marx's use of class bertell ollman.pdf

8/12/2019 marx's use of class bertell ollman.pdf

1/8

Marx sUse of ClassBertell Oilman

American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 73, No. 5, 1968ABSTRACT

We attempt to derive Marx's theory of class through the way he uses the term, ratherthan through an interpretation of his most general statements on the subject, which is howclass has usually been appr oached . Class is seen to refer to social and econom ic groupingsbased on a wide variety of standards whose interrelations arc those Marx finds in thereal society un der examination. By con ceptualizing a unity of apparently distinct socialrelations, class in Marxism is inextricably bound up with the truth of Marx's own ana lysis. Its utility is a function of the adequacy of this analysis.What are the classes into which Marxplaces the inhabitants of capitalist society?In Capital, he says that in developed capi

talist society there is only a capitalist anda proletarian class,1 The former, who arealso called the bourgeoisie, are described inthe Com mun ist M a-if feste as owners ofthe mean? of social production and employers of wage labor. In the same place, theproletariat are said to be the class ofmodern wage-laborers who, having nomeans of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor-power in orderto live.

2But, though Marx believed European capitalism was sufficiently advancedfor a Communist revolution to occur, heasserts elsewhere in Capital that threeclassescapitalists, proletarians, and landowners constitute in their mutual opposition the framework of modern society. 8For Marx, the landowner class is composedof owners of large tracts of land and is almost always feudal in origin. Has the standard by which Marx assesses class member

ship altered?4Karl Marx , Capital (Mo scow, 19S7), II , WS .Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels The Communist Manifesto, translated by Samuel Moor e(Chicago, 1945), p. 12. M a r x , Capital (Mo scow, 1 959), III , 604.'The landowners are included as one of thethree great social classes men tioned in Marx'sIntroduction to the Critique of Political Econo my

Even where the basis for distinguishingclasses appears to be a group's relations tothe prevailing mode of production, thequestion is not the simple one of whetherthere are two or three classes, for Marx applies this label to several other economicunits. Two outstanding examples are thepetty bourgeoisie and the peasants. Theformer are small shopkeepers who own nomeans dLproductipn or, sometimes, a verytiny morsel, and employ at most a fewworkers; and the latter are the owners ofsmall plots of land which they farm themselves. Their respective relations to the prevailing mode of production in capitalismare not those of the capitalists, the proletariat, or the landowners. Where, then,does Marx place small businessmen andpeasants when he talks of society beingmade up of three classes? Also, it is noteasy to draw the Une between these classes.and are referred to as a separate class in a numberof other p laces ( Introduc tion, A Contributionto the Critique of Political Economy, translatedby N. I. Stone [Ch icago, 1904 ], p. JOS). In TheEighteenth Brumaire of Lou is Bonap arte, ho w ever. Marx treats them as a section of the bour-ge o :rie, claiming that large landed property, de spite its feudal coquetry and pride of race, hasbeen rendered thoroughly bourgeois by the developments of modern society (Marx , . Th*Eighteenth Brumaire of Lou is Bon aparte in M arxand Engels, Selected Writings [M oscow , 1961], I ,248) .

573


2/8

574 THEAMERICANJOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGYAt what point does a small businessmanstop being petty bourgeois andbecomeacapitalist? How much land doesapeasanthave to own before he becomes a landowner?Should we admit as classesallthe groupsmentioned, there are still other elementsinthe population that aredifficult to place.Are farm laborers, for instance, proletarians or peasants? The inclusion of ruralwage workersas proletariat isrequiredtogive validityto Marx's claim that the proletariat contains the vast majorityof people in capitalist society.5 He must havebeen awareof the fact that industrial wageearners werea clear minorityincapitalistGermanyatthat time.0Onatleast one occasion, Marx states explicitly that farm laborers are proletarians: yet, the wholeweightofhis treatmentofthe proletariat asworkers in industry argues against this,7And, whenever M arx particularizes,it is ofindustrial workers that he speaks.Beyond this, thereis an indication thatMarx sometimes extends the classofproletarians to include small-holding peasantsaswell,aswhenhestates, The owning peasant does not belongto the proletariat, andthere wherehedoes belongto itby his position,hedoesnot believe thathebelongsto it. 8 Marx's pointisthat becauseof hisindebtedness to various capitalists, themortgage on his property, etc., the peasantdoes not really own his plotofland, andisactually working forsomeone the. Bringingthepeasantry intotheproletariat mayhelp account for Marx's division of advanced capitalist society into two mainclasses; the landowners and the petty

Marxand E ngels,T heGerman Ideology,trans-feted by R. Pascal (London, 1942), p. 69.SeeEdward Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism,translated by Edith Harvey (London, 1909), p. 106.fMarx says, The capitalist tenanthasoustedthe peasant, and the real tillerofthe soilisjustasmuchaproletarian,awage worker, asisthe urbanworker (H.Meyer, MarxonBakunin:ANeglected Text, tudes de Marxologie,editedby

M. Rubel [October, 1959],p.109). /Wd.,p.10S.

bourgeoisie, we can assume, have beenswept under the rug of capitalist. Mostofteninhis writings, however, the peasantsare referred to as a separate class whosedistinctive qualities are aptly summedupinthephrase, classofbarbarians. 0Marx's contradictory attempts to categorize the intelligentsiaisextremely revealing of the problems encountered in astraight economic divisionof society. Usually, he speaksofdoctors, lawyers, journalists, professors, writers, and priestsas 'heideological representatives and spokesmenof the bourgeoisie.10 Referring to pettybourgeois politicians and writers, Marxexplains that what makes them representa

tivesof this class is thefact th atintheirminds they do not get beyond thelimitswhichthe latterdo not getbeyondinlife,that they are consequently driven, theoretically,tothe same problem and solutionsto which material interest andsocial position drivethe latter practically. 11The relationship betweentheintelligentsia andthecapitalist classis further clarified where Marx says theideologists of aclass arethose who make the perfectingof the illusionof the class about itself theirchief sourcesoflivelihood . Th is, he claims,is based on a division of labor insidetheclass between mental and physical work.12Though it would appear to be general,Marx carefully restricts his ownapplication of this principle to the bourgeoisie.From comments suchasthese, theintelligentsia and thecapitalists stand forthasbrothers, similaratthe core, who are merely specializingin different areasofcapitalist work. 1

Marx, Capital m, 793.Marx, The Class Struggles in Trance, Se-lectedW ritings,I,129.* Eighteenth Brumaire, op.dt. p. 250.German Ideology,p p.39, 40.In theCommunistManifesto, the intelligentsiaare referredto asthe paid wage-laborers of thebourgeoisie Communist Manifesto,p. *6). Marx'sterminology here suggests a strong likenessbetween the intelligentsia and the proletariat. Nonetheless,the context makesit dear that their realplace even hereiswithin the capitalist class.


3/8

MARX'S USE OF CLASS' 575Though they arc usually subsumed underthe capitalist class, this docs not precludeMarx, on occasion, from ascribing to theintelligentsia a status, not just as a class, butas a cluster of classes. In Capital, VolumeI, for example, he speaks of them as theideological classes. 14 If Marx sometimesputs the intelligentsia among the capitalistsand sometimes puts them on their own, heis obviously changing his criteria for deciding what constitutes a class.Besides referring to capitalists, proletarians, landowners, petty bourgeoisie, andpeasants, class is also used to refer togroups carved out of society on anotherbasis than their relations to the mode of

production. Such groups frequently containmembers from two or more of the economicclasses dealt with above. What Marx callsthe ideological class . for example, seemsto be based on the role these people playin society at large, rather than in production.The ruling classes, another social unitfound in Marx's writings, appears to havebeen marked out by the, same measure:those individuals who take part in runningthe country or who help decide how itshould be run are its members.15 In GreatBritain, the ruling classes are said to becomposed of the aristocracy, money-ocracy, and millocracy. 16 Thus, theyinclude both capitalists and landowners,most of whom belong to the aristocracy.The millocracy refers to owners of factories which produce materials for clothing:and the moneyocracy, or finance aristocracy, refers to bankers and the like, whoearn their entrance into the capitalist classas hirers of wage labor and by virtue of

M a r x , Capital, translated by Samuel Mooreand Edward Avcling (Moscow, 1958), I , 446.O f tKis class, M arx sa}*?, the class, wh ich isthe ruling material force of society, is at the sametime its ruling intellectual force German Ideology, p. 39 ). Thoug h M ars use the expression ruling class in way s wh ich suggest a more fun ctionaldefinition, this statement docs serve notice wherethe real power of any ruling class lies for Marx.

MMarx, The Future Results of British Rule inIndia, Selected Writings, I, 321 .

their monetary dealings with industrialists.17Marx also speaks of a lower middleclass which includes the small manufacturers, the shopkeeper, the artisan, thepcasant. ls This class, it appears, picks upsome members from all the economicclasses mentioned earlier. What is the criterion by which Marx determines whobelongs to the lower middle class? Judgingby its membership, it could be income,power, or even distance from the extremesof involvement in the class struggle.One last example: what are we to makeof the group Marx calls the dangerousclass, otherwise known as the Lumpen-proletariat, which is said to be composedof the social scum, that passively rottingmass thrown off by the lowest layers of oldsociety ?10 It is spoken of elsewhere as arecruiting ground for thieves and criminalsof all kinds, living on the crumbs of society,people without a definite trade, vagabonds,people without a hearth or a home. 20 Bywhat standard does Marx judge membership in this class? It seems to be a gathering place for all the unemployed poor,though Marx's term, dangerous class,suggests a certain action criterion as well.The Lumpenproletariat sell their servicesto the bourgeoisie, who use them as strikebreakers, labor spies, and fighters againstthe workers in times of revolution. Suchare their actions which make them thedangerous class. 21The plurality of criteria Marx uses inconstructing classes is reminiscent of present-day confusion on this subject. It is notenough to argueas some havethat

1TElsewhere, the latter gro up, or som e pa rt ofitthe big money lenders and usurersis labeleda class of parasites Capital, III , 532 ) .u Communist Manifesto, p. 27.Ibid.* Class Struggles in France, Selected Writings,I, 142.a Engels, it is wo rth noting, has even more

referents for class than M arx, especially in Germany: Revolution and Counter Revolution.


4/8

76 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGYMarx's idea of class develops over time,for many of the complications we havedrawn attention to arc found in the samework or in writings of the same period. Ifreaders of this article will check the citations which correspond to my footnotes1,3, 9, 14, and 17, they will see a samplingof the various and apparently contradictoryuses of class'' in the volumes of Capital.The conclusion remains that, for a varietyof purposes. Marx divides society up in asmany different ways, speaking of the partsin each case as classes.Any attempt to explain Marx's practicemust start with the admission that Marxuses this term loosely, often putting itforward as a synonym for group, faction, or layer. This was only in keepingwith the imprecise use of class whichRolf Dahrendorf informs us was typical ofhis period.22Where Marx speaks of rulingclasses, groups or factions could besubstituted for classes' without any alteration in the meaning. Marx himself usesruling class and ruling faction interchangeably in one instance to refer to thesame people.23 Groups could also besubstituted for classes without anychange of meaning in the expressionideological classes ; and either groupor layer would serve for class whereMarx talks of the dangerous class. Withall due allowance made for loose wordusage, however, Marx cannot escape themore serious accusation of having a litterof standards for class membership and ofchanging them without prior warning.

The implications of this disorder forMarx's class analysis of society should notbe carried too far, since Marx's tripartitedivision of society into capitalists, proletarians, and landowners is the prevalentone, and it is also the classification mostin keeping with his other theories. Hence,we may in fairness dub it the Marxists Rolf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict inIndustrial Society, translated by the author (L on don, 1959), p. 4.* Class Struggles in France, Selected Writings,I, 130.

system of classes.'' The other classes mentioned can be made more or less consistentwith this division on the basis of h ints Marxdrops but nowhere develops. These hintsare found in his expressions, subdivisionsof classes and transition classes.

24 Theformer helps us comprehend occupational,income, and functional units within thethree great classes based on differing relations to the prevailing mode of production.Millocracy, moneyocracy, and shipbuildersare all subdivisions of the capitalist class,just as skilled and unskilled workers aresubdivisions of the proletariat.The concept of transition class can beused to justify leaving out of the more

general presentations of the class system,those groups which are in the process ofdisappearing. Small-holding peasants andpetty bourgeoisie are among the classesMarx sees disappearing in his own day.25A stumbling block to taking this way outis that transition class is a highly subjective concept even within Marx's ownanalytical framework; any class, after all,can be viewed as passing cut of the picture, depending on the time span underconsideration. We saw Marx claim that,in fully developed capitalism, only a capitalist and a proletarian class exist; therefore, if this is the period one has in mind,all other classes are transitional. After theproletarian revolution, however, the capitalist class, too, disappears; and, whencommunism arrives, the proletariat as welldissolves into the community. AH references to transition classes, therefore, ifthey are to convey any meaning at all, mustmake explicit the time period under consideration.

Marx's only attempt to present a connected account of class appears at the endMa rx, The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution, Selected Writings, I, 63 ; EighteenthBrumaire, Selected Writings, I, 253.* Com munist Man ifesto, p. 16. M any groups,such as the petty bourgeoisie, fall into both of theabove categories; they are a subdivision of the capi

talist class and, for the period in which Marx iswriting, a transition class as well.


5/8

MARX S USE OF CL A S S 577of Volume III of Capital, cut, unfortunately, he never completed it> a From thesefew paragraphs, we learn thai wage laborers,, capitalist?, and landowners constitutethe three large classes of modern society.Yet. he admits that, even in England wherecapitalism is most developed, the stratification of classes does not appear in its pureform. Middle and intermediate strata evenhere obliterate lines of demarcation everywhere (although incomparably less in ruraldistricts, than in the cities).'' He believesthat developments in capitalist society arespeedily reducing all such strata into thecapitalist or proletarian class. The landowners, too, are shortly to go the same w ay.With the growing divorce between themeans of production and labor, Marx seesall workers eventually becoming wage laborers. As for capitalists, the trend towardincreasing concentration in industry enlarges the holdings of some jnn as it forcesother? into the proletariat.Marx replies to his own question, Whatconstitutes a class? with another, Whatmakes wage laborers, capitaVrts, and land-loidr. constitute the thiee great socialclasses? The fragment he left behind contains only the first part nf his answer: Atfirst glancethe identity of revenues andsources of revenue. There aro three greatsocial groups whose number.-, the individuals forming them, live on wages, profit,and ground rent, respectively, on the realization of their labor-power, their capital,and their landed property. Marx recognizes that this standard also enables physicians and officials to be spoken of asclasses/' for they belong to two distinctgroups receiving their revenues from oneand the same source. The sane would alsobe true of the infinite fragmentations ofinterest and rank into which the divisionof social labor splits laborers as well ascapitalists and landlordsthe latter, e.g.,into owners of vineyards, farm owners,owners of forests, mine owners and owners

* Unless otherwise signified, what follows comesfrom Capital, III , 862-63.

of fisheries. Here, the manuscript breaksofi . When concentrating en the problem ofclass, Marx takes a stand against affixingthis label to all kinds of social and economicgroups, which is something he himself wasguilty of.From our study of Marx's use of theterm class, we can suggest how he wouldhave finished this account. The qualifications for constituting a class that capitalists possess and physicians do not are asfollows: the capitalists have a direct operating relationship to the mode of production,while physicians do not; the capitalistshave distinct economic interests (the sizeof their profit) based on these relationswhich place them in conflict with the proletariat and landowners, the other tw*ogroups directly involved in capitalist production, while the economic interests ofphysiciansthough leaning toward thoseof the capitalists in present societyarcreally compatible with the interests of anyof the three great classes; the capitalists areconscious of their uniqueness as a classwith interests that are opposed to those ofthe two other main classes in society,while physicians, even if they are consciousof themselves as a distinct group, do notview their interests as being opposed tothose of others; the capitalists are organized in one or more political parties, whichwork to promote their interests, while physiciansndespite their pressure group activityhave no such organization; and,fina lly, capitalists exhibit a general cultural affinity, a way of life and set of socialvalues, which mark them off from theproletariat and the landowners, while physicians as a group have no such distinguishing features.27A thread which runs through all of thesecriteria is the hostility a class displays for

r Whether the culture, way of life, and socialvalues of capitalists really differ more from thoseof other sections of the population than theequivalent attributes of physicians is not at issue.AJI that concerns us is that Marx thought they did,for this belief was an important element in hisconstruction of classes.


6/8

578 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGYits opponent classes. Whether in work,politics, i culture, an essential definingcharacteristic of each class is its antagonism in this same sphere to others. Forthe capitalists, this can be seen in theirhostile relations to the workers and thelandowners at the point of production, intheir political struggle to promote theirinterests at the expense of these classes,and in the cultural sideswipes they areforever directing against them. Of thebourgeoisie, Marx, say s, The separate individuals form a class in so far as they haveto carry on a common battle against another class: otherwise they are on hostileterms with each other as competitors. 28This common battle is fought on as manyfronts as there are criteria for constitutinga class. On each front, it is the fact ofbattle itself which earns each side its label.Hence, M arx calls a society where only oneclass exists, such as occurs after the proletarian revolution, a classless society. Without an enemy, the antagonistic nature ofthe proletariat disappears and with it thedesignation class. Who is the enem y?is a question that can be asked wheneverMarx uses class.The secret of class in Marxism lies hidden in the socialist philosopher's conceptualization of it as a complex rather thana simple relation. In class Marx con flates a number of social ties (relationsbetween groups based on various standards) which are generally treated separately. He views them as interacting partsof an organic whole, the society in question,such that development in any one necessarily affects (more or less, sooner or later)the others. The mistake made in virtuallyall treatments of this subject, a pit wecould enly climb out of after falling inourselves, is to seek after a unidimensionalmeaning. But, by this maneuver, class isdistorted to the number of major elementsleft unreported. The various criteria forestablishing class, therefore, simply reflect

*German Ideology,pp. 48-49.

the wealth of social relations that Marxsees bound up in it.Only in advanced capitalism is it possible for a group to qualify as a class on allthe criteria I have listed. Hence, Marx'sassertion that class is a product of thebourgeoisie. 20 To take just one instance,the absence of effective communication inearlier periods inhibits the exchange ofinformation and contacts which is essential for class formation. An awareness ofcommon interests as well as co-ordinatedaction to promote them are impossibilitiesfor people living in scattered communities.But if class is a product of capitalism,how can Marx speak of all history as thehistory of class struggle or referas hefrequently doesto the distinguishing social divisions of previous epochs as classes ?30 To answer this query is also todemonstrate how he was able to refer to somany groups in capitalist society asclasses. It is simply that Marx appliesthis label if a group measures up to onlysome of the above standards. Which theseare varies with his purpose in making theparticular classification. This is the nub ofthe explanation for Marx's apparent confusion over class. If we want to discoverthe relevant criteria in each case, we mustfollow up our question, Who is the enemy? with one, Why are they the enemy? Nothing that has been said absolvesMarx from the accusation of using class

*Ibid. p. 77. This is not to say that every cap-taBst society has a fully developed system of classe.Marx refers to the United States as a place wherealthough classes already exist, they have not yet becomefixed,but continually change and interchangetheir elements in constant flu x ( EighteenthBrumaire, Selected Writings,I, 232); Marx neveradequately explains this exception,

H e says, The history of all hitherto eris'Injsociety is the history of class struggles {Communist Manifesto, p. 12). In a footnote to the 1S38English edition, Engels qualifies this where he says,that is, all written history. He points out thatin 1848 Marx and he did not know about theexistence of primitive communism ibid.). In anycase, Engels* qualification docs not affect our useof this statement


7/8

MARX S USE OF CLASS 579loosely, but it should help us comprehendwhat lies behind this usage.31Whether it was proper of Marx to applythe label class on the basis of only a fewof the relevant criteria is open to dispute,but that he could not wait for all of themto be satisfied before using this term isclear. Otherwise, he would have definedhimself out of the running, for even thecapitalists and the proletariat are occasionally seen to be without some of the requisite attributes. He says of the proletariat,for example, Thus this mass is already aclass in opposition to capital, but not yeta class foritself.''32 The missing ingredientis class consciousness, the proletariat'scomprehension of their life situation andtheir acceptance of the interests and enemies which accrue to i t.Elsewhere, Marx suggests the proletariatare not a class, because they lack a class-wide political organization. In a letter toKugelmann, Marx speaks of his programfor the Geneva Conference of the First International as helping the organization ofthe workers into a class. 33In the Communist Manifesto,he specifically iir.ks this upwith the formation of a political party.31Insofar as class consciousness remains theachievement of a few, and before such aparty exists, the proletariat, even in themost advanced capitalistic societies, lacktwo major qualifications for constituting aclass.35A similar breakdown could be madeof the capitalists and, in fact, of all thegroups Marx calls classes. 3*

T o m ake his plurality of star.'hrds explicit,which wc would have l iked, would have made itnecessary for M arx to tell more than he had timefor.1' It is simply that the requirements of gettingon with his task of the moment forced him to subsume a great deal of the relations he was treating.On the one occasion when he sought to sketch outthe main relations in class, death interven ed.^ M a r x , The Poverty of Philosophy (Mosc ow ,n.d .),p. 195.

M a r x , Letters to Dr. Kugdtxann (London,1941), p. 19. Communist Manifesto, p. 26.

There is a still more formidable objection to Marx's use of class. Bes ideschanging his standards when moving fromone group to the next, the same groupasindicated by its popular namemay begiven its measure by a variety of standards.Depending en his purpose, Marx may meanby proltariat all wage earners, the simplest and largest net of all. Or he maymean those who pass one or any few of theincome, cultural, political, and social teststhat have been listed. With the shift in criteria, there is a shift, often of huge proportions, in the number of people referred to.This explains, of course, why some groupspeasants, rural workers, intellectuals,and shopkeepers being the prize examplesare sometimes found in one class andsometimes in another. This objection mighthave proved fatal for those wishing to comprehend Marx's views about his contemporaries it certain trends were not apparentin his use of class labels. Generally, Marx'scomments on the proletariat only applyto industrial wage earners, and his descrip-

MThese deficiencies are closely rela ted. Increasedc'ass consciousness advances the cause of politicalorganization by creating greater interest in it, whileorganizational activity heightens class consciousnessthrough the propaganda it makes possible. Bothdeficiencies disappear with the further developmentof the capitalist mode of production: Marx says,The organization of revolutionary elements as aclass supposes the existence of all the productiveforces which could be engendered in the bosom ofthe old society 7' Poverty of Philosophy, p. 196 ) .*The most explicit statement of this duality occurs in regard to the French small-holding peasants,

of whom M arx says, In so far as millions offamilies live under economic conditions of existencethat separate their mode of life, their interests andtheir culture from those of other classes, and putthem in hostile opposition to the latter, they forma class. In so far as there is merely a local interconnection between these small-holding peasants,and the identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond and no political organization among them, they do not form a class( Eighteenth Brumaire, Selected Writings I, 303) .It appears that economically and culturally thepeasants are a class, but as regards class consciousness and politics, they are not.


8/8

580 THE AMERICANJOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

tions ol capitalists are usually meantforlarge merchants and bankersaswellas forthe owners of the means of production.These arc the chief characters in Marx'srcaliitic drama,Ca pital.This brings us to the next and, for m any,obvious question, How useful is Marx'sconceptof 'class'? But, if ourstatementof what Marx meantby class garneredfrom his actual useofthe termis correct,this question simply masks another moreprofound one concerning the utility ofMarxismitself.Byconceptualizingaunityof apparently distinct social relations,class is inextricably bound upwiththerealityofthe unity so posited, that is, withthe truthof Marx's own analysis.For theinterwoven criteria Marx used forunderstanding what constitutes a class representsthe resultof hisempirical social studies.Itisonly,inother words, because Marxfound groupsin his society with differentrelationstothe prevailing modeofproduction, sets of opposing economic interestsbased on these relations, a correspondingculturaland moral differentiation, agrowing consciousness among these groupsoftheir uniqueness andaccompanying interests, andresulting from this consciousnessthe development of social and political organizations which promote theseinterests that he constructed his peculiarconcept of class. Of overriding importanceisthat class inMarxismisnot justa labelforgroups carved outofsocietyonthe basisof adiscernibleset ofstandards,but expressesas well the involved interaction which Marx believed he uncovered between these standards.37When critics, suchasR. N. Carew-Hunt, therefore,askcom-plaininglyforMarx's definitionof class.they areasking, in effect, for thelatter'sanalysis of capitalist class society; and it

^Thc interaction offered here is not meant tobe complete. Onewhole area which has not beentaken account of at all has to dowith theroleofclassin Marx's theory of alienation.

is understandable that Marx had difficultyin reconstituting this analysisin theformofadefinition for class. JSFor those who accept Marx's versionofcapitalist social relations, thekeyconceptsin whichit is couched are second nature;class serves as a necessary vehicleforconveying what Marx taught. For thosewho do not share Marx's analysis, or something closeto it,usinghisconcept classcan only distort what they havetosay. Wearc not interested hereinthe utilityofthisconcept as an aid in presenting Marxismwhen thepurpose is to criticize the dec-trine.Norshouldourconclusionbetakenas an argument against using the wordclass insome non-Marxist sense,aslongas this is made clear. One candefinetheword class to suit practically any end,butit is altogether another matter to useMarx's concept class inways other thanhe did himself.

Words are the propertyoflanguage, butconceptsand class is both a word andaconceptbelongto a particular philosophy(way of viewing theworld) andshareinallofthe latter's uniqueness. Asaconcept,class cannotbe detached from the structured knowledgeitseekstoexpress andofwhichit is, inthe last analysis,anintegralpart. Does Marx providean adequateaccountofsocial relations in capitalism?It ison the answer to this question that the utility of Marx's concept of class hinges.38R . N. Carew-Hunt, The Theory and Practiseof Communism (London, 1963) ,p.6 5.As wehave

indicated, one possible exception to this rebukeisthe short, unfinished chapter on class in Capital.I l l , 862-63 .*It is ourview thatthesame a nalysis co uldbemade of Marx's olhcr keyconcepts class struggle, value, surplus-value, freedom, labor-power, alienation, etc. Lik e class, each expresses an aspect of the sod al reality M arxbelieves he uncovered, and, lik e d a / ' the fullmeaning Marx attaches to these conceptscanonlybe dedphcred by examining how he actually usesthemin hisw ritings. All of them arcequallyunavailable to those whowould usethem to express

non-Marxist v iews.

marx's use of class bertell ollman.pdf

Documents