Critical Sociology http://crs.sagepub.

com/

Class Theory or Class Analysis? A Reexamination of Marx's Unfinished Chapter on Class

Alvin Y. So and Suwarsono Crit Sociol 1990 17: 35 DOI: 10.1177/089692059001700202 The online version of this article can be found at: http://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Critical Sociology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://crs.sagepub.com/content/17/2/35.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 1, 1990 What is This?

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

Class Theory or Class Analysis? A Reexamination of Marxs Unfinished Chapter on Class

Alvin Y. So and Suwarsono

the "cut and paste" method, this to examine Marxs use of the term "class" in two key writings, The Communist Manifesto and The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. After comparing these two works under the following headings — the number of classes, the linkages between economic interests and political struggles, the relationship between class and state, the impact of class on nonclass relations, and the direction of class struggle — this paper argues that in the Manifesto Marx presents a structural "class theory," consisting of a coherent set of testable propositions and predictions. However, this paper also contends that in The Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx develops a different historical "class analysis" that is an interpretive scheme to make sense of changing political events. In the conclusion, this paper discusses how Marxs class theory is related to his class analysis.

ABSTRACT: Instead of

using

paper

adopts

an

in-depth approach

Karl Marx frequently uses the term &dquo;class&dquo; in his writings, but he does have a systematic treatment on this subject. It is well known that in the last chapter of the last volume of Capital, when Marx finally tries to tackle the issue of &dquo;What constitutes a class,&dquo; he has only jotted down a little bit more than a page. And according to Engels, the editor of Capital : &dquo;Here the manuscript breaks off (Marx, 1975:886).
not

to thank Val

Department of Sociology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822. We want Burris, Richard Chabot, Deana Chang, Farideh Farhi, Ben Kerkvliet, Hagen

Koo, Peter Manicas, Ravi Palat, Yow-suen Sen, Bob Stauffer, Pat Steinhoff, and the gradu-

macro-sociology seminar for their valuable comments and criticisms. Martin Orr and the two anonymous reviewers were also very helpful in revising the paper. Alvin Y. So gratefully acknowledges the support of the Social Science Research Institute at the University of Hawaii in preparing this paper. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association at San Francisco, August 1989.
ate students in the

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

36
It is unfortunate that Marx has not finished the chapter on class, for this has prompted a heated debate in the Marxist literature and led to an one-sided presentation of Marx in the mainstream sociology literature. In the Marxist literature, there is a debate between the structuralists (Althusser and Balibar, 1968; Poulantzas, 1975) and the historians (Thompson, 1978; Samuel, 1981) on &dquo;class.&dquo; For Poulantzas, classes are defined principally by their place in the production processes. Poulantzas (1975:14) points to &dquo;the structural determination of class, i.e., to the existence within class practices of determination by the structure - by the relations of production, and by the places of political and ideological domination/subordination.&dquo; However, for the historian Thompson, class is not a &dquo;static category&dquo; or a &dquo;structure,&dquo; but a historical process over time. Thus &dquo;class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs&dquo; (Thompson, 1963). What is interesting in this structuralist-historian debate is that both proponents have claimed Marx as their mentor and traced their usage of &dquo;class&dquo; to Marxs writings. Since Marxs chapter on class remained unwritten, it is not clear whether Marx would identify with the structuralists or with the historians. The unfinished chapter on class has also led to a one-sided presentation of Marx in the mainstream sociology literature. The chapter entitled &dquo;Social Stratification&dquo; in introductory sociology textbooks (Brinkerhoff and White, 1988; Robertson, 1987; Schaefer and Lamm, 1986), usually begins by saying that Marx is a great social thinker and his class analysis has immense impact on the study of stratification. However, the chapter will immediately add that Marxs class analysis is outdated: the significant transformations in industrial societies in the twentieth century have rendered Marxs simplistic class analysis obsolete. To show the inadequacy of the &dquo;one-dimensional&dquo; Marx, the chapter will hastily turn to the &dquo;multi-dimensional&dquo; Max Weber who examines not just the economic but also the political and social dimensions of class. However, is Marxs class analysis &dquo;one-dimensional&dquo;? Is his class analysis irrelevant to understand the modern capitalist societies? The mainstream sociology literature has misinterpreted Marx because it tends to rely on a &dquo;cut and paste&dquo; method to recover his unfinished chapter on class.
The Cut and Paste Method

Dahrendorf (1959) well-known work typifies the &dquo;cut and paste&dquo; method to interpret Marx. From Marxs voluminous writings, Dahrendorf has cut out numerous passages on class by Marx; pasted these scattered passages together under the headings of Property and Economic Power,

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

37

Relations of Production, Class Situation, Class Interests, Class Organization, Class Struggle, and the Classless Society; and then claimed to have reproduced Marxs class theory on a fairly faithful basis. Pasted under the section entitled &dquo;Property and Economic Power,&dquo; for example, Dahrendorf (1959:11-12) has cut passages out of five different sources of Marxs writings. The section starts by saying that

property question, relative to the different stages of development of industry, has always been the life question of any given
the

class

(Marx, 1920:459).
statement is

However, this

opposition of propertyless not expressed in an active

contradiction, so long
as

open to misinterpretation. For the and property as such is indifferent, and relation to its inner structure, i.e., as a it is not comprehended as the opposition

between labor and capital (Marx, 1950:176). Even in this specification property is still an abstraction, an empty concept. In every historical epoch property has developed differently and under different conditions. To define bourgeois property means no less than to describe all the social conditions of bourgeois production. The attempt to define property as an independent relation, a special category, an abstract and eternal idea, can be nothing but an illusion of metaphysics or jurisprudence

(Marx, 1947:169).
Only if we understand property in the particular context of bourgeois society, i.e., as private ownership of the means of production, as the control of a minority over the wealth of a whole nation, do we in fact grasp the core of the antagonism existing in production and creating class conflict. The power of society thus becomes the private power of a private person (Marx,1953a:138). bourgeois
The essential condition of the existence and domination of the class is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of private persons, the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition of capital is wage labor (Marx, 1953b:89).

After Dahrendorf, this cut and paste method has become a standardized way of presenting Marxs concept of class, and is widely practiced by social scientists (Bendix and Lipset, 1966; Furbank, 1985; Mackenzie,
not without problems. First, this method is derived from the invalid assumptions that Marx has one single concept of class and that he uses the term &dquo;class&dquo; consistently throughout his writings. As will be argued below, Marx actually has, not one, but two different usages of the term &dquo;class.&dquo; Second, this cut and paste method often takes Marxs passages out of context. Marxs early writings are frequently quoted side by side with his mature writings, while Marxs philosophical writings are put together

1976; Rattansi, 1985). This cut and paste method is

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

38
with his economic analyses. The literature has neither examined the different historical contexts that gave rise to Marxs writings, nor studied in more detail the complicated issues raised. Instead, the literature simply assumes that all Marxs work reveals the same usage of the term &dquo;class.&dquo; Third, Marxs passages on class are often selectively reproduced with a special purpose. For example, in the above presentation of Marxs class theory by Dahrendorf, Marx is said to have emphasized the personification of the unity of property ownership and political control. This is because in Marxs time the owners of property were also the managers running the corporations. Dahrendorf keeps on citing Marx: &dquo;the power of society thus becomes the private power of a private person&dquo; and &dquo;the existence and domination of the bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of private persons&dquo; (our emphasis). As a result, Dahrendorf can later denounce Marxs class theory as outdated because of the new developments of the stock market and the authorityless stockholders, the emergence of a propertyless managerial class, and the separation of ownership and control in the twentieth century.
Toward
an

In-Depth Approach

If the literatures cut and paste method is inappropriate, what then can be considered to be the best method to present Marxs concept of class? For Marx, the utility of the concept of class lies in its application. &dquo;Class&dquo; is such an indispensable tool for theoretical explanation, research, and practice that the more this tool is used, the better it sheds light on society and history. As such, to see the process by which Marx applies &dquo;class&dquo; as a research tool, we need to adopt an in-depth approach to study Marxs writings: concentrate on one or two of Marxs key writings, read into the lines, and analyze the writings in detail. This in-depth approach should be superior to the cut and paste method because it avoids diverting our attention from an intensive examination of Marxs key writings to a superficial treatment of Marxs numerous, but scattered, writings on class. Following this in-depth approach, this paper will first concentrate on Marx and Engels Manifesto of the Communist Party (hereafter referred to as CM, and as Marx [1967] because it seems unnecessary to make any significant discrimination between the views of Marx and Engels). In the

CM, Marx has presented a coherent class theory to explain the long-term trend of capitalism. However, this paper will show that Marx has two different concepts of class. It will be argued that Marx in The Eighteenth
Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
a

(hereafter referred to as EB), has presented different class analysis to interpret the changing political events in France in the mid-nineteenth century.1 In what follows, Marxs class theory in the CM will be compared with his class analysis in the EB. Our comparison will focus on the aim of the
Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

39

writing,

the level of generality, the number of classes, the linkages between economic interests and political struggles, the relationship between class and state, the impact of class on non-class relationships, and the direction of class struggle. Marxs Class

Theory in the CM

The Aim of the Writing. In late 1847, Marx and Engels were commissioned to develop a theoretical and practical party program for the Communist League. During the high tide of the working class revolution, Marx and Engels were highly optimistic about the downfall of capitalism. As Taylor (1967:36) points out, the CM
was

written for an immediate, practical purpose, as a prelude to action during the revolutions of 1848.... It provided both a system of historical development and a programme for political action. It demonstrated that capitalism would inevitably be overthrown by socialism and laid down, rather less clearly, how the proletariat could bring this overthrow about.

Aiming to promote the proletarian revolution, the CM is clearly a political work that catered to a political audience. Cottrell (1984:84) remarks that the CM was a mobilizing pamphlet designed to crystallize and communicate the revolutionary ideology of the Communist League at a time of great political optimism. Hence, the CM does not hesitate to make sweeping generalizations and bold predictions on the role of class struggle in history. As Hall (1977:20) remarks, what is so fatally seductive about the CM &dquo;is its simplifying revolutionary sweep: its elan, coupled with the optimistic sureness of its grasp on the unrolling, unstoppable tide of revolutionary struggle and proletarian victory; above all, its unmodified sense of historical inevitability.&dquo; In the CM, Marx writes like a committed revolutionary rather than a dispassionate scientist.
The Level of Generality. In the CM, classes are central to Marxs analybecause class struggle has provided the motive force to propel history forward. As Marx (1967:79) explained:
ses

history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.... Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and
The

oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. The above quotation also reveals that Marx has used the term &dquo;class&dquo; at a
high
level of abstraction. In the

CM, class

is taken to be

universal

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

40

concept: class exists in every society, and class struggle transforms history. In the CM, class is seldom discussed at a concrete level, embedded with

specific national or cultural traits.

The Number of Classes. If classes are so central to Marxs analyses, how many are there in a given historical era? In the CM, Marx has presented a two-class model, focusing on the exploitative relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed. In capitalism, for instance, the oppressors are the bourgeoisie who own the means of production and employ wage laborers, while the oppressed are the laborers who own nothing except their labor power and hence must sell themselves to the bourgeoisie for survival. For Marx, these two classes always stand &dquo;in constant opposition to one another&dquo; with regard to the control of the means and the process of production, of the share of the labor product, and finally of the state. But why has Marx focused only on two classes? How about other
classes such
as the small tradespeople, the shopkeepers, the rentiers, the handicraftsmen, and the peasants? For Marx (1967:88), the two-class

model is sufficient to account for the development of modern capitalism because the intermediate classes will &dquo;sink gradually into the proletariat&dquo; and thus will not play a key role in politics as a non-proletarian class. The proletarianization of the intermediate classes is inevitable &dquo;partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production.&dquo; Consequently, as capitalism advances, class antagonism will be simplified. Marx (1967:80) predicted that &dquo;society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.&dquo;

Economic Interests and Political Struggles. In the CM, economic conflict in the production sphere can easily be intensified into political conflict in the state. As Cottrell (1984:37) observes, the CM &dquo;presents a scenario in which ... the gap between class as economically defined entity and class as social force is progressively eliminated, so that it becomes legitimate to use the one term to encompass both.&dquo; In other words, Marx was optimistically predicting that the workers would quickly rise up as a class, struggle in the political arena, and become actors in

making history.
Marxs optimism was based on the following new conditions which promoted working class formation under capitalism. First, there was the rise of large-scale factory production, leading to an increase in the size and density of the working class. In Marxs (1967:89) words, &dquo;with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

41 becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more.&dquo; Second, the endemic economic crises in capitalism constantly threatened the livelihood of workers. Marx (1967:89) explained, &dquo;the growing competition among the bourgeoisie, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious.&dquo; Third, the industrial working class, compared to the peasantry, had better communication among its members.

Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trade Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages.... This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes (Marx, 1967:89-90). Fourth, the struggles within the ruling class also promoted working
class formation. Marx

(1967:90-91) commented:

The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Fifth, when the class revolution nears the decisive hour, there would be the defection of a small section of &dquo;bourgeois ideologists&dquo; from the ruling class. Marx (1967:91) argued that &dquo;a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole,&dquo; would cut itself adrift, and join the revolutionary class. Thus, the above structural conditions facilitated working class formation. As Cottrell (1984:42-43) summarizes, the proletariat therefore possessed the organization (both of large-scale factory production and improved means of communication), the motivation (due to economic crisis and hardship), the political education (from participation in bourgeois struggle), and the theoretical vision (aided by bourgeois defectors) to mount a full-scale assault on bourgeois power. In the CM,

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

42
Marx did not foresee any the political arena.

major difficulty in mobilizing the workers

into

Class and State Since the CM has stressed the unity of economic interests and political struggle, the state is simply regarded as an instrument of the capitalist class - as an instrument of coercion and administration used by the capitalists to enhance their class interests. Thus Marx (1967:82) said that &dquo;the executive of modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.&dquo; Marx (1967:82) further observed that advances by the bourgeoisie in the economy are followed by similar advances in the polity: &dquo;the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway.&dquo; As a result, after the bourgeoisie has become the ruling class, Marx (1967:88) argued that the proletariat is turned into both the &dquo;slave of the bourgeois class&dquo; and the slave &dquo;of the bourgeois State.&dquo;

Class and Non-Class Relations. Aside from the

primacy of class poli-

universal solvent that will dissolve other social relations such as religion, family, age, sex, and nation in modern capitalism. As capitalism advances, class relations will become more prominent, while other social relations will gradually fade
a

tics, Marx also contended that class relations are

away.
On this point, Marx (1967:82) stated that the the most revolutionary role in history because it has left

bourgeoisie

has

played

put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations ... and has

self-interest,

no other nexus between man and man than naked than callous cash payment. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, ... and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

remaining

The prominence of class relations had also eradicated age and sex differences in capitalism. Thus Marx (1967:88) contended that &dquo;differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.&dquo; National relations, too, were diminishing in importance because &dquo;modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character&dquo; (Marx, 1967:92).
The Direction

of Class Struggle.

From the

prominence

of class rela-

tions, the CM predicted the inevitability of class revolution in capitalism.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

43 The structural conditions that promoted the formation of the working class would propel workers to carry out the historical mission of the proletariat revolution. Thus Marx (1967:94) optimistically foresaw that &dquo;the development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.&dquo; After the proletarian revolution, the proletariat would transform the society to its class interests. Marx (1967:104) pointed out that &dquo;the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class.&dquo; In constructing the new society, Marx (1967:104-105) further proposed policies such as the abolition of private property, the abolition of all rights of inheritance, the equal obligation of all to work and to free education in order to enhance the class rule of the proletariat. Nevertheless, Marx argued that class relations will gradually disappear in the new communist society. Since the roots of class domination and exploitation lay in bourgeois ownership, Marx (1967:105) explained that when the proletariat has taken away the old conditions of class produc-

tion,
then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.... In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. In the CM, Marx has developed a class theory to explain why proletarian revolution is forthcoming in the near future. This class theory views social class as a universal category and focuses on the

Summary.

the

conflict between the two fundamental classes. This class theory also postulates that the structural contradictions of capitalist economy have simplified class antagonism and promoted the formation of the working class. This class theory further predicts that class struggle will be intensified under capitalism, leading to a proletarian revolution. In the new communist society, however, after the abolition of private property, class relations will gradually fade away. This is a coherent class theory because it contains testable propositions and predictions, and because it can be tested against the historical development in the twentieth century. While it is true that this class theory is still relatively undeveloped in the CM, it

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

44
has laid down the general principles that Marx would further elaborate and prove in his three volumes of Capital. In the mainstream sociological literature, this CM version is usually taken as the only usage that Marx has on class. As a result, the literature (Bottomore, 1966; Giddens, 1973; Dahrendorf, 1959) has criticized Marx for presenting a simplified two-class model that neglects other classes and other important social relationships such as mobility, community, and

politics. We disagree

with the critics because their interpretation of Marxs of class tends, in Rattansis (1985:643) words, to &dquo;focus on the concept most simplistic of Marxs texts&dquo; and neglect the more complex analyses in the post-CM writings. In what follows we argue that Marx has developed another usage of &dquo;class&dquo; - which we call class analysis - for the interpretation of the changing political events in France in The Eighteen Brumaire

of Louis Bonaparte (EB).

Marxs Class

Analysis in the EB

The Aim of the iWriting. Written during the high tide of revolution in January 1848, the CM was optimistic in predicting the arrival of the working class revolution. But the working class was defeated in June, 1848. Working class revolutionaries were arrested and imprisoned, and the proletarian movements &dquo;were ruthlessly hunted down.&dquo; As Marx (1973:154) recalled, &dquo;over 3,000 insurgents were butchered after the victory, and a further 15,000 were transported without having been convicted. With this defeat the proletariat passed into the background of the revolutionary stage.&dquo; Writing during the ebb of revolution in 1852, Marx discarded the political optimism expressed in the CM. Initially prepared for a magazine audience, the EB was aimed at understanding why the 1848 revolution had failed and what led to the coup detat of Louis Bonaparte in December, 1851. The EB attempted to show how &dquo;the class struggle in France created circumstances and conditions which allowed a mediocre and grotesque individual to play the heros role&dquo; (Marx, 1973:144). In the CM, Marx made bold generalizations and sweeping statements. In the EB, however, there were detailed observations of the political events to illustrate the complexity of the case.

The Level of Generality. In the CM, Marx used the term &dquo;class&dquo; at a high level of abstraction. Class and class struggle are taken to be the dynamic forces to transform society and move history forward. In the EB, however, Marx treated class as a concrete historical product rooted in a given nation (France) during a specific historical period (between 1848 and 1852). The EB brings out the historical specificity of classes - their

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

45

birthmarks, their culture, their experiences of struggle, and

their constant

changing forms of struggles and alliances. Take the French bourgeoisie in the EB for example. This class was historically unique in the sense that instead of struggling to protect its economic interests in the name of capital, it struggled to restore the dying monarchy in the name of the royalists. Thus Marx (1973:165,174)
observed that this

bourgeois

mass was

however

royalist.

One section of

it,

the

great landowners, had ruled during the Restoration and was therefore Legitimist. The other, the aristocracy of finance and the big industrialists, had ruled under the July monarchy and was therefore
Orleanist.... Orleanists and Legitimists found themselves side side in the republic, making equal claims. Each side wanted secure the restoration of its own royal house against the other.

by
to

sizing

The Number of Classes. The CM presented a two-class model, emphathe struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed that is rooted in the structure of exploitation. The EB, on the contrary, developed a multi-class analysis. In the EB, there is very little discussion on the structure of exploitation in the sphere of production. Instead of focusing on the two fundamental classes, other classes (such as the petty-bourgeoisie, the lumpen proletariat, the peasantry) played an important role in shaping the direction of French history. For instance, it was the widespread support from many classes that elected Louis Bonaparte to the Presidency. As Marx (1973:164) explained, the election in December, 1848
was a

reaction of the peasants, who had had to pay the costs of the

February revolution, against the other classes of the nation, a reaction of the country against the town. It found great favour with the army, for which the republicans of the National had provided no glory and no extra pay, with the big bourgeoisie, who saw Bonaparte as a bridge to the monarchy, and with the proletarians and petty bourgeois, who hailed him as a scourge for Cavaignac. In the EB, even a class fraction can have impact because intraclass struggle can be very acute. Commenting on the bourgeois class fractions, Marx (1973:174) noted that the members of the royalist coalition intrigued against each other outside the parliament: in the press, at Ems, and at Claremont. Behind the scenes they dressed up again in their old Orleanist and Legitimist liveries and went back to their old tournaments.... this had no other meaning than that each of the two great interests into which the bourgeoisie is divided - landed property and capital -

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

46
was

endeavoring to restore its subordination of the other interest.

a

own

supremacy and

the

formulating a simplified two-class model, the EB, therefore, presented complicated pattern of struggles and alliances among differInstead of
ent classes and class

fractions.

Economic Interests and Political Struggles. The CM postulated that economic contradictions would promote working class formation and the proletarian revolution. In the EB, however, Marx reformulated the relationship between economy and politics. Although economic contradictions are still a necessary condition for working class unity and militancy, they are by no means a sufficient condition. On this point, Cottrell (1984:45) points out that
after their defeat in June 1849

submitting

we find them [the proletariat] political representation by the Montagne, whose programme breaks the revolutionary point off the social demands of the proletariat, entraining them behind the petty bourgeoisie. In the boom year of 1850 we find the workers for ettin the revolu-

to

tionary interests of their class for momentary ease and comfort.

developed a new concept of &dquo;representation&dquo; problematic linkages between economic interests and political struggles. For instance, Marx (1973:238) asserted that &dquo;Bonaaddition,
the EB has
to denote the

In

parte represents a class, indeed he represents the most numerous class of French society, the small peasant proprietors.&dquo; As Calvert (1982:77)
comments, in the EB &dquo;a class can be represented politically by a group, even a very small group, and even by individuals who are not members of
it.&dquo; But &dquo;representation&dquo; in the political arena means more than the articulation of class interests. In the EB, once &dquo;representation&dquo; is rœlized, the representative will have autonomy and can adopt policies contrary to the class interests of its supporters. For example, once Louis Bonaparte was elected by the peasants, he could make policies that were against the interests of the French peasantry. Marx (1973:239) explained that small

peasant proprietors were

therefore incapable of name, whether through

asserting their class interest in their own parliament or through a convcntion. They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented. Their representative must appear simultaneously as their master, as an authority over them, an unrestricted government power that
a

protects them from the

sunshine from above.

other classes and sends them rain and

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

47

Similarly, although the party of Order consisted of the representatives bourgeoisie, it had also developed programs that were contrary to bourgeois interests. Marx (1973:221) commented: The party of Order within the parliament had also fallen out with the party of Order outside parliament. The spokesmen and writers of the bourgeoisie, its platform and its press, to put it briefly the ideologists of the bourgeoisie, had become alienated from the bourgeoisie itself. Representatives and represented faced each other in mutual incomprehension. Because the bourgeois class later hated its representative (the party of Order), it &dquo;thus applauded the coup detat on 2 December, the destruction of Assembly, the downfall of its own rule, and the dictatorship of Bonaparte, with servile cries of bravo&dquo; (Marx, 1973:232).2
of the
Class and State. The CM treated the state as a means of enforcing the interests of the capitalist class. However, the EB has developed the concept of an autonomous state, as Marx (1973:238) pointed out that the French &dquo;state seems to have attained a completely autonomous position. The state machine has established itself so firmly vis-,I-vis civil society.&dquo; What explains the rise of the autonomous state in France? First, Marx (1973:186) stresses the bureaucratic power of Bonapartes state: In France the executive has its disposal an army of more than half a million individual officials and it therefore constantly maintains an immense mass of interests and livelihoods in a state of the most unconditional dependence: the state enmeshes, controls, regulates, supervises and regiments civil society from the most all-embracing expressions of its life down to its most insignificant motions, from its most general modes of existence down to the private life of individuals.

war. a

Second, Marx pointed to the weakening of class power after the civil For Marx, Bonapartism was the only form of government possible at

time when bourgeois power was undermined by working class insurgency and proletarian strength was weakened by bourgeois repression. Therefore, after posing the question &dquo;why did the Paris proletariat not rise in revolt after 2 December?&dquo; Marx (1973:235) explained: &dquo;Any serious proletarian rising would at once have revived the bourgeoisie, reconciled it with the army, and ensured a second June defeat for the
workers.&dquo; Moreover, Marx (1973:236) observed that &dquo;Bonaparte had robbed the Paris proletariat of its leaders ... The proletariat was an army without officers, and it was in any case unwilling to fight under the banner of the Montagnards because of the memories of June 1848, June 1849, and May 1850.&dquo;

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

48 Class and Non-Class Relations. The CM argued that after class relations become prominent in capitalism, other social relations would fade into the background. The EB, however, recognized the role of nonclass relations in historical development. In the EB, Marx was especially interested in examining how other social factors might have shaped the contour of class struggle in France. For example, Marx brought in the factors of tradition, costumes, and languages. Marx (1973:146) opened the EB by saying that
the tradition of the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the living ... precisely in such epoches of revolutionary crisis they timidly conjure up the spirits of the past to help them; they borrow their names, slogans and costumes so as to stage the new world-historical scene in this venerable disguise and borrowed
-

language. Following the same line of thought, Marx (1973:148) remarked that &dquo;the English people had borrowed for their bourgeois revolution the language, passions, and illusions of the Old Testament.... In these
revolutions, then, the resurrection of the dead served
to exalt the new

struggles.&dquo;
Marx also looked into the social factors such as the mode of life, culture, community, poverty, political organization, national links - that
-

may affect the development of class consciousness. In so doing, Marx (1973:238) revealed a set of negative conditions under which the French peasants had failed to form a class:
The small peasant proprietors form an immense mass, the members of which live in the same situation but do not enter into manifold relationships with each other. Their mode of operation isolates them instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. This isolation is strengthened by the wretched state of Frances means of communication and by the poverty of the peasants.

Under these circumstances, Marx (1973:239) concluded that &dquo;in so far as these small peasant proprietors are merely connected on a local basis, and the identity of their interests fails to produce a feeling of community, national links, or a political organization, they do not form a class.&dquo; In addition, Marx discussed the factor of ideology. The land and finance fractions of the bourgeoisie articulated their interests through outdated ideologies. The landed fraction wanted to restore the Bourbons and called itself the Legitimist, while the financial fraction declared itself the Orleanist. Both fractions kept on fighting the ideological battles on who should be the next president of France. As previously explained, this ideological division between the two bourgeois fractions finally led to the rise of Louis Bonaparte.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

49

Furthermore, Marx touched upon other factors such as social mobility and charismatic leadership. On mobility, Marx (1973:155) commented that &dquo;as for example in the United States of America. There, although classes already exist, they have not yet become fixed, but rather continually alter and mutually exchange their component parts.&dquo; On leadership, Marx (1973:236) remarked that &dquo;France therefore seems to have escaped the despotism of a class only to fall back beneath the despotism of an individual.&dquo; In sum, Marx in the EB argued that non-class relations such as tradition, ideology, mobility, and leadership - not only will not be eradicated by the growing prominence of class relations in capitalism, but will also play a role in shaping the contour of class struggle in historical
-

development.
The Direction of Class Struggle. The CM predicted that economic conflict would lead to class formation, proletarian revolution, and a classless society. The EB, however, recognized the historical contingency of class struggle. Workers may not win class struggles, can suffer defeat, and be driven into the background. On this aspect, Marx (1973: 150)

remarked:

revolutions, however, such as those of the nineteenth century, constantly engage in self-criticism, and in repeated interProletarian

ruptions of their own course. They return to what has apparently already been accomplished in order to begin the task again; ... they seem to throw their opponent to the ground only to see him draw new strength from the earth and rise again before them, more
colossal than
ever.

The EB, therefore, presented an ebb and flow model of class struggle. Reviewing the history of class struggles in France, Marx (1973:169) pointed out that the 1848 revolution started with the coalition of all classes against the aristocracy. Then there was the working class against the rest. Then the petty bourgeoisie was defeated. The rivalry between the landed and the financial fractions of the bourgeoisie commenced, followed by the rivalry between the Parliamentary and the Executive and by the struggle for power between the party of Order and the President. Finally the President won them all and turned himself into an emperor in December, 1851. As such, the EB gives no hint of the direction of class struggle. A class may win some battles, may be defeated, and may later come back to start the class struggle again. Marx (1973:191) put it well: &dquo;it seemed to have disappeared from the battlefield at the moment of danger only in order to return at more favorable opportunity with fighting forces of a more mass character and a bolder battle-cry.&dquo; In the EB, Marx observed the unending process of the making and remaking of classes as well as the constant shifting of alliances among different classes

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

50
and class fractions.

Consequently, the EB has presented a picture that no class is predetermined to win all the battles and the future of working class revolution is contingent upon the existing historical conditions. The EB is content with interpreting the changing political events in the 1840s, making no prediction of the coming of the proletarian revolution.
Conclusion: Class Theory or Class Analysis?

This paper reexamines Marxs unfinished chapter on class. It argues that the cut and paste method in the literature is problematic. Most sociologists think that Marx has only one usage of class because Marxs writings are quoted out of context and because Marxs passages on class are selectively reproduced with a special purpose. Focusing on two of Marxs key writings, this paper has shown that Marx actually uses the term class in two different ways: as class theory and as class analysis. In the CM, class is used at a highly abstract level to examine the longterm historical trend. This class theory postulates that the antagonism between capital and labor in production is basic to the understanding of the historical development of capitalism. Because of the structural contradictions in capitalism, the proletariat has become class conscious and engaged in a political struggle against the bourgeoisie. After eradicating other social relations, class struggle will be intensified, leading to a proletarian revolution and a new communist society. In this new society, where there is no more class exploitation, classes and class relations will gradually fade out. This paper argues that the CM has presented a coherent class theory because Marx has specified the structural conditions under which the proletarian revolution would occur. This CM version seems to lay the foundation in which the neo-Marxist structuralists have developed such concepts as &dquo;the structural determination of class.&dquo; This paper argues further that the EB has developed another usage of class called class analysis. Here, Marx treats class as a historical product rooted in the specific conditions of France in the late 1840s. He presents
a

multi-class model and pays attention to the intricate alliances and

struggles among different classes and class fractions. Trying to tackle the problematic linkages between economic interests and political struggles, Marx formulates the concepts of representation and the autonomous state, and pays attention to how other social relations (language, tradition) have shaped the contour of class struggle. Attracted to the changing political events in France, Marx presents an ebb and flow model of class struggle and has made no prediction of the inevitability of the proletarian revolution. In this respect, the EB has presented a class analysis because &dquo;class&dquo; is used as a tool to interpret the political events surrounding the
coup detnt of Louis Napoleon between 1848 and 1852. In itself, class analysis is not a theory. There are no

well-developed
are not

propositions;

different patterns of class

struggle

and alliance

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

51

specified; it carries no predictions and thus cannot be falsified by historical reality. Instead, class analysis is just a tool, or an interpretive scheme, to make sense of what has happened in society and history. Like a lens,
the power of class analysis lies in the amount of light it can shed on the intricate interactions among human agency, political events, and structural contradictions. It seems the EB version is the source through which the neo-Marxist historians drew their inspiration in stressing the role of historical relationship, agency, culture, and experience in class analysis. This paper, therefore, points out that Marx actually has two different usages of the term class: a class theory that hypothesizes the long-term structural trend of capitalist development, and a class analysis that is a historical method to examine the political struggles in a concrete historical situation. The differences between Marxs class theory and his class analysis are summarized in Table 1. As such, what is the relationship between Marxs structural class theory and his historical class analysis? And what are the contributions of distinguishing class analysis from class theory? First of all, Marx himself has not explicitly spelled out the interconnection between his two usages of class. He just lets the two usages coexist without informing his readers which version is his favorite. Thus both neo-Marxist structuralists and historians can easily find ample evidence from Marx to claim that they have faithfully followed his conception of class. However, one possible interpretation is that Marx has never forsaken the class theory of the CM. What Marx does in the EB is to further develop the schematic class theory presented in the CM. Consequently, Marxs class analysis should not be taken as a means to refute his class theory. In fact, when Marx applies class analysis, he writes as a historian with &dquo;class theory&dquo; well in the background. He still shares certain assumptions of class theory, such as the structural contradictions in capitalism generating the conflict of interests among classes. But instead of imposing class theory onto historical reality, Marx in class analysis merely uses &dquo;theoretical ideas in dialogue with the evidence to interpret particular historical processes&dquo; (Trimberger, 1984:227). In this respect, while class theory is formulated to specify the long-term structural trend of the emergence, the development, and the transformation of capitalism, class analysis is developed as a historical method to practice &dquo;theoretical ideas&dquo; so as to interpret short-term political struggles in a concrete social formation. If this is so, what is the significance of this distinction between class theory and class analysis? This paper, of course, is not the first one to point out that Marx has more than one conception of class. Other studies (such as Bodemann and Spohn, 1986; Calvert, 1982; Cottrell, 1984;

Draper, 1977; Giddens, 1971; Giddens, 1973; Hall, 1977; Neale, 1983; Ollman, 1968; Poulantzas, 1975; Rattansi, 1985; Wright, 1985) have noted, in passing, that Marxs political writings have a different usage of
Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

52 &dquo;class&dquo; from his historical writings, Marxs abstract analyses have used &dquo;class&dquo; in a different way from his concrete investigations, Marx has recognized the role of other classes in historical development, and Marx

Table 1.

Summary of Marx on &dquo;Class.&dquo;

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

53 has used the term &dquo;class&dquo; carelessly throughout his writings.3 Nevertheless, although the above studies have noted Marxs multi-usage of the term &dquo;class,&dquo; they have not highlighted the superiority of the in-depth approach to the &dquo;cut and paste&dquo; method in recovering Marxs unfinished chapter on class. In addition, they have not formulated the concepts of &dquo;class theory&dquo; and &dquo;class analysis&dquo; to capture the crucial differences in Marxs usage of the term &dquo;class.&dquo; Also, they have not systematically compared the different usages of &dquo;class&dquo; along the dimensions of the level of generality, the number of classes, the relationship between economic interests and politics, class and state, class and non-class relationship, and the direction of class struggle. And, finally, they have not pinpointed the one-sided presentation of Marx in the sociology literature, which criticizes his writings on class as simplistic and outdated. What this paper contributes, therefore, is to reemphasize the simple fact that Marxs writings on class have provided both a structural class theory and a historical class analysis. Since many researchers (Kaye, 1983; McNall et al., 1991; Miliband, 1989; Roy, 1984; So and Hikam, 1989; Wright, 1985) have found Marxs class theory extremely powerful in explaining the structural transformation in monopoly capitalism, and since they have further developed Marxs historical class analysis to interpret the political struggles in advanced capitalist societies, it is hoped that Marxs writings on class will receive much more attention in the mainstream sociological literature in the near future.

Notes
1. It may be necessary to explain why we selected the CM and the EB for close reading. First, why is the CM selected over other texts like Capital? The CM is important because it has laid down "the general principles" which Marx would further elaborate in his mature

writings. In fact Engels (1967:63) in 1888 still claimed that "however much the state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in this Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever." In this respect, it should not make too much difference in selecting either the CM or Capital — both texts will reveal Marxs theory of class. But the CM has an edge over Capital as our choice for close reading because the former is more concise and eloquently written than the latter. Then why is the EB selected over other texts like The Class Struggles in France and The
Civil War in France? These three texts share very similar approaches with respect to Marxs usage of "class" to observe the unfolding of French history. But the EB somehow seems to be more popular than the other two works. As Engels (1963:13) remarked, the EB "was in truth a work of genius.... This eminent understanding of the living history of the day, this clear-sighted appreciation of events at the moment of happening, is indeed without parallel." 2. We want to note that although the concept of "representation" serves to open up new research agendas to examine the intricate relationship among classes, political parties, and the state, this concept is not without problems. For example, if Louis Bonaparte had made policies that were against the interests of the French peasantry, how could Marx still claim that Bonaparte "represented" the peasantry? In addition, an uncritical use of the concept of representation may lead researchers to a retreat from class, attracting them to develop a "statist" perspective which focuses on state autonomy at the expense of the underlying class

dynamics.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

54
3. This is certainly not the place to even briefly review how the Marxists and the Weberians portray Marxs concept of class. It would not do justice to many books and articles which have been written on this subject. Suffice to say that many of them have shared the argument of this paper that Marx has more than one usage of "class."

References
Abrams, Philip. 1982. Historical Sociology. New York: Cornell University Press. Althusser, Louis and Etienne Balibar. 1968. Reading Capital. London: New Left Books. Bendix, Reinhard and Seymour M. Lipset. 1966. "Karl Marxs Theory of Social Classes." Pp. 6-11 in R. Bendix and S. M. Upset (eds.), Class, Status, and Power. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.

Bodemann, Y. Michal and Willfried Spohn. 1986. "The Organicity of Classes and the Naked
Proletarian." Insurgent Sociologist 13:10-9.

Bottomore, T. B. 1966. Classes in Modem Society. New York: Vintage. Brinkerhoff, David B. and Lyn K. White. 1988. Sociolog. St. Paul: West Publishing. Calvert, Peter. 1982. The Concept of Class. London: Hutchinson. Cottrell, Allen. 1984. Social Classes in Marxist Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford

University Press. Draper, Hal. 1977. Karl Marxs Theory of Revolution. New York: Monthly Review Press. Engels, Friedrich. 1963. "Preface to the Third German Edition." Pp. 13-14 in Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers. ________. 1967. "Preface to the English Edition of 1888." Pp. 59-64 in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. Baltimore: Penguin. Furbank, P. N. 1985. Unholy Pleasure of the Idea of Social Class. New York: Oxford University Press. Giddens, Anthony. 1971. Capitalism and Modem Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1973. The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. London: Hutchinson. . Hall, Stuart. 1977. "The Political and the Economic in Marxs Theory of Classes." Pp. 1560 in Alan Hunt (ed.), Class and Class Structure. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Kaye, Harvey J. 1983. "History and Social Theory: Notes on the Contributions of British Marxist Historiography to our Understanding of Class." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 20:167-192.
Mackenzie, Gavin. 1976. "Class and Class Consciousness: Marx Re-examined." Marxism

Today (March):95-100.
Marx, Karl. 1920. "Die
moralisierende Kritik und die kritische Moral." in Franz Mehring (ed.), Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, 3rd edition. Stuttgart. .1947. Das Elend der Philosophie. Berlin. ___. 1950. Nationalokonomie und Philosophie. Cologne and Berlin. ________. 1953a. Das Kapital, Vol. I. Berlin. ________. 1953b. Manifest der kommunistischen Partei. Berlin. ________. 1973. "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte." Pp. 143-249 in Karl Marx, Surveys From Exile. New York: Pelican. ________. 1975. Capital, Vol. III. New York: International Publishers. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1967. The Communist Manifesto. Baltimore: Penguin. McNall, Scott, Rhonda Levine, and Rick Fantasia (ed.). 1991. Bringing Class Back In. Boulder Westview Press.

Miliband, Ralph. 1989. Divided Societies. Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Neale, R. S. 1983. History and Class. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ollman, Bertell. 1968. "Marxs Use of Class." American Journal of Sociology 73:573-580.
Poulantzas, Nicos. 1975. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: Verso. Rattansi, Ali. 1985. "End of an Orthodoxy? The Critique of Sociologys View of Marx on
Class." Sociological Review 33:641-669.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013

55 Robertson, Ian. 1987. Sociology. New York: Worth.

Roy, William. 1984. "Class Conflict and Social Change in Historical Perspective." Annual Review of Sociology 10:483-506. Samuel, Raphael (ed.). 1981. Peoples History and Socialist Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Schaeffer, Richard T. and Robert P. Lamm. 1986. Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill. So, Alvin Y. and Muhammad Hikam. 1989. Class in the Writings of Wallerstein and Thompson." Sociological Perspectives 32:453-468. Taylor, A. J. P. 1967. "Introduction." Pp. 747 in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Conununist Manifesto. Baltimore: Penguin. Thompson, E. P.1963. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage. ________. 1978. The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays. London: Merlin. Trimberger, Ellen K. 1984. "E. P. Thompson: Understanding the Process of History." Pp. 244-275 in Theda Skocpol (ed.), Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, Erik O. 1985. Classes. London: Verso.
"

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com by guest on February 10, 2013