Bertell Ollman - Marx's Use of Class

Marx'sUse of "Class" BertellOilman

ABSTRACT We attemptto derive Marx's theoryof class throughthe way he uses the term,rather of his most generalstatementson the subject,whichis how than throughan interpretation class has usually been approached. "Class" is seen to referto social and economicgroupings based on a wide variety of standards whose interrelationsare those Marx findsin the real society under examination.By conceptualizinga unity of apparentlydistinctsocial relations,"class" in Marxism is inextricablybound up with the truthof Marx's own analysis. Its utilityis a functionof the adequacy of this analysis.

What are the classes into which Marx places theinhabitantsof capitalistsociety?

In Capital,he says thatin developedcapitalistsocietythereis onlya capitalistand who are a proletarianclass.' The former, are describedin also called thebourgeoisie, the CommunistManifestoas "ownersof themeansofsocialproduction and employers of wage labor." In the same place, the proletariatare said to be "the class of modern wage-laborerswho, having no means of productionof theirown,are rein order duced to sellingtheirlabor-power to live."2But, thoughMarx believedEuropean capitalismwas sufficiently advanced for a Communistrevolutionto occur,he asserts elsewherein Capital that three classes-capitalists,proletarians, and landin theirmutualoppoowners-"constitute sitionthe framework of modernsociety."3 For Marx,thelandownerclass is composed of ownersof largetractsof land and is almostalwaysfeudalin origin.Has thestandard by whichMarx assessesclass membership altered?4

Even wherethe basis fordistinguishing classesappearsto be a group'srelationsto the prevailingmode of production,the questionis not the simpleone of whether thereare twoor threeclasses,forMarx applies this label to severalothereconomic units. Two outstandingexamplesare the petty bourgeoisieand the peasants. The formerare small shopkeepers who own no meansof productionor, sometimes, a very tiny morsel,and employat most a few workers;and the latterare the ownersof smallplots of land whichtheyfarmthemselves.Theirrespective relationsto theprevailing mode of productionin capitalism are not thoseof the capitalists,the proletariat, or the landowners.Where, then, does Marx place small businessmenand peasants when he talks of societybeing made up of threeclasses? Also, it is not easy to drawthelinebetweentheseclasses.

and are referred to as a separateclassin a number of otherplaces ("Introduction," A Contribution to the Critiqueof PoliticalEconomy,translated

by N. I. Stone[Chicago,1904],p. 305). In "The I Karl Marx, Capital (Moscow, 1957), II, 348.

Eighteenth Brumaireof Louis Bonaparte,"however,Marx treatsthemas a sectionof thebour2 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Comdemunist Manifesto, translated by Samuel Moore geoisie,claimingthat"largelandedproperty, spiteits feudalcoquetryand prideof race,has (Chicago, 1945), p. 12. been renderedthoroughly bourgeoisby the de3Marx, Capital (Moscow, 1959), III, 604. velopmentsof modern society" (Marx, "The ' The landowners are included as one of the Eighteenth Brumaire ofLouisBonaparte"in Marx "three great social classes" mentionedin Marx's and Engels,SelectedWritings [Moscow,1951],I, Introductionto the Critique of Political Economy 248).

573

THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

574

At what point does a small businessman bourgeoisie,we can assume, have been stop being pettybourgeoisand becomea sweptunderthe rug of "capitalist."Most however,thepeasants capitalist?How muchland does a peasant oftenin his writings, have to own beforehe becomes a land- are referredto as a separateclass whose distinctivequalitiesare aptly summedup owner?

Shouldwe admitas classesall thegroups in thephrase,"class of barbarians."9 thereare stillotherelementsin mentioned, Marx's contradictory attemptsto cateto place. gorizetheintelligentsia is extremely revealthe populationthat are difficult Are farmlaborers,for instance,proletari- ing of the problems encounteredin a ans or peasants? The inclusionof rural straighteconomicdivisionof society.Usuwage workersas proletariatis requiredto ally,he speaksofdoctors,lawyers,journalwriters, and priestsas "the give validityto Marx's claimthatthe pro- ists,professors, and spokesmen" letariatcontainsthe vast majorityof peo- ideologicalrepresentatives ple in capitalist society.5He must have of the bourgeoisie.10 Referringto petty Marx exbeen awareof thefactthatindustrialwage bourgeoispoliticiansand writers, in capitalist plains that what makes themrepresentaearnerswerea clear minority Germanyat thattime.6On at least one oc- tivesof thisclass "is the factthatin their casion,Marx statesexplicitlythatfarmla- mindstheydo not get beyondthe limits borers are proletarians;yet, the whole whichthe latterdo not get beyondin life, of theproletariat as that they are consequentlydriven,theoweightofhis treatment to thesameproblemand solutions workersin industryargues against this.7 retically, it is of to whichmaterialinterestand social posiAnd,wheneverMarx particularizes, industrialworkersthathe speaks. tiondrivethe latterpractically."'1" The relationship betweentheintelligentBeyondthis,thereis an indicationthat extendstheclass of prole- sia and the capitalistclass is further clariMarx sometimes peasantsas fiedwhereMarx says the ideologistsof a tariansto includesmall-holding well,as whenhe states,"The owningpeas- class are those"who make the perfecting and of theillusionof theclass aboutitselftheir ant does notbelongto theproletariat, therewherehe does belongto it by his po- chiefsourcesoflivelihood."This,he claims, sition,he does not believethathe belongs is based on a divisionof labor inside the to it."8Marx's pointis thatbecause of his class betweenmentaland physicalwork.12 indebtednessto various capitalists, the Though it would appear to be general, etc.,thepeasant Marx carefullyrestrictshis own applicamortgageon his property, does notreallyownhis plot of land,and is tion of this principleto the bourgeoisie. actuallyworkingforsomeoneelse. Bring- From commentssuch as these,the intelliing thepeasantryinto the proletariatmay gentsiaand the capitalistsstand forthas similarat thecore,who are merehelp account for Marx's divisionof ad- brothers, areas of capitalvanced capitalist society into two main ly specializingin different classes; the landownersand the petty ist "work."'13 ' Marx and Engels, The GermanIdeology,transIated by R. Pascal (London, 1942), p. 69.

'See Edward Bernstein,EvolutionarySocialism, translatedby Edith Harvey (London, 1909), p. 106.

'Marx says, "The capitalist tenant has ousted the peasant,and the real tillerof the soil is just as much a proletarian,a wage worker,as is the urban worker" (H. Meyer, "Marx on Bakunin: A Neglected Text," Etudes de Marxologie, edited by M. Rubel [October,1959], p. 109).

8 Ibid., p.

108.

"Marx, Capital, III, 793.

10Marx, "The Class Strugglesin France," Selected Writings,I, 129.

"EighteenthBrumaire,"op. cit., p. 250.

2 German Ideology, pp. 39, 40.

13 In the CommunistManifesto,the intelligentsia are referredto as the "paid wage-laborers"of the bourgeoisie(CommunistManifesto,p. 16). Marx's terminologyhere suggests a strong likeness between the intelligentsiaand the proletariat.Nonetheless,the contextmakes it clear that their real place even here is withinthe capitalistclass.

MARX'SUSE OF "CLASS"

575

Thoughtheyare usuallysubsumedunder their monetarydealings with industrialthe capitalistclass, this does not preclude ists.17 Marx, on occasion,fromascribingto the Marx also speaks of a "lower middle a status,notjust as a class,but class" whichincludes"the small manufacintelligentsia as a clusterof classes. In Capital,Volume turers,the shopkeeper,the artisan, the I, forexample,he speaks of themas the peasant."118This class,it appears,picksup "ideologicalclasses."14 If Marx sometimes some members from all the economic amongthecapitalists classes mentionedearlier.What is the criputs theintelligentsia and sometimes puts themon theirown,he terion by which Marx determineswho is obviouslychanginghis criteriafordecid- belongsto thelowermiddleclass? Judging a class. ingwhatconstitutes by its membership, it could be income, to capitalists,proletar- power,or even distancefromthe extremes Besides referring ians, landowners,petty bourgeoisie,and of involvement in theclass struggle.

One last example:what are we to make peasants,"class" is also used to referto groupscarved out of societyon another of the group Marx calls the "dangerous basis than theirrelationsto the mode of class," otherwiseknown as the Lumpencontain proletariat,whichis said to be composed Such groupsfrequently production. membersfromtwoor moreof theeconomic of "the social scum,thatpassivelyrotting classes dealt withabove. What Marx calls mass thrownoffby thelowestlayersof old the "ideologicalclass," forexample,seems society"?19It is spokenof elsewhereas "a to be based on the role thesepeople play recruiting groundforthievesand criminals in societyat large,ratherthanin produc- ofall kinds,livingon thecrumbsof society, tion.The rulingclasses,anothersocial unit peoplewithouta definitetrade,vagabonds, appears to have people withouta hearthor a home."20By foundin Marx's writings, been markedout by the same measure: what standarddoes Marx judge memberthoseindividualswho take part in running ship in thisclass? It seemsto be a gatherthe countryor who help decide how it ing place for all the unemployedpoor, shouldbe run are its members.'5In Great though Marx's term,"dangerousclass," Britain,the rulingclasses are said to be suggestsa certainactioncriterionas well. composedof the "aristocracy,""money- The Lumpenproletariat sell theirservices Thus, they to thebourgeoisie, ocracy," and "millocracy."'16 who use themas strikeinclude both capitalistsand landowners, breakers,labor spies, and fighters against most of whombelong to the aristocracy. the workersin timesof revolution.Such The "millocracy"refersto ownersof fac- are their actions which make them the torieswhichproducematerialsforclothing: "dangerousclass."2' and the"moneyocracy," or "financearistoc- The pluralityof criteriaMarx uses in racy,"refersto bankersand the like, who constructing classes is reminiscent of presearn theirentranceintothe capitalistclass ent-dayconfusionon thissubject.It is not as hirersof wage labor and by virtueof enough to argue-as some have-that 1 Marx, Capital,translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (Moscow, 1958), I, 446.

'Elsewhere, the latter group, or some part of it-the big money lendersand usurers-is labeled a "class of parasites" (Capital, III, 532).

'f Of this class, Marx says, "the class, which is the rulingmaterialforceof society,is at the same "Communist Manifesto,p. 27. time its rulingintellectualforce" (GermanIdeol19Ibid. ogy,p. 39). Though Marx uses the expression"rul20 "Class Strugglesin France," Selected Writings, ing class" in ways which suggesta more functional definition,this statementdoes serve notice where I, 142. the real power of any ruling class lies for Marx. ' Engels, it is worth noting, has even more "6Marx,"The Future Results of BritishRule in referentsfor "class" than Marx, especiallyin Germany: Revolution and Counter Revolution.

I, 321.

India," SelectedWritings,

576

THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

Marx's idea of class develops over time, systemof classes." The otherclassesmenfor many of the complicationswe have tionedcan be made moreor less consistent drawnattentionto are foundin the same withthisdivisionon thebasis ofhintsMarx workor in writingsof thesame period.If drops but nowheredevelops.These hints "subdivisions readersof this articlewill checkthe cita- are foundin his expressions, tions which correspondto my footnotes of classes" and "transitionclasses."24The occupational, 1, 3, 9, 14,and 17, theywillsee a sampling formerhelps us comprehend contradictoryincome,and functionalunits withinthe ofthevariousand apparently relauses of "class" in the volumesof Capital. threegreatclasses based on differing The conclusionremainsthat,fora variety tionsto theprevailingmodeof production. and shipbuilders of purposes,Marx dividessocietyup in as Millocracy,moneyocracy, ways,speakingof theparts are all subdivisionsof the capitalistclass, manydifferent in each case as "classes." just as skilled and unskilledworkersare Any attemptto explainMarx's practice subdivisionsof theproletariat. class" can be The conceptof "transition muststart with the admissionthat Marx uses this term loosely, often puttingit used to justifyleaving out of the more of the class system, forwardas a synonymfor"group,""fac- generalpresentations tion,"or "layer."This was onlyin keeping those groupswhichare in the processof with the impreciseuse of "class" which disappearing.Small-holdingpeasants and us was typicalof petty bourgeoisieare among the classes RolfDahrendorfinforms WhereMarx speaksof "ruling Marx sees disappearingin his own day.25 his period.22 block to takingthisway out classes," "groups" or "factions"could be A stumbling for"classes' withoutany alter- is that "transitionclass" is a highlysubsubstituted ation in the meaning.Marx himselfuses jective concept even withinMarx's own any class, afterall, "rulingclass" and "rulingfaction"inter- analyticalframework; changeablyin one instanceto referto the can be viewedas passingout of the picsame people.23 "Groups" could also be ture, dependingon the time span under substituted for "classes" without any consideration.We saw Marx claim that, change of meaning in the expression in fullydevelopedcapitalism,onlya capi"ideologicalclasses"; and either"group" talistand a proletarianclass exist; thereor "layer" would serve for "class" where fore,if thisis the periodone has in mind, Afterthe Marx talksof the "dangerousclass." With all otherclassesare transitional. all due allowance made for loose word proletarianrevolution,however,the capiusage, however,Marx cannot escape the talist class, too, disappears; and, when moreseriousaccusationof havinga litter communism arrives,the proletariatas well and of dissolves into the community.All referof standardsforclass membership changingthemwithoutpriorwarning. if ences to "transitionclasses," therefore, The implicationsof this disorderfor theyare to conveyanymeaningat all, must Marx's class analysisof societyshouldnot make explicitthe timeperiodunder conbe carriedtoo far,since Marx's tripartite sideration. divisionof societyinto capitalists,proleMarx's only attemptto presenta contarians,and landownersis the prevalent nectedaccountof class appearsat theend most one, and it is also the classification 24Marx, "The Bourgeoisie and the Counterin keepingwithhis othertheories.Hence, Revolution,"Selected Writings,I, 63; "Eighteenth we may in fairnessdub it the "Marxist Brumaire," I, 253.

SelectedWritings,

22Rolf Dahrendorf,Class and Class Conflictin IndustrialSociety,translatedby the author (London, 1959), p. 4.

3"Class Strugglesin France," Selected Writings, I, 130.

2 Communist Manifesto,p. 16. Many groups, such as the pettybourgeoisie,fall into both of the above categories;theyare a subdivisionof thecapitalist class and, for the period in which Marx is writing,a transitionclass as well.

MARX'SUSE OF "CLASS"

577

of Volume III of Capital, but, unfortu- of fisheries."Here, the manuscriptbreaks nately,he nevercompletedit.26Fromthese off.Whenconcentrating on theproblemof fewparagraphs,we learn thatwage labor- class, Marx takes a stand againstaffixing ers, capitalists,and landownersconstitute thislabel to all kindsofsocialand economic he himselfwas the threelarge classes of modernsociety, groups,whichis something Yet, he admitsthat,evenin Englandwhere guiltyof. capitalismis mostdeveloped,"the stratifi- From our study of Marx's use of the cationofclassesdoes notappearin itspure term"class,"we can suggesthowhe would strataeven have finishedthis account.The qualificaform.Middle and intermediate hereobliteratelines of demarcationevery- tionsforconstituting a class that capitalless in rural ists possess and physiciansdo not are as where(althoughincomparably districts,than in the cities)." He believes follows:thecapitalistshave a directoperin capitalistsocietyare atingrelationshipto the mode of producthat developments speedilyreducingall such stratainto the tion,whilephysiciansdo not; thecapitalists capitalistor proletarianclass. The land- have distincteconomicinterests(the size owners,too,are shortlyto go thesameway. of theirprofit)based on these relations With the growingdivorce between the whichplace themin conflictwiththe promeansof productionand labor,Marx sees letariat and landowners,the other two all workerseventuallybecomingwage la- groupsdirectlyinvolvedin capitalistproborers.As forcapitalists,the trendtoward duction,while the economicinterestsof increasingconcentrationin industryen- physicians-thoughleaning toward those largestheholdingsof somejust as it forces of the capitalistsin presentsociety-are reallycompatiblewiththe interestsof any othersinto the proletariat. of thethreegreatclasses; thecapitalistsare own "What Marx repliesto his question, constitutesa class?" withanother,"What consciousof their uniquenessas a class makeswage laborers,capitalists,and land- withintereststhatare opposedto thoseof lords constitutethe three great social the two other main classes in society, evenif theyare conscious he leftbehindcon- whilephysicians, classes?" The fragment tainsonlythe firstpartof his answer:"At of themselvesas a distinctgroup,do not firstglance-the identityof revenuesand view theirinterestsas being opposed to sourcesof revenue.There are threegreat those of others; the capitalistsare organsocial groupswhosenumbers,the individ- ized in one or morepoliticalparties,which whilephyuals formingthem,live on wages, profit, workto promotetheirinterests, and groundrent,respectively, on thereali- sicians-despite their pressuregroup aczation of theirlabor-power,theircapital, tivity-have no such organization;and, and theirlanded property."Marx recog- finally,capitalistsexhibit a general cula way oflifeand set ofsocial nizes that this standardalso enablesphy- turalaffinity, sicians and officialsto be spoken of as values, which mark them off from the whilephy"classes,""for theybelongto two distinct proletariatand the landowners, groupsreceivingtheirrevenuesfromone siciansas a grouphave no suchdistinguishand thesame source.The samewouldalso ing features.27 of be true of the infinitefragmentations A threadwhichrunsthrough all of these interestand rank into whichthe division criteriais the hostilitya class displaysfor of social labor splits laborersas well as ' Whetherthe culture,way of life,and social capitalistsand landlords-the latter,e.g., valuesof capitalists reallydiffer morefromthose into owners of vineyards,farm owners, of other sectionsof the populationthan the of physicians is not at issue. mineownersand owners equivalentattributes ownersof forests,

Allthatconcerns us is thatMarxthought theydid, 'Unless otherwise signified, whatfollowscomes for thisbeliefwas an important elementin his fromCapital,III, 862-63. construction of classes.

578

THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

its opponentclasses. Whetherin work, the wealth of social relationsthat Marx politics,or culture,an essential defining sees boundup in it. characteristic of each class is its antagoOnly in advancedcapitalismis it possinism in this same sphere to others.For ble fora groupto qualifyas a class on all the capitalists,this can be seen in their the criteriaI have listed. Hence, Marx's hostile relationsto the workersand the assertionthat class is a "productof the landownersat the point of production,in bourgeoisie."29 To take just one instance, their political struggleto promotetheir the absenceof effective communication in interestsat the expenseof these classes, earlier periods inhibitsthe exchange of and in the culturalsideswipesthey are information and contactswhich is essenforeverdirectingagainst them. Of the tial for class formation.

An awarenessof bourgeoisie,Marx says, "The separatein- commoninterestsas well as co-ordinated dividualsforma classin so faras theyhave action to promotethemare impossibilities to carryon a commonbattle against an- forpeoplelivingin scatteredcommunities. otherclass: otherwisetheyare on hostile But if class is a productof capitalism, termswith each other as competitors."28how can Marx speak of all historyas the This commonbattleis foughton as many historyof class struggleor refer-as he frontsas thereare criteriaforconstituting frequently does-to the distinguishing soa class. On each front,it is the fact of cial divisionsof previousepochsas "classbattleitselfwhichearnseach side its label. es"?30 To answer this query is also to Hence,Marxcalls a societywhereonlyone demonstrate howhe was able to referto so class exists,such as occursaftertheprole- many groups in capitalist society as tarianrevolution, a classlesssociety.With- "classes." It is simplythat Marx applies out an enemy,the antagonisticnatureof thislabel if a groupmeasuresup to only the proletariatdisappearsand withit the some of the above standards.Whichthese designation"class." "Who is the enemy?" are varieswithhis purposein makingthe This is the nub of is a questionthat can be asked whenever particularclassification. the explanationfor Marx's apparentconMarx uses "class."

The secretof class in Marxismlies hid- fusionover class. If we want to discover den in the socialistphilosopher'sconcep- the relevantcriteriain each case, we must tualizationof it as a complexratherthan followup our question,"Who is the ena simple relation.In "class" Marx con- emy?" with one, "Why are they the enflatesa numberof social ties (relations emy?"Nothingthathas beensaid absolves betweengroups based on various stand- Marx fromthe accusationof using"class" ards) which are generallytreated sepa29Ibid.,p. 77. This is not to say that everycapirately.He viewsthemas interacting parts talistsocietyhas a fullydevelopedsystemof classes. ofan organicwhole,thesocietyin question, Marx refersto the United States as a place "where such that developmentin any one neces- althoughclassesalreadyexist,theyhave not yetbefixed,but continuallychangeand interchange sarilyaffects(moreor less,sooneror later) come their elements in constant flux" ("Eighteenth The the others. mistakemade in virtually Brumaire,"SelectedWritings, I, 232). Marx never all treatmentsof this subject, a pit we adequately explains this exception. could only climb out of after fallingin s" He says, "The historyof all hithertoexisting ourselves,is to seekaftera unidimensional societyis the historyof class struggles"(Commup. 12). In a footnoteto the 1888 meaning.But, by this maneuver,class is nistManifesto, Englishedition,Engels qualifiesthiswherehe says, distortedto thenumberof major elements "that is, all writtenhistory."He points out that left unreported.The various criteriafor in 1848 Marx and he did not know about the establishing class, therefore, simplyreflect existenceof primitivecommunism(ibid.). In any 2

GermanIdeology, pp. 48-49.

case, Engels' qualificationdoes not affectour use of this statement.

MARX'SUSE OF "CLASS"

579

loosely,but it shouldhelp us comprehend There is a still more formidableobjection to Marx's use of "class." Besides whatlies behindthisusage.3' his standardswhenmovingfrom changing Whetherit was properof Marx to apply thelabel "class" on thebasis of onlya few one groupto thenext,thesame group-as of the relevantcriteriais open to dispute, indicatedby its popular name-may be but thathe could not wait forall of them givenitsmeasureby a varietyofstandards. to be satisfiedbeforeusing this termis Dependingon his purpose,Marx maymean clear. Otherwise,he would have defined by "proletariat"all wage earners,the simhimselfout of the running,for even the plest and largestnet of all. Or he may are occasion- meanthosewhopass one or any fewof the capitalistsand theproletariat ally seen to be withoutsome of the requi- income,cultural,political,and social tests site attributes.He says of the proletariat, thathave beenlisted.Withtheshiftin criforexample,"Thus thismass is alreadya teria,thereis a shift,oftenof hugeproporto. class in oppositionto capital,but not yet tions,in thenumberof people referred The missingingredient This explains,of course,whysome groups a class foritself."32 is class consciousness,the proletariat's -peasants, rural workers,intellectuals, of theirlife situationand and shopkeepersbeing the prize examples comprehension theiracceptanceof the interestsand ene- -are sometimesfoundin one class and in another.This objectionmight sometimes mieswhichaccrueto it. proved fatalforthosewishingto comhave Elsewhere,Marx suggeststheproletariat are not a class, because theylack a class- prehendMarx's viewsabout his contempowide politicalorganization.In a letterto rariesif certaintrendswere not apparent Kugelmann,Marx speaks of his program in his use of class labels.Generally, Marx's of the FirstIn- commentson the proletariatonly apply forthe GenevaConference as helping"the organizationof to industrialwage earners,and his descripternational theworkersintoa class."33In theCommuThese deficienciesare closelyrelated.Increased linksthisup nistManifesto,he specifically class consciousnessadvances the cause of political with the formation of a politicalparty.34 organizationby creatinggreaterinterestin it, while Insofaras class consciousnessremainsthe organizationalactivityheightensclass consciousness achievementof a few,and beforesuch a throughthe propaganda it makes possible. Both party exists,the proletariat,even in the deficienciesdisappearwith the furtherdevelopment the capitalist mode of production: Marx says, most advanced capitalisticsocieties,lack of "The organizationof revolutionaryelementsas a a class supposes the existenceof all the productive forconstituting two major qualifications class.35A similarbreakdowncouldbe made forceswhich could be engenderedin the bosom of p. 196). of the capitalistsand, in fact,of all the the old society" (Povertyof Philosophy, grounsMarx calls "crJq.p36 The most explicitstatementof this dualityoc35

3'

1To make his plurality of standards explicit, which we would have liked, would have made it necessaryforMarx to tell more than he "had time for." It is simplythat the requirementsof getting on withhis task of the momentforcedhim to subsume a great deal of the relationshe was treating.

On the one occasion when he sought to sketchout the main relationsin "class," death intervened.

"2Marx,The Povertyof Philosophy(Moscow, n.d.), p. 195. ' Marx, Lettersto Dr. Kugelmann(London, 1941), p. 19. '

Communist Manifesto, p. 26.

cursin regardto theFrenchsmall-holdingpeasants, of whom Marx says, "In so far as millions of familieslive undereconomicconditionsof existence that separate theirmode of life,theirinterestsand theirculturefrom those of other classes, and put themin hostileoppositionto the latter,they form a class. In so far as thereis merelya local interconnectionbetween these small-holdingpeasants, and the identityof theirinterestsbegets no community,no national bond and no political organization among them, they do not form a class" ("EighteenthBrumaire,"SelectedWritings I, 303).

It appears that economicallyand culturally the peasants are a class, but as regardsclass consciousness and politics, they are not.

580

THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

that Marx had difficulty tions of capitalistsare usually meant for is understandable this analysisin the form and bankersas well as for in reconstituting largemerchants for"class."38 the ownersof the means of production. of a definition For thosewho accept Marx's versionof These are the chiefcharactersin Marx's capitalistsocial relations,thekey concepts realisticdrama,Capital.

This bringsus to thenextand, formany, in whichit is couchedare secondnature; obvious question,"How usefulis Marx's "class" serves as a necessaryvehicle for conceptof 'class'?" But, if our statement conveyingwhat Marx taught. For those of whatMarx meantby "class"-garnered whodo notshareMarx's analysis,or somefromhis actual use of theterm-is correct, thingclose to it, usinghis concept"class" this questionsimplymasks anothermore can onlydistortwhattheyhave to say. We herein theutilityof this profoundone concerningthe utility of are notinterested in presentingMarxism concept as an aid a unity Marxismitself.By conceptualizing of apparently distinct social relations, when the purposeis to criticizethe docbound up with the trine.Nor shouldour conclusionbe taken "class" is inextricably realityof theunityso posited,thatis, with as an argumentagainst using the word sense,as long the truthof Marx's own analysis.For the "class" in somenon-Marxist criteriaMarx used for under- as this is made clear. One can definethe interwoven a class represents word "class" to suit practicallyany end, standingwhatconstitutes but it is altogetheranothermatterto use the resultof his empiricalsocial studies.

It is only,in otherwords,because Marx Marx's concept"class" in ways otherthan foundgroupsin his societywith differenthe did himself. of language,but Wordsare theproperty relationsto theprevailingmodeof production, sets of opposingeconomicinterests concepts-and "class" is botha wordand a based on these relations,a correspondingconcept-belongto a particularphilosophy a grow- (way of viewingthe world) and share in culturaland moraldifferentiation, ing consciousnessamong these groups of all of thelatter'suniqueness.As a concept, theiruniquenessand accompanyinginter- "class" cannotbe detachedfromthestructuredknowledgeit seeks to expressand of ests, and-resulting fromthis consciouswhichit is, in thelast analysis,an integral ness-the developmentof social and popart. Does Marx providean adequate aclitical organizationswhich promotethese countof socialrelationsin capitalism?It is intereststhat he constructedhis peculiar on theanswerto thisquestionthattheutilconcept of "class." Of overridingimpor- ity of Marx's conceptof "class" hinges.39 tanceis that"class" in Marxismis notjust 'R. N. Carew-Hunt, The Theoryand Practise a label forgroupscarvedout of societyon of Communism(London, 1963), p. 65. As we have the basis of a discernibleset of standards, indicated,one possible exceptionto this rebuke is but expressesas well the involvedinterac- the short,unfinishedchapter on class in Capital, tionwhichMarx believedhe uncoveredbe- III, 862-63.

It is our view that the same analysis could be Whencritics,such tweenthesestandards.37 as R. N. Carew-Hunt,therefore, ask com- made of Marx's other key concepts-"class struggle," "value," "surplus-value,""freedom,""laborof "class." power," "alienation," etc. Like "class," each explaininglyforMarx's definition theyare asking,in effect,for the latter's presses an aspect of the social reality Marx analysisof capitalistclass society; and it believes he uncovered, and, like "class," the full S

37The interactionofferedhere 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 theoryof alienation.

meaningMarx attaches to these conceptscan only be decipheredby examininghow he actually uses them in his writings.All of them are equally unavailable to those who would use them to express non-Marxistviews.