"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--