Mi Haibo: Three Major Shifts in Contemporary Western Marxist Class Theory
The interpretation of social reality through traditional Marxist class theory has encountered skepticism and challenges as Western capitalist nations have transitioned from modern industrial societies into postmodern information societies. Some Western Marxist scholars have attempted to provide new theoretical interpretations of class issues in contemporary capitalist society to supplement, update, and develop Marx’s class theory, adapting it to a changed reality. Consequently, Marxist class theory has manifested new dynamics. This article primarily elaborates on and critiques three major shifts in contemporary Western Marxist research concerning theories of class structure, class categorization, and class struggle.
I. Class Structure: From Simplification to Complexity
Class structure forms the foundation of class analysis theory. During the early historical period when primitive accumulation led to the pauperization of the proletariat, Marx argued that the modern capitalist mode of production created two primary social classes—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. These classes constituted the bulk of the class structure in capitalist society; they were not only antagonistic but also tending toward polarization. Therefore, the class structure of capitalist society was relatively simplified, characterized by a conflict of interest between these two great classes. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels noted: "The epoch of the bourgeoisie... has simplified class antagonisms. 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." [1] In Capital, Marx once again identified this polarized, simplified class structure as an inevitability of capitalist development. Although Marx did not believe that the class structure of capitalist society consisted solely of these two classes—acknowledging intermediate strata such as small industrialists, small merchants, small rentiers, artisans, and peasants—he maintained that because they were incompatible with the developmental requirements of modern large-scale machine industry, they would inevitably be relegated to the ranks of the proletariat.
However, the aforementioned assertions by Marx do not appear to have become reality in advanced industrial societies. Due to the new technological revolution and adjustments in industrial and employment structures, the class structure of contemporary capitalist society has undergone a historical transformation, moving from the simplification of the past to present-day complexity. Western Marxists have conducted new research and provided fresh interpretations of this phenomenon.
1. The expansion and development of the "new intermediate class" or "new middle class" has altered the traditional polarized model of class structure.
In the view of Western scholars, the "intermediate class" of modern capitalist society is composed of two parts: first, the "old intermediate class," including small farmers, small factory owners, and small merchants; second, the "new intermediate class," primarily referring to laborers engaged in management, technical work, and service sectors. Looking at the history of the intermediate class’s development, the rise of the new intermediate class in Western society since the 1970s is both a result of the "managerial revolution" and the penetration of information technology, as well as a result of shifts in industrial and occupational structures driven by the third technological revolution. With the development of management science and monopoly capitalism, the separation of ownership and management rights in enterprises created a new social stratum composed of professional managers, a phenomenon Western scholars call the "managerial revolution." These individuals perform the functions of the worker by producing surplus value, yet also perform the functions of capital by facilitating the appreciation of capital value. Thus, their status and nature differ from both capitalists and general workers. Furthermore, due to the extensive application of science and technology, the improvement of labor quality, and the universal development of the tertiary sector, the number of technical and service personnel among the employed has increased sharply, with this group accounting for over 60% of the workforce. The German sociologist Lederer argued that salaried employees, including commercial employees and technical personnel, occupy an "intermediate position" between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The American scholar Mills termed the white-collar stratum engaged in commerce, professional-technical work, management, and office work as the "new middle class." This group is primarily composed of the managerial and intellectual strata; their work entails a degree of autonomy, they command higher incomes, and their ideologies vary—some do not identify as the working class but rather as the middle class. To address this, Western Marxists have proposed various perspectives: Poulantzas called them the "new petty bourgeoisie," Gorz called them the "new working class," the Ehrenreichs termed them the "professional-managerial class," and Wright described them as occupying "contradictory class locations." Despite this, since they rely on selling their labor power to maintain their livelihood, the basic fact of their being wage laborers remains unchanged. Thus, the "new intermediate class" is essentially a new development of the working class in the era of the knowledge economy—or rather, a new stratum of the contemporary working class, part of what Marx called the "collective worker" (Gesamtarbeiter). As Harman noted, in reality, only 10% to 20% of the new intermediate class are in contradictory class locations; the majority belong to the service stratum within the "collective worker." [2]
2. The internal strata within the two great classes have changed; the composition of the bourgeoisie and the working class as social groups has become more complex.
Regarding the bourgeoisie, against the backdrop of economic globalization and the development of the world capitalist system, the bourgeoisie has increasingly fragmented into national and transnational bourgeoisie, with the emergence of various strata such as financial capitalists, industrial capitalists, and rentier capitalists. Due to the separation of ownership and operational control, the managerial stratum acting as enterprise administrators enjoys the rights of possession and use of capital; they can obtain certain stock option returns, and senior managers in particular have become a new stratum of the bourgeoisie. Thus, the internal composition of the bourgeoisie has become complex.
Regarding the working class, the ranks of wage laborers in contemporary capitalist society have expanded rapidly, with their absolute numbers increasing. Today, the concept of the working class has long since exceeded the scope of the factory proletariat or industrial proletariat of Marx’s time, extending into administrative, service, and cultural sectors; its range has expanded from productive workers to non-productive workers. Moreover, the number of productive workers has decreased significantly while the number of non-productive workers has greatly increased. Large differences in social status and income have appeared between various strata, and the internal structure of the working class shows a multi-layered trend. As the cultural literacy of the working class improves and work methods become more knowledge-based, technical, and professional, the number of "blue-collar workers" traditionally characterized by manual labor has significantly decreased, while "white-collar workers" characterized by mental labor have increased substantially. Furthermore, the emergence of employee stock ownership plans and "rentier wage laborers" in Western countries has not only affected the ideological consistency of the working class but has also made labor-capital relations intricate and complex, making internal differentiation and fragmentation within the working class quite evident. Consequently, Marcuse proposed a "theory of integration" for the working class, Poulantzas proposed a "theory of proletarian shrinkage," and Gorz advocated a "theory of the disappearance" of the working class. These assertions are all based on a narrow understanding of the working class derived from traditional views; they misinterpret the historical transformation of the working class structure from simplification to diversification as a "trend toward the disappearance of class," which does not accord with the facts.
3. The class consciousness of social members tends to fade, and social identity exhibits a trend toward individualization.
Accompanying the decline of the traditional working class and the rise of the new middle class after the new technological revolution, "de-classed" theories of pluralistic social structure have surfaced. Through an analysis of the structural changes of the entire working class in the UK and internationally, Hindess argued that the class consciousness of the working class is now very weak; most workers are unaware that they possess interests antagonistic to those of the ruling class, and the working class is no longer a "class for itself." In analyzing Marxist research on social class structure, some contemporary Western scholars have shifted from macro-analysis to individualist and micro-analytic methods. Clark and Lipset interpreted the diversification of lifestyles as the "fragmentation" of social stratification, declaring that "class is an increasingly outmoded concept." Beck proposed the view of the "individualization of social inequality," arguing that while social inequality still exists in today’s Western countries, this inequality is no longer about traditional class division but rather differences between individuals. People’s class identification with social identity has weakened, and a process of individualization centered on the person is forming. "A variation of social structure that neither Marx nor Weber predicted will gain significance; class society will fade away within an individualized society of employees." [3] The above studies focus on the level of individual consciousness; they substitute the objective existence of class with individual subjective feelings and abstractly understand the social and class nature of human beings from an individual perspective, thereby obscuring the reality that capitalist society remains a class society. Although modern society is increasingly open, mobility between upper and lower levels has increased, and the employment methods, developmental opportunities, and ideological concepts of social members have become diversified, as the British scholar Scase rightly noted: "These have not led to class becoming outmoded in explaining the objective structure of opportunities... social mobility in contemporary capitalist society has not led to the disappearance of class; class is still determined by social structure." [4] Therefore, the transition of Western social class structure from simplification to complexity does not mean that class has disappeared from social relations or that class analysis has become irrelevant.
II. Class Categorization: From Monistic Standards toward Pluralistic Standards
Regarding class categorization, Marx adhered to economics as a monistic standard, emphasizing the economic foundation and economic relations of class formation. He fundamentally treated the ownership of the means of production as the objective and primary standard for class categorization. Although Marx also emphasized the importance of political and ideological standards in class analysis, he categorized the exploiting and exploited classes of society based on the ownership of the means of production. However, with changes in the class situation of contemporary capitalist society, Western Marxists have moved from a monistic standard of class categorization toward pluralistic standards, arguing that class differentiation in today’s society exists not only in the economic sphere but also involves the political and cultural spheres. Their theories of class categorization—based on standards of exploitation, power, and knowledge—have expanded and extended the connotation of the traditional concept of class, and their analytical methods require careful discernment.
1. Class categorization based on the standard of exploitation
In Wright's view, Marx categorized classes based on economic relations, and the essence of class contradiction is the contradiction of interests; thus, exploitation is the core category of Marxist class analysis. However, forms of exploitation in present-day society have diversified; there is not only economic exploitation based on productive capital but also organizational exploitation based on managerial capital and skill-based exploitation based on credentials. Economic exploitation involves the exploitation of the proletariat by property owners; organizational exploitation involves the exploitation of the managed by managers who possess organizational assets; and skill-based exploitation involves the exploitation of ordinary workers by experts and professional technical personnel who possess credentials and master scarce technologies. That is to say, they all use the capital they possess to appropriate a portion of the surplus value created by the working class. To this end, in his class mapping, Wright divided contemporary capitalist society into the bourgeoisie who master productive capital, the "contradictory classes" who master organizational and technical capital, and the proletariat who possess labor capital. In this way, the category of exploitation is expanded, class boundaries become blurred, and the scope of the proletariat is narrowed. Can Wright's concept of "contradictory class locations" be sustained? According to Marx's view, class categorization should not look at income status but at relations of production; general managers and technical personnel are hired by the capitalist class and remain part of the proletariat. Although they obtain higher incomes, if this is based on the distribution of rewards for complex labor or labor capacity, it does not constitute exploitation and therefore cannot serve as a standard for class categorization.
Van Parijs, building on Wright’s work, categorized classes by treating "jobs" as property. In his view, those who possess job property constitute the employed class, while those without job property constitute the unemployed class. If "job property" were distributed equally, the situation of the unemployed would improve; "the division between the employed class and the unemployed class is more important than the division between workers and capitalists." [5] Although he identified the competition between the unemployed and the employed in Western society, this is merely a differentiation within the proletariat rather than a class antagonism based on economic exploitation. This is because the root cause of working-class unemployment lies in the capitalist system, not in competition among workers. Only by abolishing capitalist private ownership and wage relations and liberating the proletariat can the problems brought about by "capital accumulation" be fundamentally resolved. Therefore, this categorization is untenable.
2. Class categorization based on the standard of power
Some Western Marxists argue that a class division based solely on economic criteria cannot fully grasp the connotation of the concept of class. They suggest that Marx's terms "ruling class" and "subordinate class" are actually classifications of social members based on political power. Consequently, Nicos Poulantzas used overdetermination to explain class formation, placing special emphasis on the importance of power criteria in class division. He believed that contemporary capitalist states remain under the rule of the bourgeoisie, with the proletariat in a subordinate position; however, the fragmentation of the middle strata is related to their position within the social power structure.
The German scholar Ralf Dahrendorf argued that as capitalist states intervened in economic life, government bureaucrats increased, management functions were strengthened, and power became a significant factor in class differentiation. In his book Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, he provided a relatively systematic elaboration of this view. He contended that what Marx called the ruling class can be divided into a ruling class in the economic sphere and a ruling class in the political sphere. The economic ruling class relies on the power of capital, while the political ruling class relies on the capital of power [6]. In modern capitalist society, the class that possesses productive capital is the controlling force of society, and thus the bourgeoisie is the ruling class. However, in post-capitalist society, the social force controlling society is not the ownership of the means of production, but rather the possession of political power; therefore, the ruling class is primarily the class that wields political power. This class is a "service class," comprising private executives, leading members of state administrative departments, and top-level civil servants, who become the ruling stratum by virtue of their possession of power resources. Accordingly, he used power as a criterion to divide post-capitalist society into an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class, arguing that whether an individual owns means of production is unimportant; what matters is their position in political society. In post-capitalist society, "the ruling and subordinate classes of industry and the ruling and subordinate classes of political society are no longer identical. In other words, there are, in principle, two independent battlelines. Outside the enterprise, the manager might be just a citizen, while the worker might be a member of parliament; their class status in labor-capital relations no longer determines their authoritative status in political society." 11
Dahrendorf isolated politics from the social structural system and recognized the influence of power inequality on class inequality. However, according to the historical materialist [7] view, the economic base determines the political superstructure; politics serves a specific economy, and a class that holds a dominant position in material life will also hold a dominant position in political and spiritual life. Therefore, in capitalist states, the stratum wielding state power is, in the final analysis, the agent of the bourgeoisie. While a few workers might enter the middle or upper strata of society, the working class as a whole remains at the bottom of the power structure, a fact logically consistent with their subjection to capital within the economic structure. As Marx stated: "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." 12
3. Class Division Based on Knowledge (Culture)
As industrial capitalist society entered the era of the knowledge economy, some Western Marxists turned to knowledge or culture as the criteria for class division. The American scholar John Kenneth Galbraith divided the social capital that causes class differentiation into land capital, productive capital, and knowledge capital. Because the status and role of science and technology in social development have significantly increased, knowledge capital has begun to replace productive capital as the most important form of capital. If those who master productive capital are the bourgeoisie, then those who possess knowledge capital are the "knowledge class." Landowners became the power-holders of the feudal era because they owned land; capitalists became the power-holders of the capital era because they owned productive capital; and intellectuals have become the power-holders of the knowledge-economy era because they possess knowledge capital. Influenced by his theory, Daniel Bell pointed out in The Coming of Post-Industrial Society that the axial line of industrial society is wealth-capital, while the axis of post-industrial society is knowledge and technology. The "knowledge class" or "technical class" that masters knowledge resources stands at the core of social life 13. These elite figures do not obtain power through economic channels, but through education, knowledge, and technology. That is, the scientific and technological revolution is the decisive new feature of social structure; theoretical knowledge occupies the central position, and the divide between the technical class and the non-technical class is the essence of the new stratification system. In post-industrial society, as the working class accounts for an increasingly smaller proportion and its strength weakens, it cannot—as Marx said—become the primary force of revolution. Class differentiation in capitalist society is not divided according to Marx's "first schema" (social relations), but according to Marx's "second schema" (the development of productive forces).
The American scholar Alvin Gouldner proposed the view that "cultural capital is the economic basis of the New Class." 14. In his book The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class, he explicitly named modern humanistic intellectuals and technical intellectuals as a new class: the "cultural bourgeoisie." Gouldner argued that intellectuals are different from both the old bourgeoisie who possess monetary capital and the proletariat who sell their labor power; they become a cultural bourgeoisie because they control cultural capital. Culture is the generalization of capital, and capital is privatized culture. Therefore, the economic basis of the new class of intellectuals is cultural capital rather than traditional wealth capital. Accordingly, social classes can be divided into the bourgeoisie, the knowledge class, and the proletariat; furthermore, a "new class struggle" has formed between the knowledge class and the bourgeoisie, with the former expected to become the ruling class of the future.
We believe that the intellectual stratum, as white-collar workers, is a leading force in modern social development; they are similarly oppressed by capitalism and have aspirations for political liberation. However, defining class position based on knowledge or culture as capital only emphasizes the elevated status and role of social groups possessing knowledge, technology, and culture; it cannot be understood in the sense of exploitation and antagonism, because we cannot divide a "cultural bourgeoisie" from a "cultural proletariat" based on "knowledge and cultural capital." Moreover, if the intellectual stratum does not master the economic base and state power, it cannot become the ruling class of society.
III. Class Struggle: From Political Confrontation to Democratic Movements
Class struggle is a vital component of the Marxian class perspective. The Communist Manifesto states: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." When class relations are antagonistic, class struggle is inevitable. Marx viewed modern capitalist society as the last class society; the proletariat's struggle against the bourgeoisie first achieves political liberation through the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, followed by social liberation, until humanity moves from a class society into a classless society. However, at least since the end of World War II, because Western capitalism has undergone changes in economic, political, cultural, and social dimensions, the traditional working class has been shrinking, and large-scale class struggle is almost nowhere to be seen. In the words of Western Marxists, "the working class is becoming less and less revolutionary." Raymond Aron even pointed out that "the idea of a decisive struggle between classes is a thing of the past." While class struggle is increasingly declining and waning, new social movements aimed at securing civil rights and various life opportunities are flourishing. Some Western scholars have provided new interpretations of this, shifting class struggle theory from the macro-economic and political spheres to the micro-social and cultural spheres.
Jürgen Habermas, a leading figure of post-Marxism, believes that Marx’s theory of class struggle based on interest conflict is now difficult to use to explain the reality of contemporary capitalist society. In the stage of early capitalism, because contradictions of interest existed between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the sphere of production, when these contradictions intensified, the interest conflict between classes evolved into class struggle. However, in the stage of late capitalism, in order to resolve the "legitimation crisis" of the system, capitalist states adopted measures of state intervention in economic activity, thereby mitigating class antagonism and causing class struggle to proceed in a milder fashion. For instance, they exert a guiding influence on the structure of production by formulating policies that promote economic growth and prosperity; they remedy the adverse consequences generated by capitalism by establishing social security systems; and they dissolve the conflict of interests between classes by restricting social conflicts to the individual sphere.
The French scholar Olivier Schwartz, explaining the reasons for the retreat of the working class in Western society, pointed out that due to the diversification of the internal structure of the working class, the ranks of workers are composed of various colorful strata. The education received by the new generation of workers and the lifestyles they choose differ greatly from the past. This makes it difficult for workers, even those engaged in the same type of labor, to form a unified class consciousness and a common sense of identity due to differences in technical grades or value concepts. Particularly relative to employed workers with job opportunities, society continues to produce a great number of unemployed and semi-employed people, whom André Gorz regards as the "non-class of non-workers." They have no fixed, continuous organization and cannot become an anti-capitalist force as a collective class. Therefore, from the perspective of left-wing parties, the urgent problem today is not to resolve the class conflict brought about by labor-capital contradictions, but to enable those outside of work to regain employment opportunities. At the same time, social movements are not expressed as the political struggle of one class against another as in the past, but as democratic movements initiated by different social groups: the labor movement, the women's movement, the Black movement, the ecological movement, the peace movement, the LGBTQ movement, and various other forms of new social movements.
Post-Marxists represented by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe explain that due to rapid technological transfer and the increasing commodification occurring in late capitalism, there is a major trend toward the decline of "class" as a form of collective identity constitution. Although the working class in Western countries has not disappeared, it has moved from being a unified collective to a fragmented subject. The difference and diversity of subject identity have caused the class that was the revolutionary subject in traditional theory to become dispersed. Various inequalities still exist in contemporary society, and these inequalities may even intensify, but the characteristics of these inequalities are not all identical to class inequality. Consequently, antagonism and struggle still exist in this society, but the forms of antagonism has increased, and the subjects of antagonism have expanded. Binary opposition in the traditional sense has given way to pluralistic antagonisms of different subject identities. That is to say, antagonism has extended from the socio-economic sphere to a broader socio-cultural sphere outside the relations of production. Laclau said: "Innumerable new struggles have shown a tendency against new forms of subordination; they come from the heart of society. Therefore, it is precisely from complex and diverse social relations such as the opposition to waste, environmental protection, and ecological movements that antagonisms and struggles have arisen; the living environment, consumption, and various service industries have all become spheres for resisting inequality and demanding new rights." 15
Therefore, the reality is that society is constantly splintering, the working class is constantly fragmenting and decreasing in numbers, and various new strata and groups are constantly emerging with complex and diverse positions. In particular, the widespread rise of new social movements has shifted class struggle—with the working class as the main subject—toward social movements with the citizen as the main subject. In their view, new social movements—including feminism, ecology, anti-racism, anti-bureaucracy, anti-authoritarianism, and opposition to national oppression—are democratic struggles carried out by the general masses to secure civil rights. Although the democratic demands proposed by these pluralistic subjects oppose various relations of subordination, they are not directly aimed at the capitalist system itself. Thus, they differ from the class struggle of "emancipation politics" and cannot be easily explained by class dynamics. New forms of resistance and antagonism have shifted class struggle toward pluralistic confrontation, manifesting as many new social movements (including civil rights movements, ecological movements, anti-globalization movements, etc.). These movements demonstrate the complexity of the social sphere and its forms of antagonism, existing as identities that cannot be reduced to class positions or productivism.
In his book Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism, the British scholar Ralph Miliband pointed out that the theoretical framework of class struggle and class conflict established by Marx in the mid-19th century is no longer sufficient to explain...
The social reality since the beginning of the [21st] century necessitates substantial modifications to Marx’s model of class theory based on the facts of historical development following Marx. He [Laclau] argues that contemporary anti-capitalism consists not only of class-based macro-political movements, but also of micro-political movements constituted by diverse subject identities such as nationality, race, religion, gender, sexuality, and others. The issues raised by "New Social Movements" possess importance and universality, reflecting the proliferation of the problems inherent in capitalism. However, the challenge they bring is how to demarcate a new political boundary so as to truly advance the process of democratic development.
How should we view the extension of class struggle from the political sphere to the social sphere in contemporary Western countries? In the author's view, as long as the capitalist system and the relations of wage labor persist, the class relations, class contradictions, and struggles between the working class and the bourgeoisie will not be automatically dissolved; nor will the status, situation, and mission of the working class undergo a fundamental change. At present, the social struggles of the popular masses against capitalism arising in Western countries exhibit a trend toward diversification in their goals, forms, and content. This reflects the demands of the populace and their struggle for autonomous rights. Although these are not identical to class struggle, they contain elements of class struggle; it is merely that the subjects of struggle are more diverse, and the significance of the struggle has shifted from the macro-political sphere to the micro-sphere of everyday life. It must be observed that with the development of globalized capitalism, the middle class has undergone reorganization, and the situation of portions of the working class has become even more tragic.
The institutionalization of trade unions in the 21st century has made contract negotiations and collective bargaining between labor and capital the primary forms of class struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie. Yet the latent problems of capitalism can ultimately be solved only through the socialist movement. In particular, as capital and the bourgeoisie rush to all corners of the world under the conditions of globalization, class structures and class relations have transcended national boundaries, and new global class issues have gradually come to the fore. As American scholar [Vicente] Navarro states: "The principal conflict in the world today is not between the North and South—that is, between developed and developing nations—but between the alliance of the ruling classes of the North and South and the alliance of the dominated classes of the North and South." [21] Therefore, the so-called "theory of the extinction of class struggle" is inaccurate.
References
[11] Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995. [12] Chris Harman. The Changing Working Class [M]. London, Chicago, and Melbourne, 2011. [13] [Ger.] Ulrich Beck. Risk Society [M]. Trans. He Bowen. Nanjing: Yilin Press, 2004. [14] [UK] Richard Scase. Class [M]. Trans. Lei Yuqiong. Changchun: Jilin People’s Publishing House, 2005. [15] [UK] Michael Mann. The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 2 [M]. Trans. Chen Haihong et al. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2007. [16] [Ger.] Ralf Dahrendorf. The Modern Social Conflict [M]. Trans. Lin Rongyuan. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2016. [17] Marx and Engels. The Communist Manifesto [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1964. [18] [US] Daniel Bell. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society [M]. Trans. Gao Xian et al. Beijing: Commercial Press, 1984. [19] [US] Alvin Gouldner. The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class [M]. Trans. Gu Xiaohui et al. Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2006. [20] [UK] Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics [M]. Trans. Yin Shuguang et al. Harbin: Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House, 2003. [21] Vicente Navarro. "The Worldwide Class Struggle" [J]. Monthly Review, 2006, 58(4).
(Author's Unit: Department of Ideological and Political Education, Nanjing Forest Police University) Online Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Journal of Hubei Administration Institute, Issue 1, 2020.