Discomfort with strict Marxist class analysis

[jake williams]

The whole deal with deeming the only valid or useful tools of class analysis to be those which consider a group's relationship to capital, as it seems is well subscribed to, seems to me kind of lacking. No doubt it's an important consideration, but I see it troublesome to rely on it strictly, it certainly leaves holes and I don't even know if it covers most of the picture of political question.

Any ideas?

[Dros]

I think you're wrong. What holes does it leave?

[jake williams]

I think you're wrong. What holes does it leave?
Well just a few things I can think of off the top of my head:

- The dynamics of race
- Academia
- The "class solidarity" between wealthy professionals who aren't directly tied to the capitalist/"business" environment, and the capitalists themselves
- Manager/capitalist distinctions (which have come up before)

Those sorts of things, though I could think of others.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Academia are proletarians, but those who write the most books (to make extra $$$ and gain more publicity within academia) tend to be petit-bourgeois (they "rent" the services of some publishing company, and the means of production at their disposal happen to be papers, pens, etc.).

Race doesn't count. As for the last two, I've got good reason to ask the mods to merge the material of this thread to "Has capitalism simplified class relations?" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capitalism-really-t65831/index.html) - since this whole thread really boils down to that proclamation by Marx.

[Ramachandra]

Actually i beleive that marxism is mainly a social scientific analysis.Unlike in natural sciences in social science we do generalisations which includes the concept of possibility.These generalisations are not 100% pure.I agree when we talk about the intellectuals,administration workers it is hard to cover the entire picture through the class analysis.As an examle think about maddona.She doesn't own any means of production(as far as i know)but can we categerise her as proletariate?So there are exeptions and the generalisation is not hundred percent pure.But the important thing is that won't change the basic story right?the class analysis covers a giant space in the whole picture and that is the maximum we can expect when we discuss about social issues.

[lvleph]

I think what you are missing is that Marx and many socialist believe that class is mor euniting than than things such as race and nationality. Things such as racism are actually a direct result of the class struggle. Professionals that relate more to the capitalists are similar to house slaves, that related more to theire master than the other slaves.

[rouchambeau]

I think you're correct to be skeptical of a strict Marxist analysis of society. Class doesn't define everything. We have to take other forms of oppression into account, even when organizing around class issues.

[Dros]

- The dynamics of race

Race is an extremely important issue. However, it can only be understood why and how racism works through Marxist class analysis. The root of (almost) all racism comes from the fact that black people as a nation are exploited even more thoroughly than white people are (on average). In many cities within the US (note: I use the US as an example for this post but it can be applied to any society) it is easier for a white man with a criminal record to get a job than a black man without one. The facts regarding the economic condition of black people in comparison to whites are shocking. This forms the basis for understanding racism. Even institutionalized racism and racial stereotypes (black men are violent, black people deal drugs, etc.) find there basis in the material conditions under which black people must live as defined by the pertinent production relations. That is, racism is defined in terms of black people's relationship to the means of production, or their class.


- Academia

The Intelligentsia are part of the Petty Bourgeoisie class. Students are part of the Proletariat. What's the hole?


- The "class solidarity" between wealthy professionals who aren't directly tied to the capitalist/"business" environment, and the capitalists themselves

How is that not explained by Marxist analysis? They share material interests and thus will act in accordance with those shared interests.


- Manager/capitalist distinctions (which have come up before)

There are several ways of seeing this from Marxist analysis. I see managers as being either Petty Bourgeois elements or being part of a "labor aristocracy" (not in the perverse MIMite sense of the term). I think there are certain elements of the Proletariat (people who sell their labor) that have become coopted by the Bourgeoisie and have become enfranchised by the system through higher wages. Those are two different types of "managers" and two different ways of looking at this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Did Marx retain the bolded views by the time he wrote his Letter to Vera Zasulich? ;)

[In any event, I think you should merge the material of this thread into my own thread in the Theory forum. It's been done once to a thread by Escape Artist, if I remember correctly.]

[black magick hustla]

I think what gives marxist politics their momentum is their emphasis on class. Without class analysis, you either get worthless identity politics, or pseudo-communists cheering for the slaughtering of workers under the slogan of national liberation.

At the same time though, communism is a politic of the emancipation of humanity as a whole. Therefore it is important to not disregard this, and make communist politics mere "workerism". Communist organizations shouldn't be some sort of "advanced" trade unions.

Also, class analysis speaks about tendencies. Class is not a straightjacket.

[jake williams]

I'd like to reiterate that class analysis is vital to understand anything, but I think that defining "class" as solely dictated by one's relationship to the means of production is a little bit lacking. Doesn't dominate the whole of human or even social existence, you know? Necessary, assuredly, but it's an incomplete understanding on its own.

Look, you can define terms however you like, but I'm using a definition of class whereby there is some stratification of [necessarily generalized] groups of people on the basis of dominance and hierarchy. And I think, for several reasons, that ownership of capital is not the sole decider here, though obviously important and much if not most is structured around it.

Also it might make my point clearer if I emphasize as well that in large part I'm considering self-identification and class consciousness, which isn't totally trivial. What people believe themselves to be has a whole lot to do with what they are, and certainly with how they act.


Fred Hampton
He's not entirely incorrect, and there's a lot of truth in everything he's saying, but there're a few things I'm uncomfortable with here. For one thing, the idea that racism exists solely as a capitalist conspiracy to divide the workers is, I think, a bit of a fraud. It's hardly discouraged, I'm sure there's plenty of active intent in campaigns of division, but they're only part of the picture. Racism existed long before capitalism, albeit in different forms.

Second, and this is maybe my key point with all of this, is that there is no perfect bifurcation, a Rule by which it's determined that a certain set of individuals is X and the remainder is Y. There is a complex set of factors within societies that group individuals and act upon these groups, this is what I'm talking about with class.


"Academia" isn't a class. Some people that are referred to as academics are workers, some are petit-bourgeois and some are bourgeois.
So are you saying they sort? You pick one and put them one place and another and put them another? By what criteria?


What do you mean by "wealthy professionals"?
Individuals, generally with advanced degrees, who are pretty well-remunerated and align themselves politically and culturally with the capitalist class. Point being while it's generally impossible to become obscenely wealthy without direct action as a capitalist, it's certainly possible to become rich, and this isn't trivial - there just isn't a lot which separates the millionaires from the billionaires, in a lot of ways.


Managers belong to the petty-bourgeoisie.
This, even with the cute Marx quote, always sounds like a terse declaration and not a lot more. Could you elaborate?

[Dros]

He's not entirely incorrect, and there's a lot of truth in everything he's saying, but there're a few things I'm uncomfortable with here. For one thing, the idea that racism exists solely as a capitalist conspiracy to divide the workers is, I think, a bit of a fraud. It's hardly discouraged, I'm sure there's plenty of active intent in campaigns of division, but they're only part of the picture. Racism existed long before capitalism, albeit in different forms.

You misunderstand what Hampton is saying. He is not saying that racism is an ellaborate conspiracy. He is saying exactly what I said in my first post: racism is created by and is a biproduct of capitalist production relations, that is, class.


Second, and this is maybe my key point with all of this, is that there is no perfect bifurcation, a Rule by which it's determined that a certain set of individuals is X and the remainder is Y. There is a complex set of factors within societies that group individuals and act upon these groups, this is what I'm talking about with class.

In Marxist theory, class is determined by an individuals relationship to the means of production.


Individuals, generally with advanced degrees, who are pretty well-remunerated and align themselves politically and culturally with the capitalist class. Point being while it's generally impossible to become obscenely wealthy without direct action as a capitalist, it's certainly possible to become rich, and this isn't trivial - there just isn't a lot which separates the millionaires from the billionaires, in a lot of ways.

They are Petty Bourgeoisie. The Intelligentsia is part of the Petty Bourgeois class.


This, even with the cute Marx quote, always sounds like a terse declaration and not a lot more. Could you elaborate?

These people own some private property but don't directly control the means of production. That makes them Petty Bourgeoisie.