Chen Yanzhen and Liu Zhuohong: An Analysis of Class Research in Contemporary Western Neo-Marxism

Class perspective is an essential component of the historical materialism and political theories of Marxism; likewise, class analysis is a vital Marxist method for analyzing and addressing social issues. However, as the themes of the era have shifted and historical conditions have changed, Marx’s theory of class has faced various challenges. Particularly since the 1970s, the rise of a new technological revolution centered on information technology has triggered profound changes in the class and social structures of developed Western capitalist countries. The growth of a "new middle class" ^[1] composed primarily of technical workers and managerial personnel—along with the internal fragmentation of the working class—has seriously challenged Marx’s prediction that the capitalist class structure would inevitably polarize. Prolonged prosperity in Western society significantly improved workers' living standards and working environments, easing labor-capital relations and weakening the working class's sense of class belonging and identity, leading to a decline in revolutionary will. Moreover, the rapid end of Eurocommunism ^[2] and the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe cast deep shadows over the path of proletarian revolution in developed capitalist countries. Simultaneously, Western participatory democracy and new social movements began to flourish.

In this context, arguments such as the "extinction of class," the "fragmentation of the class subject," and the "obsolescence of class struggle and class analysis" emerged. Alongside the ideological hegemony of Western neoliberalism, these claims challenged the practical explanatory power and theoretical persuasiveness of Marxist class theory. The traditional Marxist Left was unable to respond. Against this backdrop, an alternative Western "neo-Marxism" stepped forward, attempting to offer new elaborations on major theoretical issues—such as the concept of class, class structure, class formation, and class politics—through new perspectives, methods, and theoretical systems. Scholars conducted "postmodernist" cultural critiques and theoretical subversions of Western capitalist institutions and values within the process of "post-industrialization," producing fruitful intellectual and cultural results.

I. A Brief Survey of Contemporary Western Neo-Marxist Class Research

"Neo-Marxism" is a controversial concept; scholars differ in their understanding of its connotation and extension. In a narrow sense, "neo-Marxism" refers to the Marxism of the former socialist countries in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, such as the Praxis School in Yugoslavia, the Budapest School in Hungary, and the Polish school of humanist Marxism. Theoretically, it promoted humanism, and in practice, it advocated for a socialism of democratic self-management. ^[1] In a broad sense, however, neo-Marxism is a collective term for non-orthodox Marxist trends of thought that break through East-West limitations to re-interpret and practice Marxism. The "neo-Marxism" discussed in this article follows this broad definition. Broadly defined, "neo-Marxist" views are diverse, their positions are fluid, and they often lack practical functionalism. Besides the narrow schools mentioned above, this broad category includes two parts: first, traditional Western Marxist schools such as the Frankfurt School; and second, new schools emerging after the 1970s, such as Analytical Marxism, Neo-positivist Marxism, and Postmodern Marxism. The expansive research on class issues conducted by these latter schools is the focus of this article.

Since the 1970s, the class research of Western neo-Marxist scholars has involved both the deconstruction and reconstruction of traditional Marxist class theory, as well as its defense and development. During this period, class research primarily encompassed Postmodern Marxism, Analytical Marxism, Post-Marxism, the contemporary Frankfurt School, and the French neo-Marxist trend that flourished after the 1990s.

In the mid-1970s, Western neo-Marxists proposed various insights regarding the classification of the middle class. British Cultural Marxism, represented by E.P. Thompson, argued that class is a historical concept, emphasizing the role of class consciousness—manifested through the working class's historical traditions, values, and religious beliefs—in the process of class formation, effectively replacing class struggle with cultural conflict. Nicos Poulantzas proposed a structuralist theory of overdetermination; he overemphasized the role of politics and ideology in class division, categorizing the middle class into the "new petty bourgeoisie" camp, thereby narrowing the scope of the working class. In the late 1970s, Postmodern Marxism, represented by Michel Foucault, revealed the mechanisms of capitalist class exploitation at a cultural level and achieved a turn in philosophical methodology. It opposed macro-abstract class analysis, instead emphasizing micro-concrete conflicts over power. Ecosocialism and feminism opposed analyzing the ecological crisis and women’s issues solely from economic factors and macro-class analysis, advocating instead for micro-analytical methods such as value orientation, gender difference, and female psychology to explain social conflict and oppression. Key figures include André Gorz in ecology and Juliet Mitchell and Lise Vogel in feminism. Fredric Jameson, a major representative of contemporary Western Cultural Marxism, pointed out that in the period of late capitalism, micro-postmodern politics has replaced traditional totalizing politics; current political and social struggles are unorganized and non-class in nature.

Analytical Marxism, which emerged in the late 1970s, utilized empirical methods from rational choice theory and game theory to analyze class, class structure, and class struggle in Western society from an individual micro-level. Its representative John Roemer, predicated on the optimal choices of the rational actor in a market economy, attempted to replace Marx’s theory of surplus value exploitation with a new theory of exploitation. Meanwhile, the American neo-Marxist Erik Olin Wright, drawing on Roemer’s game theory methods, revised Marxist class theory to construct a general framework for class analysis. Wright also conducted in-depth research on the new middle class, proposing the theory of "contradictory class locations."

During the same period, British Post-Marxist representatives Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe moved toward a postmodern-oriented pluralism of social discourse identity and a diversified radical democratic politics. The later Frankfurt School, represented by Jürgen Habermas and Axel Honneth, shifted its research focus toward the theory of democratization in the public sphere. In the 1980s and 90s, they proposed communicative ethics, advocating for a de-classed democratic politics that achieves social consensus through intersubjective discursive interaction.

Simultaneously, representatives of French Critical Marxism, such as André Tosel, Alain Touraine, Pierre Bourdieu, and Jacques Bidet, constructed their class theories using methods different from those of Marx. Among them, Tosel attempted to replace Marx’s theory of praxis with a "theory of production-action," while the famous French leftist sociologist Alain Touraine highlighted the significance of power struggles. ^[2]

II. Theoretical Characteristics of Contemporary Western Neo-Marxist Class Research

Since the 1970s, neo-Marxist scholars have held diverse views on Western society and class structure, achieving multifaceted development through mutual stimulation and exchange. Scholars of this period have advanced with the times, possessing a strong sense of problem-awareness and realistic concern. However, their theories also exhibit specialized and academic characteristics, making them less accessible to the general public. They possess a strong critical spirit and sense of innovation, achieving a transformation in modes of thinking and a broadening of research horizons; their research methods also demonstrate interdisciplinary and integrated characteristics.

(1) Diversified Development Through Mutual Stimulation Due to differences in theoretical backgrounds, national regions, and cultural traditions, Western neo-Marxist theories of class and social structure exhibit extreme diversity; even scholars of the same school in different countries may focus on different research themes. In the 1970s, the postmodernist school represented by Foucault used postmodern cultural difference and conflict to deconstruct all "grand narratives" and core issues such as class, class struggle, revolution, and historical development. They advocated replacing class politics with power politics and opposed explaining contemporary social conflict and oppression from purely political or economic angles. From the late 1970s to the early 1980s, Analytical Marxists remained concerned with class and class struggle within traditional Marxist theory, yet methodologically moved away from Marxist class analysis, instead analyzing class and social structure starting from individual rational choice. This weakened the theoretical foundation of traditional class politics. In the 1980s and 90s, the mainstream theory of British neo-Marxists advocated for de-classed politics and a turn toward pluralistic discourse. During this same period, traditional Western Marxism—specifically the later Frankfurt School represented by Habermas—shifted the focus of class research toward the theory of public sphere democratization, subsequently proposing communicative ethics and deliberative politics in the 80s and 90s to realize their contemporary de-classed theory of democratic construction. ^[3]

(2) Strong Problem-Awareness and Realistic Concern in Dynamic Analysis Foreign Marxist scholars have also critiqued global capitalism, particularly neoliberalism and the "new empire" phenomenon, within the context of globalization. Their research primarily involves new imperialism, class, exploitation, alienation, and the subject of liberation. These studies have comprehensively revitalized the Marxist tradition, breaking through national and regional limitations and fully reflecting Marxism’s global vision and humanistic concern. In recent years, as the critique of neoliberalism has deepened, there has been a resurgence of class research, injecting new vitality into radical leftist theory. This research has successfully fostered a healthy interaction between problem-awareness and theoretical study within the Marxist tradition, achieving a unity of scholarship, thought, and reality.

Neo-Marxist class research in the context of post-industrial society has a strong practical orientation; many scholars emphasize combining theoretical research with the practice of social transformation. For example, Poulantzas and Gorz insisted on closely integrating proletarian theory with concrete practice. Although they did not advocate for direct violent revolution, their class research was always closely tied to specific changes in capitalist society. During this period, scholars often determined the class attributes, positions, and strategies of class members based on specific political, economic, and cultural backgrounds as well as the state of the class struggle. For instance, Gorz argued that when technical workers hold a vital, stable position in capitalist production, their class position and inclination are closer to the petty bourgeoisie. However, under Post-Fordist conditions—where science and technology have advanced further and production has become more intelligent—core workers exhibit a collaborative elitism, while the vast majority of technical workers are controlled by the Post-Fordist work ethic. Consequently, they lose their class consciousness, and many technical workers degenerate into a "non-class of non-workers." ^[4]

(3) Shift in Critical Themes and Transformation of Critical Methods After the 1970s, neo-Marxist research on class issues underwent a transformation in critical themes, content, methods, and spaces. Research in this period generally adhered to a critique of cultural rationality. The theme of critique shifted from macro-monistic politics centered on class struggle to pluralistic politics centered on the struggle for individual rights. The content and methods of critique shifted from abstract ideological hegemony to the concrete realm of everyday life. The space of critique further expanded to include critiques of mass media, daily life, and consumer culture in all fields. This profoundly revealed how, under the conditions of capitalist postmodernization, consumerist culture exerts total dominance over human activity, from production to everyday life. In the research horizons of neo-Marxism after the late 1970s, discursive analysis of culture replaced traditional class analysis based on socio-economics, and cultural critique in the political sense became the dominant theme. The greatest characteristic of neo-Marxism in this period lies in its postmodern turn toward cultural critique, emphasizing a comprehensive cultural subversion of capitalism and advocating for a micro-level, decentralized, individualized, and de-substantialized cultural power struggle against Western class and social structures.

...attempting to transform Marxism into a non-Marxist radical theory.

(4) Synthesis and Pluralization of Research Methods Contemporary Neo-Marxist class studies increasingly tend toward synthesis and interdisciplinarity, achieving a cross-fusion of philosophy with relevant humanities, social sciences, and empirical sciences (particularly political science, ethics, linguistics, ecology, women’s studies, geography, and architecture). Multi-disciplinary and diversified perspectives allow for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of problems, facilitating theoretical results rich in explanatory and critical power. In the study of contemporary Western Neo-Marxist class theory, scholars have shifted their research gaze toward inequality in micro-fields and individual daily life, employing mathematical analysis, game theory, and sociological survey research—methods that provide us with new research approaches and ideas for studying social issues.

The British scholar McLellan believes that since the 1980s, a new trend has emerged in British Marxist studies that combines Marx’s thought with analytical philosophy. This is largely influenced by liberal individualist political thought. The British school of Analytical Marxism attempts to integrate Marxism with liberal analytical philosophy—for example, G.A. Cohen’s work Karl Marx’s Theory of History and John Roemer’s views on exploitation theory. E.O. Wright, an American scholar who made outstanding contributions to the development of Marxist class theory, also attempted to place Marxist class theory within a precise analytical framework to increase the operability of Marx’s fundamental theoretical concepts.

Furthermore, Western scholars' research on Marxist class theory exhibits a trend toward academization, specialization, and elitism. In fact, in the early stages of Neo-Marxism, pioneers such as Lukács and Gramsci maintained the fine tradition of linking theory with practice. However, since the Frankfurt School, Neo-Marxist research has progressively severed its organizational and ideological ties with revolutionary parties, labor movements, and the working class. After World War II, Neo-Marxist research became a professional academic subject; its forms of critique became increasingly specialized, and its language grew more terminological and obscure. Research venues mostly moved to university campuses, and participants were largely university professors or specialized researchers at research institutes or professional journals, turning academic research into a specialized profession and a means of livelihood. While the thought of Post-modern Neo-Marxism has become increasingly flattened, its form has become increasingly aristocratic; they do not participate in actual labor movements or the struggle against capitalism, but instead engage in cultural critiques of capitalism solely in their capacity as intellectuals.

III. The Relationship between Neo-Marxist Class Studies and Marx’s Class Theory Based on the reality of contemporary capitalism, contemporary Western Neo-Marxism has performed a "différance" ^[5] and expansion of Marx’s class theory. Between their class studies and Marx’s class theory, there is both consistency in theoretical interests and divergence in theoretical nature, objects of critique, and specific viewpoints.

(1) Consistency in Theoretical Interests Throughout his life, Marx took "discovering a new world through the critique of the old" as his sacred mission, and the pursuit of human happiness and liberation as his lifelong value goal. Critical consciousness and a revolutionary spirit are the soul of Marx’s thought. Contemporary Western Neo-Marxist scholars face the many contradictions and cultural dilemmas of Western society, inheriting Marx's humanitarian sentiments and value stance, and critiquing the modern capitalist system multi-dimensionally and comprehensively from a cultural level. Both types of critical theory are built on a humanistic foundation, proceeding from human essence to critique the suppression of human nature by existing society.

Marx believed that human essence is manifested in the labor practice of transforming objects. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx pointed out that capitalist private ownership leads to the separation of labor from the conditions of labor, thereby causing the alienation of the laborer from the product of labor, from labor itself, from human nature, and from others. Private property also recognizes the legitimacy of this separation through the form of state law. Therefore, only by achieving the "positive supersession ^[6] of private property" and establishing a communist society that eliminates exploitation and oppression can human alienation be eliminated, ultimately realizing the true appropriation of the human essence by man and the return of human nature.

Consequently, Marx placed the overthrow of the capitalist social system and the supersession of alienation at the core of the communist movement. In response to the phenomena of alienation appearing in the process of Western industrialization—such as machines manipulating people and spiritual suffering amidst material wealth—Neo-Marxist critical theorists have proposed the conception of a "total revolution" by analyzing changes in social structure, shifts in the revolutionary subject, and innovations in revolutionary methods. In the eyes of Neo-Marxists, alienation in modern society is not only manifested as an irrational economic coercion but has also become a comprehensive way of life, causing people to lose themselves in a state of false self-satisfaction. Therefore, besides an economic revolution, it is more important for modern people to achieve a cultural and ideological revolution, finally realizing the comprehensive appropriation of one's own essence—that is, the comprehensive and free development of the person. However, unlike Marx, who focused more on economic and political critique, Western Neo-Marxist critique leans more toward the cultural level and emphasizes the individuality of human existence, differing significantly from Marx’s class theory regarding the revolutionary subject and revolutionary strategy.

(2) Divergence in Theoretical Nature The de-classed pluralist social theory of contemporary Western Neo-Marxism is a socio-political theory heterogeneous to Marxism. It ignores class conflict and its essence in contemporary Western society and denies the historical status and mission of the working class. For instance, some schools believe that Marx’s theory of class and social structure is obsolete and advocate replacing Marxist class struggle with de-classed identity politics and cultural-level rights struggles. Although this pluralist radical democratic theory objectively combines Marxism with liberal pluralism, it conceals the essence of capital’s exploitation of labor in the context of globalization and weakens the class consciousness of the Western masses. Although a few figures in contemporary Neo-Marxism have quasi-Marxist tendencies, the overall nature of the field is a negation of Marxism.

Contemporary Western Neo-Marxism advocates a comprehensive shift from traditional class politics to postmodern critical movements regarding ecology, gender, race, and sexuality, as well as minority groups. It reduces the most fundamental class contradiction of capitalism to the level of general social conflict, comprehensively negating the Marxist doctrine of class and thoroughly departing from historical materialism.

(3) Shift in the Focus of Critique After the 1970s, unlike Marx’s class theory, which focused on revealing the essence of class through the ownership and control of the means of production, scholars of postmodern-oriented Neo-Marxism, Eco-Marxism, and Marxist Feminism have focused more on the philosophical-cultural critique of the capitalist system from the perspective of the logic of rational culture—such as mass media, daily life, consumption in all fields, and the commodification of art. In the view of Neo-Marxists, modern mass media saturates the ideology of the ruling class into people's lifestyles through various channels. Thus, while Marx’s class theory emphasizes grand narratives and abstract critique, the postmodern culture of Western Neo-Marxism shifts the critical theme to the micro-level, the critical content to real life, and the critical method to the concrete.

Neo-Marxism after the 1970s progressed from striving for freedom at the individual level to striving for freedom at the micro- and meso-group levels; from striving for general democracy to striving for participatory mass democracy; and from vying for class discursive hegemony to the radical politics of non-class, pluralist democracy. Politically, Western Neo-Marxism has increasingly departed from Marxism and converged with the mainstream liberal ideology of contemporary capitalism. Theoretically, it cannot truly reveal the fundamental nature and roots of the structural evolution of contemporary Western society and is thus unable to dissect the fundamental contradictions of contemporary capitalism as profoundly as Marx did.

(4) Divergence in Theoretical Viewpoints Neo-Marxist class theory also departs from traditional Marxist views in terms of theoretical content and specific viewpoints.

First, their understandings of the revolutionary subject differ. Marx’s theory of surplus value revealed the deep economic roots of class antagonism in capitalist society. Based on this, he clearly pointed out that only the proletariat could shoulder the great mission of overthrowing capitalism. However, contemporary Western Neo-Marxists (such as Marcuse and Gorz) believe that Marx's labor theory of value is obsolete, arguing that science and technology—rather than the broad working class—create surplus value. The ideology of contemporary Western industrial society has caused the working class to lose its negativity and militancy; the working class is no longer capable of undertaking the revolutionary task of overthrowing the capitalist system. Only those radical forces whose thoughts have not been assimilated by the existing capitalist system and who maintain an independent self—such as students, the unemployed, unorganized workers, vagrants, and intellectuals—can bear the heavy responsibility of revolution. They particularly emphasize the role of technical workers and intellectuals.

Second, the revolutionary strategies they propose are different. The revolutionary consciousness and practical nature of "changing the existing world" are the core characteristics of Marx’s philosophy. Because Marx lived during the period of early capitalist accumulation, class antagonism was extremely intensified, and the proletariat at the bottom of society suffered from hunger and poverty; they could only adopt the most effective method of violent revolution to gain freedom and liberation. However, the Frankfurt School believes that modern society is superficially affluent and comfortable but is simultaneously a "sick society." The ills of contemporary Western capitalist society stem from the destruction of people's instinctual psychological structures. To change society, one must liberate human nature—requiring not only social transformation in a political and economic sense but, more importantly, a "cultural revolution" or "psychological revolution" to change the human psychological structure.

Third, the criteria for class differentiation are different. Marx linked class differentiation with the ownership of the means of production, using it as the standard for class division. Contemporary Western Neo-Marxists believe that this Marxist standard is untimely, arguing that the factors affecting class differentiation are multiple, with professional, political, and cultural factors being essential considerations. Except for Post-Marxism, which thoroughly rejects class politics, most "Neo-Marxist" scholars do not seem to completely reject the concept of class, but they generally believe that intense class antagonism and class struggle no longer exist. Instead, there only exist non-class antagonistic socio-cultural conflicts, and dividing classes in contemporary advanced capitalism is meaningless.

In summary, although the class studies of contemporary Western Neo-Marxist scholars have various theoretical limitations and even depart from traditional Marxist class doctrine on certain specific points, these scholars uphold Marx’s humanitarian sentiment and value stance, conducting profound cultural and social critiques of Western industrial society trapped in the dilemma of technological rationality. Their research still possesses significant contemporary relevance. These studies not only enrich and expand the study of Marxist class theory and prosper the cultural treasury of humanity, but also provide reflections for humanity to more actively master historical changes and offer diverse choices for the world communist movement. At the same time, contemporary Western Neo-Marxist class studies offer important inspirations for the rational analysis of China’s industrialization process, the improvement of national governance capacity, the construction of a modernized national governance system, and the promotion of social stratum harmony. For example, the postmodernist focus on difference and individuality inspires us to clearly recognize the current diversification of interest groups and the differences in interests among different strata in our country, to establish legal appeal mechanisms for different interest groups, to clear channels for the expression of demands, and to construct active and effective mechanisms for interest integration. Furthermore, in terms of research methodology, [text cuts off]

Western Western Neo-Marxist scholars are able to integrate Marxist research with empirical research methods and investigative techniques from relevant concrete sciences, shifting from grand theoretical narratives ^[7] to micro-level individual psychological analysis. This novel academic perspective is conducive to breaking through the rigid thinking of certain domestic scholars regarding the issue of class studies.

Notes

1. Li Yuanyuan: Western Marxist Class Theory and Its Contemporary Value, PhD dissertation, Central Party School, Beijing, 2010, p. 37.
2. Zhou Sueming: "Western Neo-Marxist Theories on the Evolution of Class and Social Structure," Issues of Contemporary World Socialism, No. 2, 2006, pp. 18–19.
3. Zhou Sueming, Wang Mei, et al.: The Western Left on the Evolution of Contemporary Western Social Structure, Jiangsu People's Publishing House, Nanjing, 2008, p. 210.
4. Tang Jianlong: "Class and Class Analysis in the Post-Fordist Era," Journal of Hunan Normal University (Social Science Edition), No. 1, 2014.
5. Zhou Sueming: History of the Development of 20th Century Western Neo-Marxism (Volume II), Xuexi Publishing House, Beijing, 2004, p. 655.
6. Modern Western Philosophy Research Office, Department of Philosophy, Fudan University: Western Scholars on the "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844", Fudan University Press, Shanghai, 1983, p. 199.
7. Che Yuling: "From Socio-Political Critique to Cultural Critique," Seeking Truth Academic Journal ^[8], No. 4, 1996.
8. Zhou Sueming: History of the Development of 20th Century Western Neo-Marxism (Volume II), Xuexi Publishing House, Beijing, 2004, p. 661.
9. Che Yuling: "From Socio-Political Critique to Cultural Critique," Seeking Truth Academic Journal, No. 4, 1996.

(Affiliations: School of Marxism, Guangzhou Railway Polytechnic; School of Marxism, South China Normal University) Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Journal of Hainan Normal University (Social Science Edition), No. 2, 2020.