Post on 13-Apr-2018
7/25/2019 Marx's Use of Class by Bertell Ollman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxs-use-of-class-by-bertell-ollman 1/9
Marx's Use of "Class"Author(s): Bertell OllmanSource: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 73, No. 5 (Mar., 1968), pp. 573-580Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2775559 .
Accessed: 25/09/2013 20:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
7/25/2019 Marx's Use of Class by Bertell Ollman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxs-use-of-class-by-bertell-ollman 2/9
Marx'sUse of Class
Bertell ilman
ABSTRACT
We
attempt
to
derive
Marx's
theory
of
class
through
he
way
he uses the
term,
ather
than through n interpretation
f his most general tatements n the subject,which s how
class has usually been approached.
Class is seen to refer o
social and economicgroupings
based
on
a
wide
variety
of standards whose interrelations re those Marx finds n the
real society under examination.By conceptualizing unity
of apparently distinct ocial
relations,
class
in
Marxism
s
inextricably ound up withthe truth f Marx's own anal-
ysis. ts utility s
a function f the
adequacy of this analysis.
What are the classes intowhichMarx
places the nhabitants f
capitalist ociety?
In Capital,
he
says
that
n
developed api-
talist ociety here s
only a capitalist
nd
a
proletarian
lass.' The
former,
ho are
also called
the
bourgeoisie,
re describedn
the CommunistManifesto s ownersof
themeans f ocialproductionnd
employ-
ers
of
wage abor. n
the same
place,
the
proletariat
re
said to be the class
of
modern wage-laborers
who, having no
means of productionf
their
wn, are re-
ducedto selling heirabor-powern order
to
ive. 2
But,
though
Marx
believed
uro-
pean capitalismwas sufficientlydvanced
for a
Communist evolution o occur,he
asserts elsewhere
n
Capital
that
three
classes-capitalists,
roletarians,nd land-
owners- constitute
n
theirmutualoppo-
sition
the
frameworkf
modern ociety. 3
For
Marx, he andowner lass s composed
of
owners
f
arge tracts f and and is al-
most lwaysfeudal n origin. as the tand-
ard by whichMarxassessesclass member-
ship altered?4
Even where he basis for distinguishing
classes ppears
to
be
a
group's
elations o
the prevailingmode
of
production,
he
question s
not the
simple
one
of
whether
there re two
or three
lasses,
orMarx
ap-
plies this label to several othereconomic
units.
Two
outstanding xamples
re the
petty bourgeoisie nd the peasants. The
formerre small
shopkeepers
ho
own
no
meansof production r, sometimes, very
tiny morsel, nd employat most a few
workers; nd the atter re theowners f
small
plots
of and which
hey
farm hem-
selves.
Their
respective elationso thepre-
vailing
mode of
production
n
capitalism
are not
those
of the
capitalists, he prole-
tariat, or
the
landowners.Where, then,
does Marx place small businessmen nd
peasants when
he
talks of society being
made
up
of three
lasses? Also, it is not
easy to draw he inebetween hese lasses.
I
Karl
Marx, Capital
(Moscow,
1957), II, 348.
2
Karl Marx
and Friedrich
Engels,
The Com-
munistManifesto,
translated by
Samuel Moore
(Chicago, 1945), p. 12.
3Marx,
Capital
(Moscow, 1959),
III, 604.
'
The
landownersare
included as one of
the
three great
social classes
mentioned n
Marx's
Introduction o the
Critiqueof
Political
Economy
andare referredoas a separate lass na number
of
other
places
( Introduction,
Contribution
to the
Critique
f
Political
conomy,
ranslated
by N. I.
Stone
Chicago,
904],p.
305).
In
The
Eighteenth
rumaire
f Louis
Bonaparte, ow-
ever,Marx
treats
hem
s a section
f
the bour-
geoisie,
laiming hat
large anded
property,
e-
spite
ts feudal
oquetry
nd prideof
race, has
been rendered
horoughly
ourgeois y
the
de-
velopments f
modern
society
(Marx,
The
Eighteenth
rumairef
Louis
Bonaparte n
Marx
and Engels,
elected
Writings
Moscow,
951],
,
248).
573
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:33:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/25/2019 Marx's Use of Class by Bertell Ollman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxs-use-of-class-by-bertell-ollman 3/9
574 THE AMERICAN
OURNAL F SOCIOLOGY
At what
point does a small businessman
stop beingpetty
bourgeois nd becomea
capitalist?
How
much
and
does
a
peasant
have
to own beforehe becomes
a land-
owner?
Shouldwe
admit s classes ll thegroups
mentioned,here re
stillother lementsn
thepopulation
hat are difficult
o
place.
Are farm
aborers, or nstance,
roletari-
ans
or
peasants?
The inclusionof
rural
wageworkers s proletariat
s required
o
give validity o Marx's
claimthat
the pro-
letariat ontains
hevast majority f peo-
ple in capitalist society.5
He must have
been
aware
of the fact hat ndustrial
age
earnerswere a clearminorityn capitalist
Germany
t thattime.6 n at
least oneoc-
casion,Marx states
xplicitly
hat farm a-
borers
are
proletarians;yet,
the
whole
weight
f his treatment
f
the
proletariat
s
workers
n
industry rgues against
this.7
And,whenever
Marxparticularizes,
t is of
industrial orkers hat
he speaks.
Beyondthis,
here s an
indication hat
Marx
sometimes
xtends he
class
of
prole-
tarians
o
nclude mall-holdingeasants
s
well, s
whenhe states,
The owning eas-
ant does notbelong o theproletariat,nd
therewhere
he
does belong
o
it
by
his
po-
sition,
e does not believe that
he belongs
to
it. 8 Marx's
point
s thatbecause
of his
indebtedness
o various capitalists,
the
mortgage
n his
property,
tc.,thepeasant
does
notreally wn
his
plot of
and, nd is
actually
working
or
omeone
lse.
Bring-
ing the
peasantry ntothe proletariat
may
help accountfor
Marx's divisionof ad-
vanced capitalist
society nto two main
classes; the landowners nd the petty
bourgeoisie,we can assume, have
been
swept
underthe
rug
of
capitalist. Most
often
n
his writings,owever,
he
peasants
are referred o as a separate
class whose
distinctive ualities are aptlysummed p
in the phrase, class of barbarians. 9
Marx's contradictoryttempts
o
cate-
gorize
he
ntelligentsias extremelyeveal-
ing of the problems encountered
n
a
straight
conomic ivision
fsociety.
Usu-
ally,
he
speaks
of
doctors,awyers,
ournal-
ists,professors, riters,nd priests s the
ideological epresentativesndspokesmen
of the
bourgeoisie.10 eferring
o petty
bourgeois oliticians nd writers,
arx
ex-
plains thatwhatmakes themrepresenta-
tives f
this
lass is the factthat
n
their
mindsthey do not get beyond the limits
which he
atter
o not
get beyond
n
life,
that
they are consequently riven,
theo-
retically,
o
the ameproblem nd
solutions
to whichmaterialnterestnd social
posi-
tiondrive he atterpractically. '1
The relationshipetween he
ntelligent-
sia
and
the
capitalist
lass
is further
lari-
fiedwhere
Marx says
the
deologistsf
a
class
are
those who make
the
perfecting
ofthe llusion f theclassabout tself heir
chief
ources
f
ivelihood.
his,
he
claims,
is based on a division f labor
inside
the
class between
mental nd
physical
work.12
Though
it
would appear
to
be general,
Marx
carefully
estricts
is
own
applica-
tion of this
principle
o
the
bourgeoisie.
From
commentsuch as these,
he ntelli-
gentsia
nd
the
capitalists
tand
forth
s
brothers,
imilar t
the
core,
who are mere-
ly specializing
n
differentreas
of
capital-
ist
work. '13
'
Marx
and
Engels,
The German deology,trans-
Iated by R. Pascal (London,
1942), p. 69.
'See Edward Bernstein,
volutionarySocialism,
translated y
Edith
Harvey (London, 1909), p.
106.
'Marx says, The capitalist
tenanthas ousted
the peasant, and the real tiller f the soil is just as
much a proletarian, wage
worker, s is the urban
worker (H. Meyer, Marx on Bakunin:
A
Neg-
lected Text, Etudes de Marxologie, edited by
M. Rubel [October, 1959],
p. 109).
8
Ibid.,p. 108.
Marx,
Capital, III, 793.
10
Marx,
The
Class
Struggles
n
France,
Se-
lected
Writings,
,
129.
Eighteenth
Brumaire, op. cit.,
p.
250.
2
German
deology,
pp. 39,
40.
13
In
the Communist
Manifesto,
he
ntelligentsia
are
referred
o
as
the
paid
wage-laborers
f the
bourgeoisie
Communist
Manifesto,p. 16).
Marx's
terminologyhere
suggests
a
strong
likeness be-
tween
the intelligentsia
nd the
proletariat.
None-
theless,
he context
makes it
clear
that
their real
place evenhere s within hecapitalist lass.
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:33:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/25/2019 Marx's Use of Class by Bertell Ollman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxs-use-of-class-by-bertell-ollman 4/9
MARX'SUSE OF
CLASS
575
Though hey
re usually ubsumed
nder
the capitalist
lass, this does
not preclude
Marx,on occasion,
from scribing
o
the
intelligentsia
status,
ot ustas a class,
but
as a cluster fclasses. n Capital,Volume
I,
forexample,he
speaks of them s
the
ideological
lasses. 14 If Marx sometimes
putsthe
ntelligentsiamong he
capitalists
and
sometimes
uts
them n their wn,
he
is obviously
hanging is criteria or
decid-
ingwhatconstitutes
class.
Besides referringo
capitalists,
roletar-
ians, landowners,
ettybourgeoisie,
nd
peasants,
class
is
also
used to
refer o
groupscarved
out of society
on another
basis thantheirrelations o the modeof
production.
uchgroups
requentlyontain
members rom
woor more f
the conomic
classesdealt
with bove.What
Marx calls
the
ideological
lass,
for xample, eems
to
be based on the
role
these
peopleplay
in society t
large,rather han
n produc-
tion.
The ruling lasses, nother
ocial
unit
found
n
Marx's writings,ppears
to have
been marked
out
by
the
same
measure:
those
ndividuals ho
take part
n
running
the country r who help decide how it
should
be run are
its members.'5n Great
Britain, he
ruling lasses are
said to
be
composed of the
aristocracy,
money-
ocracy, and
millocracy. '16
hus, they
include both
capitalistsand
landowners,
mostof whom
belong
to the aristocracy.
The
millocracy
efers o owners
f
fac-
torieswhich roduce
materials
or lothing:
and the moneyocracy,r
finance
ristoc-
racy,
refers o
bankers
nd the ike,
who
earn their ntrancentothecapitalist lass
as hirers f
wage labor
and by virtue
f
theirmonetary
ealings with industrial-
ists.17
Marx also speaks
of a lower middle
class
which
ncludes the small manufac-
turers, he shopkeeper, he artisan, the
peasant. 118
his class, t appears, icks up
some members from
all the economic
classes
mentioned
arlier.What s the cri-
terion by which Marx
determineswho
belongs
o the
ower
middle lass? Judging
by
its
membership,t could be income,
power, r
even
distance rom he extremes
of
nvolvement
n the
class struggle.
One
last example:
what are we to make
of the
group Marx calls the dangerous
class, otherwise nownas the Lumpen-
proletariat, hich s said to be composed
of
the social scum,
hat passively otting
mass thrown ff y the
owest ayers f old
society ?19
t
is
spoken
f
elsewhere
s a
recruitinground or
hieves nd criminals
of all
kinds, iving
n the
rumbs
f
society,
peoplewithout definite
rade, agabonds,
peoplewithout hearth
r a home. 20
y
what standarddoes Marx
judge
member-
ship
n this
lass?
It
seemsto
be a
gather-
ing place for all the unemployed oor,
though
Marx's
term,
dangerousclass,
suggests certain ctioncriterion
s well.
The
Lumpenproletariat
ell
their services
to the
bourgeoisie,
ho use them
s
strike-
breakers,
abor
spies,
and
fightersgainst
the
workers
n
times
of
revolution. uch
are their actions which make them
the
dangerous lass. 2'
The
plurality f
criteria
Marx uses
in
constructing
lasses
s
reminiscentf
pres-
ent-day onfusionn this ubject. t is not
enough
to
argue-as some
have-that
1 Marx,
Capital, ranslatedby Samuel Moore
and Edward Aveling Moscow, 1958), I, 446.
'f
Of this class, Marx says, the class, which
is
the rulingmaterialforce of
society, s at the same
time ts ruling ntellectual orce
(German deol-
ogy,p. 39). Though Marx
uses the expression rul-
ing class in ways which suggest more functional
definition,
his statementdoes
serve
notice where
the real power
of
any ruling
class lies for Marx.
6Marx,
The Future
Results of
BritishRule
in
India,
SelectedWritings,
, 321.
'Elsewhere,
the latter
group,or
some
part of
it-the
big money enders nd usurers-is labeled
a class
of
parasites (Capital, III, 532).
Communist Manifesto,p. 27.
19
bid.
20
Class
Struggles
n
France,
Selected
Writings,
I, 142.
'
Engels,
it is
worth noting, has even more
referents or class than Marx, especially
n
Ger-
many: Revolution and Counter Revolution.
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:33:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/25/2019 Marx's Use of Class by Bertell Ollman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxs-use-of-class-by-bertell-ollman 5/9
576
THE AMERICAN OURNAL
F SOCIOLOGY
Marx's
idea
of
class
develops
over
time,
for many
of
the complications
we
have
drawn
ttention
o are
found
n
thesame
work
r
in
writings
f the same
period.
f
readers f thisarticlewill checkthecita-
tions
which
correspond
o
my footnotes
1,
3, 9,
14, and 17,
they
will ee a
sampling
of the
various
ndapparently
ontradictory
uses
of class
in
the
volumes
f
Capital.
The
conclusion
emains
hat,
for
variety
of
purposes,
Marx
divides
ociety
p
in
as
manydifferent
ays, peaking
f
the
parts
in
eachcase
as
classes.
Anyattempt
o
explain
Marx's
practice
must
tartwith
the admission
hat
Marx
uses this term oosely,oftenputting t
forward
s a synonym
or group,
fac-
tion,
r layer.
This
was
only n
keeping
with
the imprecise
se
of
class
which
Rolf
Dahrendorf
nforms
s was typical
f
hisperiod.22
Where
Marxspeaks
of
ruling
classes,
groups
or factions
ould
be
substituted
or
classes'
without
nyalter-
ation
in
the
meaning.
Marx
himself ses
ruling
lass
and
rulingfaction
nter-
changeably
n
one instance
o
refer
o
the
same
people.23
Groups could also be
substituted
for
classes
without any
change
of
meaning
in the
expression
ideological
lasses ;
and
either
group
or layer
would
serve
for class
where
Marx talks
ofthe
dangerous
lass.
With
all due
allowance
made for
loose
word
usage,
however,
Marx
cannot
escape
the
more
erious
ccusation
f
having
litter
of standards
orclass
membership
nd
of
changing
hemwithout rior
warning.
The
implications
f
this disorder
for
Marx's class
analysis fsociety houldnot
be carried
oo
far,
ince
Marx's tripartite
division
of
society
nto capitalists,
role-
tarians,
nd
landowners
s
the prevalent
one,
and
it is
also
the classification
ost
in
keeping
with
his
other
heories.
ence,
we
may
in
fairness
ub
it the
Marxist
system
f
classes.
The other
lasses
men-
tioned
anbe made more
r less
consistent
with hisdivision
n the
basis of
hints
Marx
dropsbut
nowhere evelops.
These
hints
are found n his expressions,subdivisions
of classes
and transitionlasses. 24
he
former
elps us
comprehend
ccupational,
income,and
functional
nits
withinthe
threegreat
lasses based
on differing
ela-
tions o
theprevailing
modeofproduction.
Millocracy,moneyocracy,
nd shipbuilders
are all subdivisions
f
the
capitalist
lass,
just
as
skilled
and unskilled
workers re
subdivisions
f the proletariat.
The concept f
transition
lass can
be
used to justify eavingout of the more
general
presentations
f the class
system,
those groups
which re
in
the
processof
disappearing.
mall-holding
easants
and
petty
bourgeoisie
re among
the classes
Marx sees
disappearing
n his own day.25
A stumbling lock
to taking his
way out
is
that transition
lass
is a highly
ub-
jective
concept
even within
Marx's
own
analytical
framework;
ny class,
after
ll,
can be viewed s passing
out
of the
pic-
ture, depending n the timespan under
consideration.
We
saw
Marx
claim
that,
in
fullydeveloped
apitalism,
nly capi-
talist
and a proletarian
lass exist;
there-
fore,
f
this
s the
period
one has
in
mind,
all
other
lasses are
transitional.
fter
he
proletarian
evolution,
owever,
he
capi-
talist
class, too,
disappears;
and,
when
communismrrives,
he
proletariat
s
well
dissolves
nto
the
community.
ll
refer-
ences
to transition
lasses,
therefore,
f
they retoconvey nymeaningt all,must
make explicit
he
time
period
under
con-
sideration.
Marx's only
attempt o present
con-
nected
ccount f
class appears
t the
end
22Rolf Dahrendorf,
Class
and
Class
Conflict
n
Industrial
Society,
translated
y the author
(Lon-
don,
1959),
p. 4.
3 Class
Struggles
n France,
Selected
Writings,
I, 130.
24Marx,
The Bourgeoisie
and
the
Counter-
Revolution,
SelectedWritings,
, 63;
Eighteenth
Brumaire,
electedWritings,
,
253.
2
Communist
anifesto,.
16. Many
groups,
such
as the petty
bourgeoisie,
all
ntoboth
of the
above categories;
hey
re a subdivision
f
the capi-
talist
class and,
for
the period
in which
Marx
is
writing, transition lass as well.
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:33:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/25/2019 Marx's Use of Class by Bertell Ollman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxs-use-of-class-by-bertell-ollman 6/9
MARX'SUSE OF CLASS 577
of Volume
II
of
Capital,
but, unfortu-
nately, e never
ompletedt.26Fromthese
fewparagraphs,
e learn thatwagelabor-
ers, capitalists,
nd landownersonstitute
thethree argeclassesof modern ociety,
Yet, he admits hat, ven
n
England
where
capitalism
s
mostdeveloped,
thestratifi-
cation
f
classes
does not
appear
n its
pure
form.
Middle and intermediatetrata
ven
hereobliterateines of demarcation
very-
where
although
ncomparably
ess
n
rural
districts, han
n the
cities).
He
believes
that
developments
n
capitalist ociety
re
speedilyreducing ll such strata
ntothe
capitalist
or
proletarian lass.
The
land-
owners, oo, reshortlyogo the ameway.
With
the
growing
divorce between
the
meansof production
nd labor,Marx sees
all
workers
ventually ecoming
wage
la-
borers.
As
for
apitalists,
he trend oward
increasing oncentration
n
industry
n-
larges heholdings
fsome ust as
it forces
others nto
the
proletariat.
Marx
replies
o his
own
question,
What
constitutes class? with another,
What
makeswage aborers, apitalists,
nd land-
lords constitutethe three great social
classes?
The
fragment
e left
behind
on-
tainsonly
he first
art
of his
answer:
At
first
lance-the
identity
f
revenues
nd
sources
of
revenue.
There
are
three
great
social
groupswhosenumbers,
he individ-
uals forming
hem, ive on wages,profit,
and
ground
ent, espectively,n
the
reali-
zation
of their
abor-power,
heir
capital,
and
their
anded
property.
Marx recog-
nizes thatthis standard lso enables
phy-
sicians and officials o be spoken of as
classes,
for
theybelong
o
two
distinct
groups receiving
heirrevenues rom ne
and
the
same
source.
The
samewouldalso
be true
of
the infinite
ragmentations
f
interest nd rankinto which the
division
of
social labor splits aborersas
well
as
capitalists nd landlords-the
atter, .g.,
into owners of
vineyards, armowners,
owners
f
forests,
mine
ownersnd owners
of fisheries.
ere,
the
manuscript
reaks
off.When
concentratingn theproblem f
class,
Marx
takes a
stand against
ffixing
this
abel to all kinds f ocial nd
economic
groups,which s something e himself as
guilty
f.
From
our
study of
Marx's use of the
term class, we can
suggest owhewould
have finished his
account.The
qualifica-
tions
for onstituting class that
capital-
ists possess and physicians o not are
as
follows:
he
capitalists ave a direct
per-
atingrelationshipo
the
mode
of
produc-
tion,while
hysicianso not; the
capitalists
have
distinct conomic nterests the
size
of theirprofit)based on these relations
which
place
them n
conflict iththepro-
letariat and
landowners,
he
other two
groupsdirectly
nvolved
n
capitalistpro-
duction,while
the
economic
nterests
f
physicians-thougheaning toward those
of
the
capitalists
n
present ociety-are
really ompatible ith he
nterests f any
of
the
hree
reat
lasses;
the
apitalists
re
conscious
of
their
uniqueness
s
a
class
with
nterests
hat re
opposed
to
those
f
the two other main classes in society,
while
hysicians,
ven
f
they
re
conscious
of
themselves
s a
distinct
roup,
do
not
view their
nterests s being opposed
to
thoseof
others;
the
capitalists re organ-
ized
in
one
or more
political
arties,
which
work o
promote
heir
nterests,
hile
phy-
sicians-despite
their
pressuregroup
ac-
tivity-have
no
such
organization;
nd,
finally, apitalistsexhibit
a general
cul-
tural
ffinity,way
of
ife
nd
set
of
social
values, which mark them offfrom the
proletariatnd the
andowners,
hile
phy-
sicians
s a
group
have
no
such
distinguish-
ingfeatures.27
A
thread
which uns
hrough
ll of these
criteria s the
hostility class
displays
for
'Unless otherwise
ignified,hat
follows omes
from apital, II, 862-63.
'
Whether
he
culture, ay of
life, nd social
valuesof
capitalistseally iffer ore rom
hose
of other sections
f
the
population han the
equivalentttributesf physicians
s not at issue.
All that
oncernss s thatMarxthoughthey id,
for
thisbeliefwas an importantlementn
his
constructionfclasses.
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:33:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/25/2019 Marx's Use of Class by Bertell Ollman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxs-use-of-class-by-bertell-ollman 7/9
578
THE
AMERICAN OURNAL
F
SOCIOLOGY
its
opponentclasses. Whether
n work,
politics,or
culture, n
essentialdefining
characteristicf
each class
is
its
antago-
nism in
this same
sphere to others.For
the capitalists, hiscan be seen in their
hostile
relations o the
workers nd the
landowners t the
pointof
production,
n
their
political
struggle o promotetheir
interests t the
expense of these classes,
and
in the
cultural
sideswipes
they
are
forever
directing
gainst them. Of the
bourgeoisie, arx
says, The separate n-
dividuals
orm class
n
so far s
they ave
to carryon
a common attle
against an-
other
lass: otherwiseheyare
on hostile
termswitheach otheras competitors. 28
This common
attle s fought n
as many
fronts s there re
criteria or onstituting
a
class.
On
each
front,
t
is the
fact of
battle
tself
which arns achside
ts abel.
Hence,
Marx calls a society
where nly ne
class
exists,
uch
as occurs
fter
he prole-
tarian
evolution, classless
ociety.With-
out
an enemy, he
antagonistic ature of
the
proletariat isappears nd with
t
the
designation
class. Who
is
the
enemy?
is a question hat can be asked whenever
Marx
uses
class.
The secret f
class
in
Marxism
ies hid-
den
in
the
socialist
philosopher's oncep-
tualization
f it
as a
complex
ather
han
a
simple relation.
n
class
Marx
con-
flatesa
numberof
social ties
(relations
between
groups
based
on
various stand-
ards)
which are
generally reatedsepa-
rately.
He
views
them s
interactingarts
of an
organicwhole,
he
ociety
n
question,
such thatdevelopmentn any one neces-
sarily ffects
more
r
ess,
ooner
r
ater)
the
others.
he
mistake
made
in
virtually
all
treatments
f this
subject,
a
pit
we
could
only climb out of
after
falling
n
ourselves,s
to seek
after unidimensional
meaning.
But, by this
maneuver, lass is
distorted
o
the
number f
majorelements
left
unreported.
he
various
criteria
for
establishinglass,
therefore,imply
eflect
the
wealth of
social
relations
hat
Marx
seesbound
up in
it.
Only
n
advanced
capitalism
s
it possi-
ble
for
group
o
qualify
s
a
class on
all
the criteria have listed.Hence, Marx's
assertion
hat
class is
a
productof
the
bourgeoisie. 29
o take
just one
instance,
the
absence
of
effective
ommunication
n
earlier
periods
inhibitsthe
exchangeof
information
nd
contactswhich
s
essen-
tial for
class
formation.
n
awareness f
common
nterests
s well
as
co-ordinated
action
to promote hem
re
impossibilities
for
people
iving
n
scattered
ommunities.
But
if class
is a
product
f
capitalism,
howcan Marx speak of all historys the
history
f class
struggle r
refer-as he
frequently
oes-to the
distinguishingo-
cial
divisions
f
previous
pochs
as class-
es ?30
To
answer
this
query is
also to
demonstrate
ow
he
was
able to refer
o so
many
groups in
capitalist
society
as
classes. It is
simplythat
Marx
applies
this
abel
if
a
group
measures
p
to only
some
of the
above
standards.
Whichthese
are varies
with
his
purpose
n
making
he
particularlassification.his is thenubof
the
explanation
or
Marx's
apparent
on-
fusion
ver
class.
If
we
want
to
discover
the
relevant
riteria
n
each
case,
we
must
follow
up
our
question,
Who
is the en-
emy?
with
one,
Why
are
they
the
en-
emy?
Nothing
hat
has
been
said
absolves
Marx
from he
accusation
f
using
class
2
German
deology,
pp.
48-49.
29Ibid.,p. 77. This is not to
say that everycapi-
talist ocietyhas a fully
eveloped ystem fclasses.
Marx
refers
o
the United
States as a place where
although lasses lready exist, heyhavenotyet be-
come
fixed,
ut
continually
hange
nd
interchange
their elements
in constant flux
( Eighteenth
Brumaire, SelectedWritings,
, 232). Marx
never
adequately explains this
exception.
s
He says, The history f all
hitherto xisting
society
s
thehistory
f class
struggles
Commu-
nistManifesto,
.
12). In a footnote o the
1888
Englishedition, ngels qualifies his
wherehe says,
that is, all
writtenhistory. He points out that
in
1848 Marx and he did not know
about the
existence f
primitive
ommunism
ibid.).
n
any
case, Engels' qualification
does
not affect ur
use
of
this
statement.
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:33:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/25/2019 Marx's Use of Class by Bertell Ollman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxs-use-of-class-by-bertell-ollman 8/9
MARX'S
USE
OF CLASS
579
loosely,
ut
it shouldhelpus comprehend
what
ies
behind his
usage.3'
Whether
t was
proper
f Marx to
apply
the abel
class on the
basis
of
only
few
ofthe relevant riterias opento dispute,
but
thathe could
notwaitfor ll of
them
to be
satisfied efore
usingthis
term
s
clear.
Otherwise, e would
have defined
himself ut
of the running,
or even
the
capitalists
nd theproletariat
re
occasion-
ally seen
to
be
without omeof
the
requi-
site attributes.
e
says
of the
proletariat,
for xample,
Thus this mass
s already
class
in
opposition
o
capital,
but
not
yet
a class for tself. 32
he missingngredient
is class consciousness, he proletariat's
comprehension
f
their ife
situation
nd
their cceptance
f the interests nd
ene-
mies
which ccrue
o t.
Elsewhere,
Marx suggestsheproletariat
are
not
a class, because
they ack a class-
wide
political
organization.
n a letter o
Kugelmann,Marx
speaks of his program
for
he
GenevaConference
f the
First n-
ternational
s helping the
organizationf
the
workers
nto class. 33
n theCommu-
nistManifesto, e specificallyinks hisup
with
the formationf a
politicalparty.34
Insofar
s class consciousness
emains he
achievement f a few, nd
before uch a
party
exists,
the
proletariat,
ven
in the
most
advanced
capitalistic ocieties,
ack
twomajor qualifications
or onstituting
class.35 similar reakdown
ouldbe made
of
the capitalists
nd, in fact, of
all the
grouns
Marx
calls
crJq.p36
There
is a still
more formidable bjec-
tion
to Marx's
use
of class.
Besides
changing
is
standards
when
moving
rom
one group
o
the
next,
hesame
group-as
indicatedby its popularname-may be
given
ts measure
y a variety f
tandards.
Depending n
his purpose,Marx
maymean
by proletariat
ll wage
earners,he sim-
plest
and largest
net
of all. Or
he
may
meanthosewho
pass oneor any
few fthe
income,
ultural, olitical,
nd
social tests
that
have been isted.
With
the
hift
n
cri-
teria, here s
a shift, ften f
hugepropor-
tions,
n
the
number fpeople
referredo.
This
explains, f course,
why ome
groups
-peasants, rural workers, ntellectuals,
and shopkeeperseing
the
prize
examples
-are sometimes ound
n one class
and
sometimes
n
another.
his objection
might
have
proved atalfor hose
wishingo com-
prehend
Marx's views
bout
his contempo-
raries
f certain rends
were not
apparent
in
his
use of class abels.
Generally, arx's
comments
n the
proletariat
nly apply
to industrial
age earners,nd
his descrip-
1
To make his
pluralityof
standards
explicit,
whichwe would have liked,would have made it
necessary or Marx
to tellmore than
he had time
for.
t
is
simply that the
requirements
f
getting
on
with his
task of the moment
orcedhimto
sub-
sume
a greatdeal of
therelationshe was
treating.
On the one
occasionwhen
he soughtto sketch
out
the
main relations n
class, death
intervened.
2Marx, he
Poverty f
Philosophy
Moscow,
n.d.), p.
195.
'
Marx,
Letters
o
Dr.
Kugelmann
London,
1941), p.
19.
'
Communist anifesto,
. 26.
35
These deficiencies
re closely
related. ncreased
class consciousness dvances the cause of
political
organization y
creating reaternterest
n it, while
organizational
ctivity
heightens lass
consciousness
throughthe
propaganda it
makes
possible. Both
deficienciesisappear
with the
further evelopment
of
the
capitalistmode of
production:Marx
says,
The
organizationof
revolutionary lements s
a
class
supposes the existence
of all the
productive
forces
whichcould be
engendered
n
the bosom
of
the old
society (Poverty f
Philosophy,
. 196).
3'
The mostexplicit
tatement f this
duality
oc-
curs
n
regard
o the French
mall-holdingeasants,
of
whom Marx
says,
In
so far
as millions of
families iveundereconomic onditions f existence
that
separatetheir
mode of
life, heir nterests
nd
their
culturefrom
those of other
classes, and put
them n
hostileopposition to
the atter, hey form
a
class. In so
far as there s
merely local inter-
connection
between these
small-holding easants,
and the
identity f their nterests
egets no com-
munity, o national bond
and no political
organi-
zation
among them, they do
not
form a class
( Eighteenth
Brumaire,
elected
Writings
, 303).
It
appears that
economically
and
culturally
the
peasants are a
class,
but
as regards lass
conscious-
ness and
politics,they are
not.
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:33:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/25/2019 Marx's Use of Class by Bertell Ollman
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marxs-use-of-class-by-bertell-ollman 9/9
580
THE
AMERICAN OURNAL
F SOCIOLOGY
tions
of
capitalists re
usuallymeant for
large
merchantsnd bankers s well
as for
the ownersof
the means of production.
These are the chief
characters n Marx's
realistic rama,Capital.
This
brings
s to
thenext nd, formany,
obvious question, How useful s
Marx's
concept f class'?
But, if our statement
of what
Marx meantby class -garnered
from is
actual use of the term-is
correct,
thisquestion imply
masks another
more
profound
one concerning he utility
of
Marxism tself. y
conceptualizing unity
of
apparently
distinct
social
relations,
class is inextricablyound up
with the
reality ftheunity o posited, hat s, with
the truth f Marx's ownanalysis.
For the
interwovenriteria
Marx used forunder-
standing
hat onstitutes class represents
the result f his empirical
ocial studies.
It
is
only,
n
other
words, ecause
Marx
found
groups
n his
society
with different
relations
o
the
prevailing
modeof produc-
tion,
sets of
opposing
economic nterests
based
on these
relations,
corresponding
cultural
nd
moraldifferentiation,
grow-
ing consciousnessmongthesegroupsof
their
uniqueness
nd accompanying
nter-
ests,
and-resulting
fromthis
conscious-
ness-the
development
f social and
po-
litical organizations
hich
promote
hese
interests
hat he constructed is
peculiar
concept
of class.
Of
overriding
mpor-
tance
s
that class
in
Marxism s not ust
a
label
for
groups
arved
ut
of society
n
the basis of
a
discernible
et of
standards,
butexpressess wellthe nvolvednterac-
tionwhichMarx believed
he uncoverede-
tween
hese
tandards.37
hen ritics,uch
as R. N.
Carew-Hunt, herefore,
sk com-
plainingly orMarx's
definitionf class.
they re asking, n
effect, or the
latter's
analysis
of
capitalist lass society;
and
it
is understandablehat Marx had difficulty
in reconstitutinghis analysis
n
the form
of a definitionor class. 38
For thosewho accept Marx's version f
capitalist ocial relations,hekey concepts
in which t is couched re second nature;
class serves as a necessaryvehiclefor
conveyingwhat Marx taught.
For
those
who do
not
shareMarx's
analysis,
r
some-
thing lose to it, usinghis concept class
can onlydistort hattheyhave to say. We
are
not nterested ere n
theutility f this
concept s an aid
in
presentingMarxism
when the
purpose
s
to criticize he doc-
trine.Nor should our conclusion e taken
as an argument gainst using the word
class
in
somenon-Marxistense, s long
as
this s
made clear. One can define he
word class to suit practically ny end,
but it
is altogether nothermatter o use
Marx's concept class in ways other han
he did himself.
Words
re
the
property
f
anguage,
ut
concepts-and class
is
both
word nd a
concept-belong
o a
particular hilosophy
(way
of
viewing
he
world)
and share
n
all ofthe atter's niqueness. s a concept,
class
cannot e detached
rom
he truc-
turedknowledget seeks to express nd
of
which
t
is,
in
the
ast
analysis,
n
integral
part.
Does
Marx
provide
n
adequate
ac-
count f
social
relations
n
capitalism?
t
is
on the
nswer
o this
uestion hat
heutil-
ity of Marx's conceptof class hinges.39
37The interaction fferedhere is not
meant to
be
complete.
One
whole
area
which has not been
taken account of at all has to do with
the role of
class
in
Marx's
theory
of
alienation.
'R. N. Carew-Hunt,
The Theory nd Practise
of Communism London, 1963), p. 65. As we have
indicated,one possible exception to this rebuke s
the short, unfinished hapter on class in Capital,
III, 862-63.
S It is our view that the same analysis could be
made of Marx's other key concepts- class strug-
gle, value, surplus-value, freedom, labor-
power, alienation, etc. Like class, each ex-
presses an aspect of the social reality Marx
believes he uncovered, and,
like
class,
the
full
meaningMarx attaches to these concepts an only
be decipheredby examininghow he actuallyuses
them n his writings.All of them
are
equally un-
available
to
those
who
would
use
them
to
express
non-Marxistviews.
This content downloaded from 128 104 46 206 on Wed 25 Sep 2013 20:33:51 PM