished from employer to employer.

But the actions of the economic structure, legitimated by the legal structure, produce something else: changes in culture, ideology, and religion. In sum, it creates an ideological structure that is composed of the relations between people in regard to their culture, religion, and general attitudes. The outcome of the ideological structure is the cultural legitimating of the dominant economic structure. We mean here that new religious beliefs, cultural trends, morals, ethics, etc. are crafted within the limits that the economic structure carves in order to provide a justification for the economic structure. Whereas the legal structure provides a legal basis for the economic structure, the ideological structure provides a justification for it. In sum, the ideological structure makes the economic structure appear correct or just. Also, in addition to its dealings with the economic structure, the ideological structure interacts with the legal structure as well as many beliefs center around respect for authority and the law.

As we can see, all three structures tend to interact fairly evenly with one another. But the prime structure, the one that is required before human life can even exist itself, is the economic structure. Without production, there is no social life to study.

[JazzRemington]

3.0 Introduction to the Marxian Notion of Class
We can summarize the typical Marxist concept of classes as groups of people who share similar relationships to the means of production in any given economic system. It essentially boils down to who owns and who does not own the means of production and relationships based upon the ownership and use of labor and labor power. In any given economic system there are at least two classes, and many pre-Capitalist systems employed many more. We will here examine in brief the class structures of pre-Capitalist systems and Capitalism itself.

In the Ancient world (especially Greece and Rome), there were many economic classes. We have the farmer who owned his own tools and land; the industrial craftsman who practiced artisan production; the slave who did not own his own labor power and was forced into servitude for others; and (especially in Greece) we had the “thetes,” a free laborer who would work for some wages.

In Feudalism the essential class structure remained the same except the slave was “transformed” into the serf, who was bound to the soil of his lord and had to either work some of his lord’s land or give up some of his produce as payment. There were few actually autonomous and free farmers who owned their own land, as much land was owned by the nobility. The “thetes” of the ancient world found new life in Feudalism as the escaped peasants who fled to the towns and were employed by the industrial craftsmen.

In Capitalism, the class makeup was even further simplified. The bourgeoisie owned the means of production and made their living off the labor of the newly freed worker, transformed into the proletariat, the worker who does not own the means of production and makes his or her living off the sale of his or her labor power. Also in this system we still have the self-employed individuals, who constitute the petti-bourgeoisie, and those individuals who do not have any relationship to the means of production but still make their living of the labor of the proletariat, who are called the lumpenproletariat.

For Marx there are essentially two features that decide whether or not a class was a class: 1) its standing in the production relations of a society and 2) its consciousness. The first instance was already discussed above but the second is worth going into some discussion about. A class that lacks the second instance is said to be just physically existing (or, a “class in itself”). It is merely a collection of more or less separate individuals who are only combined by their common relationship in the production relations of society. If a class obtains the second instance, a consciousness of its relationship and its interests, then it is said to be a “class for itself” and capable of action, be it lobbying government or starting a full blown revolution. Certain conditions are often to be met before a class develops a consciousness of itself. Many Marxists disagree on what these conditions are exactly, but the main one that they all seem to agree upon is that they develop class consciousness when members of a class come to realize their similar material interests and objective conditions. How this happens depends on the objective conditions of the economy.

But this system leaves little to answer many questions. As we can see, the notion of Marxian classes comes from the people operating within the economic structure. A priest or an advertiser, for example, would not be considered classes because while they do consume they are occupations. They might exhibit some signs of having a class-like consciousness but for the most part they are not considered classes because a profession is not a class. Even if we did consider these professions as classes, it would prove to be a worthless endeavor, as we will see later in section 3.5 below.

[JazzRemington]

3.1 Modern Theories on Class
The idea of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, and the petti-bourgeoisie existing is correct and we do not wish to challenge it. But with modern technology we have to analyze each class’ composition and attributes in order to “update” them to contemporary, post-industrial society. Such would be the purpose of this section.
Firstly, with modern technology the means of production are often within the grasp of the proletariat. G.A. Cohen, in his Karl Marx’s Theory of History, makes a strong argument that defines the proletariat a class of individuals that must sell their labor power in order to make their living and lacks effective ownership of the means of production. Effective control and ownership is used in place of legal ownership because the fact that a construction worker often has to (legally) own his own tools but yet because he has to sell his labor-power in order to live he gives up effective control and ownership to his employer, who obtains the right to determine what the worker can and cannot do with his tools.

Essentially, this rests on the primary condition that the proletariat has to sell his or her labor power. If the worker does not even legally own the means of production, then said individual fits within the classical definition of the proletariat. But what if the worker legally owns the means of production? Nothing would change because of the primary condition of selling one’s labor power presupposes, and creates, a lack of effective ownership and control. The selling of one’s labor power transforms any legal relation the seller has to the means of production into one of effective relations; specifically it transforms legal ownership and control into lack of effective ownership and control. To wit, because the proletariat must sell their labor power to make their living they will never have effective ownership or control of the means of production, even if they do legally own them.

But this begs the question as to why would a proletariat not become self-employed if he or she legally owns his tools. Simply, being self-employed means one would have to play by the Capitalist’s rules and succumb to the whims of the market – a market already saturated with large firms that can easily force the proletariat out of business. In 2002, there were about 17,646,062 self-employed firms with the same number of establishments generating around $770,032,328,000 in sales. In that same year there were only 5,697,759 firms that employer firms with 7,200,770 establishments generating $22,062,528,196,000 in sales. In other words, even though the self-employed firms outnumbered the employer firms by about 3:1, the employer firms generated a little more than 28 times the sales as the self-employed firm. If it were possible for a proletariat to succeed and become self-employed or even become an employer, in 2005 employed individuals would not have outnumbered self-employed by 12:1.

[JazzRemington]

3.2 The Proletariat and the Service Sector
Certainly members of the service sector are often employed by the bourgeoisie, thus selling their labor-power, but they typically make use of a skill or knowledge. Would these people be considered a member of the proletariat? The term “proletariat” is used to define someone who has a particular standing to the means of production during production of a good. The service sector does not typically produce a commodity but merely helps facilitate the flow of capital by things such as stocking, bagging, selling an item, etc. It is merely helping the movement of capital from the producer to the consumer, either by physically placing it in a position where the consumer can get it or making sure that said flow operates as smoothly as possible.
This does not mean that these people are exploited. Certainly they sell their labor-power and they may be paid less than the cost of it, but they do not produce commodities, thus they do not add to the value of a commodity but merely drain the coffers further of the bourgeoisie employing them. But this poses a problem. Many people who enter the service sector are from the industrial or manufacturing sectors. In 2005, 27,810,000 individuals worked in the industrial sector while 115,416,000 individuals worked in the service sector. This means that service sector workers outnumbered industrial workers by about 4:1.

Perhaps a closer look is entailed them to discover the true nature of the proletariat’s relation to the service sector. Without a doubt service workers sell their labor power in order to survive. Whereas 17,148,000 people are self-employed in the service sector, a staggering 115,416,000 people were employed in the same sector. An important difference could be their relationship to constant capital (machinery, for instance), but this possess its own problems. For one, everyone in a grocery store uses parts of the constant capital outlay of the store, from the manager who uses a computer to keep track of stock and hours worked to the bagger who uses the store’s bags to the cashier who uses the store’s cash register. But could we say the difference should entail whether or not their specific job requires use of constant capital? Certainly, management does not need to use a computer to keep track of stock or hours worked but a cashier does need to use a cash register and a bagger grocery bags, for the very titles of their occupations demand it; however, reliance on the use of capital is faulty in general as an accountant relies on the capitalists’ expenditure and accumulation of capital for his or her living.

The fact that service sector workers have to sell their labor-power to survive is part of the requirement for being a member of the proletariat. What about the means of production, though? It would depend on how one defines the means of production. According to the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., the means of production are “all those things with the aid of which man [sic] acts upon the subject of labor, and transforms it.” The subject of labor, then, is whatever the means of production is being used on (usually capital). The means of production then would be a tool (be it machinery or hand tools) used to transform capital from its original form into a form that is “pregnant” with surplus-value in the form of a commodity. All of this rests on actually injecting more value into a commodity, which only productive labor can do, i.e. labor in the production circuit of the circulation of capital. Because the service sector is mainly concerned with the circulation of capital (both their physical body and their values), they do not add value; circulation is not a productive act in the sense of adding value.

This still leaves us with the question as to what exactly the kind of relationship the proletariat has with the service sector workers. We will answer that question shortly in section 3.4 below.

[JazzRemington]

3.3 The Post-Industrial Bourgeoisie
The classical definition of the bourgeoisie is, according the Encyclopedia of Marxism, “the class of people in bourgeois society who own the social means of production as their private property.” “Bourgeois society” means here Capitalist society and “social means of production” refers to simply the means of production under Capitalist society. We do not wish to assert any questions about the bourgeoisie in our study but we do wish to bring up a few points that are important in our study of the post-industrial bourgeoisie.

In our contemporary, post-industrial society we are faced with large corporations controlling much of the economy. These corporations are run by boards of directors who own whatever means of production is used by their corporation to produce commodities. A steel corporation, for instance, would own the foundries the plants use to process the raw materials used in steel production. But this gives us quandary. Many corporations are publically traded, which means they have stocks floating around that is owned by people. This means that the corporation is owned by the shareholders, who, in theory, control the direction the corporation takes.

Would this make the shareholders some sort of indirect member of the bourgeoisie? Certainly ownership of some stock of a company makes the shareholder a part owner of the company. But this is a superficial ownership as stock holder, according to investopedia.com, does not “have a say in the day-to-day running of the business.” It merely indicates that you have a share in the company’s income, a vote (one per stock) in electing the company’s board of directors, and apparently even “a tiny sliver of every piece of furniture, every trademark, and every contract of the company.” It would seem that a shareholder owns a bit of the means of production and even lay claim to a piece of the surplus-value the company produces.

What is interesting to note here is that while a shareholder owns so much of the company, he or she still does not actually control the company’s actions. He or she still does not decide what to produce, how much to produce, when to produce, where the goods go, how income is divided amongst members of the company, etc. Production is still governed by the company’s heads. The shareholder receives income from the company but does not actually govern the means of production being used.

But would that make them “half bourgeoisie?” A typical shareholder only owns part of the company, in whatever percentage his stocks grant him. He does not own the entire company but merely a “small sliver;” in other words, not enough to make a living on. A typical shareholder does not make his sole living on the stocks he or she owns and usually has some other source of income, be it actually being self-employed, employed, or employing others. The fact that one can own a stock in a company does not make this person a member of the bourgeoisie because 1) the shareholder does not have a say in the day-to-day functions of the company and 2) stock owning is not their primary source of income.

If a shareholder does obtain his or her primary income from owning (or even trading) stocks, then such a person could not be considered obviously a proletariat because he or she does not make his or her living off the sale of labor-power. But classifying this type of person as a member of the bourgeoisie would seem strange as the only true power over the corporation would be the voting of members of the board. We will answer this problem in the next section.

[JazzRemington]

3.4 The Auxiliary Classes
We wish to introduce the concept of an “auxiliary class” to the Marxian analysis of classes. An auxiliary class is any group of people who have similar material interests as another class but is structurally distinct in character and can act as a proxy through which a class can realize its interests or act as a supplement to the mass of a class. Auxiliary classes tend to act outside the economic structure of a society and can be any body of people. We will consider two auxiliary classes as examples of such a concept.

For our first auxiliary class, we wish to continue our previous discussion in regards to the relationship between the proletariat and the service sector. Service sector workers live off the sale of their labor power but yet their labor power is not used to produce commodities but to aid in the circulation of capital. Thus, they only satisfy part of the qualification of being a proletariat. But they do not operate within the production circuit of the circulation of capital so their owning or not owning the means of production would be a moot point as they do not produce any commodities but merely facilitate their movement. Because these people are caught up in the struggles of the work day by having a material interest in increased wages due to their having to sell their labor power, service sector workers may be considered “auxiliary proletariats.” They sell their labor power, thereby creating the same material interest as an actual proletariat.

The next auxiliary class in our discussion is related to the bourgeoisie and government. In pre-Capitalist eras we had a unification of government and the dominant social class. Under Feudalism, the nobility owned the land and also created the laws and regulations, for instance. The bourgeois revolutions of the 17th and 18th century created something different. The bourgeoisie created a structural rift between government and the economy and as a result created the State and filled it with supporters of their material interests: the ruling class. The ruling class is considered an auxiliary to the bourgeoisie because 1) they share the same material interest in maintaining the Capitalist economic structure (their means of actually existing) and 2) they are the proxy through which the bourgeoisie expresses its general interests in the formation of, amongst other things, property laws and anti-worker regulations (outlawing unions, etc.). Certainly the State has other functions aside from the defense of the economic structure, but its primary function is just that. We wish further to point out that being the dominant social class does not make one the ruling class par-say. Just because the bourgeoisie is the dominant social class does not mean they create the laws and regulations of the law, though they do that indirectly as inferred above. The ruling class maintains its personal control through the use of, as Max Weber noted, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. As such, it makes use of the military and the police to defend and further its interests (which are indirectly the same interests as the bourgeoisie in general).

The third auxiliary class is also related to the bourgeoisie, but is relatively the smallest of all classes, both real and auxiliary. These are a class of people who have no actual relation to the means of production but instead make their living off of owning stocks. This person’s income from stock ownership comes indirectly from the surplus value realized by the bourgeoisie. In this sense, he indirectly lives off of the surplus labor of the proletariat. These people would be considered “auxiliary bourgeoisie” because while they do not own or control capital within the production circuit of the circulation of capital they still make their living off of the surplus value realized by the bourgeoisie. Thus, they would have a particular interest in maintaining an economic system based off of the generation of surplus value.

[JazzRemington]

3.5 The Revolutionary Nature of the Marxian Class Analysis
The class structure of Marxian social analysis provides us with a tool to demonstrate that the present status quo is not lasting. It provides one with a revolutionary analytical tool to show that no system built on inequality and injustice does not last. Must perhaps most important of all, it gives us tools to provoke changes in our lives.

Completely regardless of how many auxiliary classes there exists in a Capitalist society, the revolutionary relationship between proletariat and bourgeoisie still exists as a revolutionary dichotomy that will one day rupture the shell housing the new social order already in development. The role of the social class, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, are clearly in contradiction with one another and it is through their struggles that the material conditions for the next stage of economic history will be either pushed forward or thrown back.

The role of the auxiliary classes in any society is to bolster the ranks of the contending classes involved in a particular struggle. The bourgeoisie will use the ruling class to engage both the proletariat and their auxiliaries with the ruling class’ armies and police forces and the proletariat, with the auxiliary proletariat, will fight back by any means deemed necessary and attempt to destroy both the ruling class and the bourgeoisie in their bid to create a world in their material interest.

[Janus]

If you're looking to get feedback on this, Article Submissions is probably a better place for essays like this.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:37 am
If you're looking to get feedback on this, Article Submissions is probably a better place for essays like this.
bah, now I'll have to re-post the whole thing. Curse you Malte and your desire to end spam by putting a time limit on posting!

EDIT: Wait, no NOT move it. I want to clean it up a bit before I submit it to the E-Zine.