Fang Jue: A Study of British Marxist Class Theory

From the perspective of the history of thought, the entire theoretical tradition of Western Marxism roughly manifests in two orientations: first, the critique of contemporary capitalist society, namely capitalist social critique theory; and second, the exploration of possible revolutionary paths, namely new revolutionary theory. In this sense, although British Marxism differs significantly from the Western Marxism of continental Europe in its theoretical tradition and philosophical form, its theoretical creations have basically unfolded along these two orientations. In different periods, British Marxism has carried out creative interpretations, constructions, and defenses of historical materialism centered on themes such as class, culture, the state, and ecology, displaying a unique character within the diverse theoretical landscape of contemporary foreign Marxism. The development of Marxism in Britain has always been linked to its local socio-political life and the global political situation; in particular, the occurrence of the 2008 financial crisis brought about a revival of class issues—a field of study that had once fallen silent—prompting the class theory of British Marxism to exhibit new developmental trends. In short, since the 1950s, British Marxist class theory has undergone a process of establishing a research paradigm of historiography, shifting to a research paradigm of political science, and finally returning to and reconstructing a research paradigm of political economy, thereby manifesting the theoretical individuality of British Marxism.

Establishing the Historiographical Research Paradigm

The method of class struggle is the fundamental idea running through the Manifesto of the Communist Party and the basic method by which Marx and Engels studied human history, particularly the development of modern society. However, Marx did not provide a definitive definition of class in Capital. Since the rise of the British New Left ^[1] in 1956, British Marxist historians such as E.P. Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm, in texts such as The Making of the English Working Class and Worlds of Labour, proceeded from the relevant discourses of historical materialism and employed historiographical research methods to examine the formation and historical evolution of the British working class from the perspective of the generation of class consciousness. To a certain extent, this initiated a historiographical research paradigm for class theory, enriching the doctrines of class and class struggle within historical materialism.

First, the essence of class is a relationship. As a historical sum of relations, the working class possesses not only the foundational relationship of capitalist relations of production, but also an essence comprised of political and cultural relations. Second, due to the mediating role of experience between social existence and social consciousness, social existence is understood as a living historical process rather than a ossified, reified concept. Furthermore, the formation of the working class requires not only the prerequisite of the capitalist mode of production, but also customs, habits, and national cultural traditions, which can play an objective—and sometimes even decisive—role in the generation of class consciousness. In this regard, class and class consciousness are inseparable. Third, concerning class consciousness and class struggle, British Marxism emphasizes that the class struggle analytical method essentially manifests as a holistic (totality-based) relationship analysis method.

It can be said that the historiographical research paradigm attempted to use British national cultural traditions to rebel against and resist the dominance of French "rationality" and the tradition of scientific Marxism. In other words, this historiographical research paradigm sought to uphold the research tradition initiated by British anti-Enlightenment philosophy since the 18th century, which equated philosophy with politics and history; it essentially belongs to a historicist philosophical tradition.

Shifting to the Political Science Research Paradigm

The political science research paradigm advocates for emphasizing the perspective of social power relations within the analysis of the political structure of class. Consequently, this research paradigm reveals the composition of and changes in power between the ruling class and the ruled class, conducts in-depth investigations into the basic elements and causes of these changes, and further reflects on the historical fate of the working class and socialism.

First, the political science research paradigm has always emphasized that Marx’s class analysis method is an effective tool for analyzing the reality and political phenomena of developed capitalist societies. They argue that in the process of political development in developed capitalist countries, although various "middle classes" have appeared, the essence remains a process of antagonism between the ruled class that sells its labor power and the ruling class that owns the means of production. Second, this research paradigm values the theoretical significance of the concept of the "collective worker" (Gesamtarbeiter) in Capital for understanding the working class, and explores the issue of the stratification of the working class in developed capitalist societies. They believe that the new changes in the class structure of contemporary developed capitalist societies are merely a matter of the recombination of the working class, a process that has existed throughout the entire historical course of capitalism. Regarding the subject of socialist revolution, they emphasize that the gravediggers of capitalism remain the organized working class, thereby refuting British neo-revisionism and the so-called "farewell to the working class" theories. Third, they use the concept of class to elucidate and construct their own theories of the state. They point out the importance of working-class parties in the process of transforming capitalism into socialism, answering the questions of the times faced by Marxism. Particularly in The State in Capitalist Society, Ralph Miliband (1924–1994), based on an analysis of the relationship between state power and elite politics, emphasized that although contemporary capitalist states have undergone major changes in the economic, political, and cultural spheres, their essence remains an instrument of rule for the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. At the same time, he also borrowed Gramsci’s theory of hegemony to reveal how developed capitalist states maintain the legitimacy of their class rule through new means of "political socialization" (mediated through mass media, education, etc.). Finally, in the "Miliband–Poulantzas debate," Miliband explicitly proposed the theory of the autonomy of the state. This theory posits that all states enjoy a certain degree of autonomy and independence from all classes (including the ruling class), yet this autonomy and independence cannot change the essence of the state—namely, its class nature. Thus, on the basis of the class struggle analytical framework, Miliband elucidated the view that "a theory of the state is also a theory of society and of the distribution of power in that society."

Returning to and Reconstructing the Political Economy Research Paradigm

With the rise of neoliberalism in the late 1970s, the "end of class" became the primary theoretical refrain of the period. Whether it was the class view of Analytical Marxism attempting to surpass classical Marxist class analysis with "a broad-brush analytical method," or the complete dissolution of class politics by the Post-Marxist class view, the theoretical trend was an analytical discourse bearing a clear "de-classing" imprint. This emerged alongside the context of global capitalism and the new technological revolution, amid themes such as the "decline" of the traditional working class under New Social Movements, the middle class, and social composition.

However, entering the 21st century, British Marxism has pointed out that the crisis of capitalism is essentially the product of neoliberal economic policies and the entire set of policies and discourse systems implemented at the political and cultural levels. Furthermore, they emphasize the need to restore and adhere to Marx’s critique of capitalism, especially highlighting the importance of Marxist political economy for the study of class theory. They also emphasize a return to the dimension of the critique of political economy, restoring the contemporary explanatory power of the labor theory of value. For instance, Alex Callinicos, in Deciphering Capital: Marx's Capital and its Destiny, reaffirms through his adherence to the labor theory of value that capital accumulation is rooted in the capitalist's exploitation of surplus value, revealing the fundamental contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the working class as well as the causes of the inherent crises of capitalist society. On the one hand, he attaches importance to analyzing and researching the influence of specific socio-economic systems on human behavior, as well as the concept of class as a collective force, in order to argue for the status of the working class as the revolutionary subject in neoliberal capitalist states. On the other hand, he emphasizes that the contemporary explanatory power of the working class lies in its most direct relationship with the capitalist mode of production, and as wage laborers of capitalism, they possess real economic, political, and social roles. Consequently, he proposes that changes in social structure must be examined against the background of the mutual conflicts of "socio-economic classes."

In terms of theoretical orientation, the political economy research paradigm opposes market omnipotence and the logic of consumerism, advocating for transformative movements by the ruled class aimed at reforming the socio-economic environment. It can be seen that the return to the research paradigm of the critique of political economy has become the main trend of class theory research in the 21st century. This paradigm emphasizes that even if the logic of capital takes different forms as the times develop, leading to different demands for social practice and subsequent changes in power relations between classes, the nature of capital's pursuit of valorization ^[2] remains identical. Therefore, Marx’s method of understanding modern capitalist society through class struggle remains valid today.

The three transitions in the research paradigms of British Marxist class theory illustrate the unique understanding of historical materialism held by British Marxists. The historical materialism they understand is not an abstract formula, but takes modern socialist movements as its content and foundation.