Capital & Class

http://cnc.sagepub.com/

The Debate on Classes

Capital & Class 1990 14: 147
DOI: 10.1177/030981689004100107
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/14/2/147.citation

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

On behalf of:
Conference of Socialist Economists

Additional services and information for Capital & Class can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cnc.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1990

What is This?

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013

Book reviews
'what is to be done?' question, it moves into
the issues posed by classical ethics, and also
that any Marxist worth her salt has long ago
learned the difference between the dubious
seductions of intellectual fashion and
genuine theoretical insight . To this extent,
Geras is preaching to the converted .
However, Geras undoubtedly argues the
ethical case with great care and precision,
and with due respect for the enormous
diversity of the Marxist tradition . And there
is no doubt that he also demonstrates the
extravagance of an old and false critical
strategy against Marxism - 'to represent it
as essentially crude, oversimplified, reductionist and so forth, by just writing out of
Marxism everything within the tradition
that is otherwise ; so that what is there is
either impoverished or is not really
Marxism' [p .xiil . But in spite of this, Geras'
overall strategy does not do his general
project much service : on the one hand, his
polemical target is so specific and the details
of the argument so arcane that he does not
demonstrate that the intellectual tradition
of post-modernism fails to offer practical
advice to revolutionaries ; and on the other,
he is finally not talking about Marxism and
the alternatives to it, but about his carefully
argued kind of Marxism and his objections
to the post-Marxist extravagance of Laclau
and Mouffe .

Notes
1 . Geras' argument here is in keeping
with his previous book, Marx and Human
Nature (Verso, 1983) .
2 . There is at least one excellent review
of the major issues : Michael Ryan's Marxism
and Deconstruction (John Hopkins University
Press, 1984) .

147

Erik Olin Wright et al .

The Debate on Classes
Verso, London-New York, 1989
ISBN 0 86091 966 8, pbk, 10 .95
ISBN 0 86091 251 5, hbk, 32 .95,
pp . 356
Reviewed by Filio Diamanti
In this collection of essays a whole variety
of theoretical strands - within the broader
neo-Marxist framework - come together
with the aim of answering the long and
troublesome question of what social class is
and its impact on the wider terrain of
politics and Left strategies for socialist
advance . The role of the 'historic subject of
change', the influence of the intermediate
layers or what Marx called the 'ideological
classes' and the significance of cultural and
gender identities are discussed in the course
of a theoretical (re)evaluation . The Debate on
Classes is a discussion of Wright's use of
Analytical Marxism and his theory of
'contradictory class locations' as it was
formulated in his previous work especially
Classes . (Verso, 1985)
What is missing from The Debate on
Classes is the very idea of class as a relation
of struggle . The predominant issue is the
role of the middle classes, on which conflict
is focussed, in that other issues are seen as
peripheral and as surrounding this . Class

Capital & Class

148 by some of the commentators - Wright

inclusive - is treated as an ahistorical entity,
without any reference to the role of the state
as not only shaping but also shaped by class
conflict . For example the notion of the
middle class is discussed as a specifically
capitalist phenomenon which is strange
because if one takes a look at pre-capitalist
formations then one can see more that two
classes in the class structure . An example is
the situation of the Athenian City State or
Polis, where side by side with the two main
antagonistic classes, namely the free citizens
and the slaves, there was a whole middle
stratum - I leave the question of women
aside not because it is unimportant but
because of its importance which might
change the whole picture - the so-called
Metoikoi
(they
were predominantly
foreigner merchants) with no political
rights . So here you are with a nice middle
class . Why then such a fuss over the
'ideological classes' or 'intermediate layers'
in the capitalist mode of production? Why
are they so significant now? The latter can
be explained in connection with the
questions of alliances and of the diminishing
role of the working class so common to the
Eurocommunist discourse . If classes are seen
as unified subjects already formed in a given
class structure then the whole idea of
alliances becomes meaningless . Wright's
concentration on class formation rather than
class structure is challenged by some of the
contributors and it is not difficult to see
why . If classes are not defined objectively
according to their relation to the means of
production and their position in the division
of labour then the idea of class formation
takes predominance over the concept of class
structure . The middle classes in the class
formation and the importance of 'contradictory class locations' based on income and
skill credentials become the most important
elements in the formation of hegemonic
blocs between classes and fractions ranging

from the working class to sections of the

bourgeoisie itself. If the question of capitalist exploitation becomes a question of
hegemony over capitalist relations of power
distribution among classes then capitalism
becomes an 'open system' with infinite
possibilities which in turn suggests that
there is no reason to abolish it .
The other issue is the concept of exploitation . For Wright exploitation is ' . . . an
economically oppressive appropriation of the
fruits of the labor of one class by another .'
(Wright, 1985, p . 77), that is an economic
not a social relation . Exploitation together
with the concept of the ownership of the
means of production are seen as relations of
appropriation, thus as relations of distribution instead of relations of production .
Wright suggests that exploitation means
appropriation of the fruits of someone else's
labour, or its equivalent, consuming more
than one produces Carchedi's criticism of
this notion is that exploitation should not
be seen as an economic relation having to do
with skills and their appropriation but as a
relation of production having to do with
who produces for whom and who appropriates what, that is as having to do with the
appropriation of surplus product which
under capitalism is the struggle over the
distribution of surplus value (Wright et al,
1989, p . 109).
For Wright there are two kinds of assets
in the capitalist formation which define the
position of the middle classes and have to
do on the one hand with the ownership of
skill assets (prototypically belonging to
experts) based on credentials and on the
other with per capita share assets or organization assets (prototypically belonging to
managers and supervisors) . The working
class, - or what Wright calls the 'uncredentialed and non-managerial employees' then, consists of those wage-earners who are
exploited both by the owners of skill (the
new middle classes) and the owners of

Book reviews

capitalists) .

corresponding relations arising from the

Exploitation then has to do with a causal

relationship between wealth and poverty not

production process . As Marx put it 'The

between economic positions . Skill's ownership and their exploitation has little to do

surplus-labour is pumped out of direct

with collectivities such as classes ; it

predominantly focusses on individuals in

rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of

organizational

assets

(the

specific economic form, in which unpaid

producers, determines the relationship of

their capacity to generate income . Class in

production itself and, in turn, reacts upon

it as a determining element . Upon this,

its turn becomes an occupational group and

however, if founded the entire formation of

Wright's neo-Marxist theory is only a step

the economic community which grows up

away

stratification

out of the production relations themselves,

theory . If this classification is stressed to its

thereby simultaneously its specific political

limits

form .' (Marx, 1984, pp . 791-2)

from
it

the

bourgeois

supplies

some very peculiar

outcomes, for example, the unemployed are

In the capitalist mode of production the

not exploited since they do not take part in

extraction of surplus value takes place as an

the production process ; women too . Both

economic process, separated from other

groups would be better off if they left the

social relationships, whereas in earlier forms

capitalist society and set up one of their own

of societal organisation, based upon the

in terms of 'game theory' analysis .

labour of slaves or serfs, it required some

Exploitation serves another purpose too .

kind of extra-economic coercion . But this

For Wright an exploitation-centred analysis

also means that exploitation is less apparent ;

of classes would make possible the overcom-

for, while the slave or serf experience directly

ing of the methodological difficulty of the

the fact that a part of the product of his

concept of 'manipulative oppression', that

labour is appropriated by a dominant group,

is, that classes can be defined as relations of

the wage-worker is engaged in a process of

oppression and/or domination primarily

production in which he/she apparently

from

between

exchanges labour for other commodities (via

individuals . According to the exploitation-

the relations

generated

the wage) and the mechanism by which a

centred analysis women's oppression under

surplus product is generated and appropriated is misty . Hence the need, according to

capitalism does not make them a distinct

(Wright et al, 1989, p . 133ff) in order to

Marx, for a scientific analysis of the

capitalist economy in order to reveal,

criticize the voluntarist and atomised post-

beneath the surface appearance, its funda-

Marxist understanding of class in Laclau and

mental structure and mode of operation, and

Mouffe's book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy

the crucial importance in such an analysis of

(Verso, 1985) where everything is reduced

the distinction between 'labour' and 'labour

to discourse and subjectivity . But although

Wright's intention is to overcome the

power' .
Exploitation is the cement of the capital-

oppression-centred approach to classes at the

labour relation . Without the extraction of

end he only offers a modified version of it

surplus value for the sake of capital accumu-

by bringing in economic relations alongside

lation unpaid labour takes a different

personal exploitation .

meaning according to how it is used .

class . This idea is taken up by Uwe Becker

The concept of exploitation is one of the

Surplus labour is not a characteristic of

most important concepts in Marxist theory

having to do with the way surplus labour

capitalism alone . An amount of surplus in

is appropriated in capitalism and the

required for the reproduction of society, the

the form of surplus product is always

149

Capital & Class

150 problem is how and for whose sake it is

extracted . Regardless of rising living
standards and higher wages the basis of the
system remains the same . The formation of
class in capitalist society as based on the
capital-labour antagonism is constantly
reproduced because of the unsuccessful
challenge to the basis of this relation by the
exploited and this is the main issue that
should be addressed by the Left . As Marx
put it : 'We have seen that the capitalist
process of production is a historically
determined form of the social process of
production in general . The latter is as much
a production process of material conditions
of human life as a process taking place under
specific historical and economical production relations, producing and reproducing
these production relations themselves and
thereby also the bearers of the process, their
material conditions of existence and their
mutual relations, i .e ., their particular socioeconomic form . . . The surplus labour appears
as surplus-value and this surplus-value exists
as a surplus product .' (Marx, 1984, pp .
818-19)
Wright is defining classes as based on
property relations but this is problematic . If
exploitation is the supreme manifestation of
the organisation of the capitalist mode of
production then the concepts of the division
of labour and property relations take on a
specific meaning unique to capitalism .
Classes are the outcome of the division of
labour and the rise of different material
interests associated with the collective
form of material existence of individual
producers . Property relations are the result
of alienated forms of labour and not the
constituting essence of them . If this
proposition is correct then what is primary
in the constitution of classes fur rich are not
property relations but the division of labour
between producers which enable some of
them under certain historical circumstances
to control the means of existence for their

own sake and appropriate the surplus

(religious
sects, absolute
monarch,
victorious warriors etc) .
Hence, subjectively classes are not only
constituted according to their members'
relation to the means of production but also
according to their position in the division of,
labour . This position carries with it not only
the integration of their objective class
situation but also their subjective
subordination/desubordination to the whole
spectrum of material and ideological relations . Class is the subjective and objective
form of the dialectical constitution of real
material interests arising from the organisation of society into antagonistic class forces .
Class constitutes its members, and is
constituted in the class struggle . Class
struggle is not a vague term used whenever
we are out of concrete concepts of analysis .
Class struggle is the fight over the rate of
exploitation which is manifested in
struggles over wages, over working conditions, over the false separation of the
personal from the political over myriads of
issues challenging the dominant mode of
production .
If the above propositions are correct then
classes are not groups of individuals who
occupy a certain place in the work hierarchy
according to their wage but class individuals
who are constituted as such according to
their material interests in relation to capital .
That is the working class is not only the
manual workforce par excellence. What Marx
meant by the proletariat was the class of
society which has as its only private property
its labour power to sell in order to keep
going as a class in the most material sense .
The working class is the class of the people
who are exploited in the form of the
extraction of surplus value which is used for
the subsistence and reproduction of the
capitalist class and more specifically for the
reproduction of the relations of production
as capitalist relations of production . Even if

Book reviews
we accept that capitalism has changed
quantitatively it has not changed qualitatively, that is the realisation of higher living
standards and material wealth for the
working class does not change its position
in the production process and in the
whole sphere of the reproduction of its
material and mental existence, thus in the
reproduction of the antagonistic relations of
production . In which case there is no need
to give the primacy to a theoretically privileged 'new middle class' or to myriads of
discoursive subjects .
The Debate on Classes carries a value per se .
It is predominantly the discourse of
neo-Marxism trapped between 'neo' and
'Marxism' and it is worth studying in order
on the one hand to see how Marxist
categories of analysis can be negated even
while using a Marxist language and on the
other hand the shortcomings of analytical
Marxism and of 'game theory' . The major
lesson to be learned from The Debate on
Classes is that capitalism is not a game but
a very serious business especially for those
who live under it in a by no means playful
way .

Notes
Laclau, Ernesto & Mouffe, Chantal (1985)
Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, Towards a
Radical Democratic Politics, London-New
York : Verso
Marx, Karl (1983) Capital, A Critique of
Political Economy, Vol . I, London :
Lawrence & Wishart
Marx, Karl (1984) Capital, A Critique of
Political Economy, Vol . III, London:
Lawrence & Wishart
Wright, Erik, Olin (1985) Classes, London :
Verso
Wright, Erik, Olin et al . (1989) The Debate
on Classes, London-New York : Verso .

151

Henry Patterson
The Politics of Illusion : Republicanism
and Socialism in Modern Ireland
Hutchinson Radius (London, 1989)
pp . 247, 7 .95 pb .
Reviewed by Peter Gibbon
'Republican Socialism' is a tendency within
Irish Republicanism which has proved one
of its most enduring features . While never
a particularly successful force in Irish
politics it has always proved a major asset
for Republicanism's external image, particularly with the British left . However,
while there is an extensive literature on
Republican Socialism's intellectual origins
(Mellowes, O'Donnell, etc) and while
Republicanism generally has been the
subject of a series of treatments by historians
from Macardle onwards, there has been no
serious study of Republican Socialism - let
alone a Marxist one - prior to this subtle
and highly intelligent new work by Henry
Patterson .
Irish Republicanism as a modern political
movement first became a major political
force in 1916-21, when it seized the
initiative in the independence struggle from
constitutional nationalism . Its political line
has been defined by a commitment to 'full'
national sovereignty, constitutional and
territorial, and by the use of physical force