Tang Jianlong: An Assessment of Class Determination and Its Characteristics in Post-Western Marxism
Class theory is an essential component of Marxism. Divergences in the standards and methods used for class determination lead to different interpretations of the social class landscape, thereby directly affecting confidence in Marxist theory and the strategic choices made within the communist movement.
In the era of "Post-Western Marxism," leftist theorists in capitalist countries have deconstructed and reconstructed the class theories and methods of class determination established by classical Marxist authors. While partially inheriting and developing Marxist class theory, they also exhibit deviations from, dissolutions of, and rebellions against it. Analyzing this theoretical phenomenon will help us better understand and uphold Marxist class theory, and better comprehend and address practical issues.
I. Class Determination and Its Characteristics Among Classical Authors
Marx never provided an explicit definition of "class." He used the term in various senses; generally speaking, in his early period, Marx used "class" more at the political level, while in his later period, he focused more on the economic level. In the chapter "Classes" in Capital, Marx argued that by answering the question "What makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landowners constitute the three great social classes?" one naturally answers "What forms a class?" The core point of Marx’s discourse here is to treat the different relationships of social groups to the ownership of the means of production as the fundamental criterion for dividing classes. Marx discussed class formation primarily from the perspective of the economic sphere—specifically the production process. He believed that the division of labor is the foundation for the origin and existence of classes; the appropriation of the means of production and labor is the standard for class division; and a common lifestyle, class interests, and level of education are the necessary conditions for dividing classes. Marx's class theory focuses on the production and distribution of surplus value rather than property ownership: "Marx's concept of class is closely linked to the production of surplus value. The class process is the appropriation of the surplus labor of others." Therefore, compared to "estate" [1], which carries a heavier political connotation, the "class" relationship in Marx possesses a stronger economic significance.
Lenin provided a classical definition of class in his article "A Great Beginning" [2]: "Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in법 law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy." Lenin’s definition of "class" is an inheritance and development of Marx's views. Lenin’s class differentiation is based on the position occupied in the system of social production, the relationship to the means of production, the role played in the social organization of labor, and the resulting mode and quantity of the share of social wealth they command. Lenin’s definition profoundly grasped class from an economic perspective, particularly from the perspective of the ownership of the means of production.
Broadly speaking, class determination by classical authors such as Marx and Lenin possesses the following characteristics:
First, class determination is discussed from the sphere of production rather than the sphere of distribution. The discourses of Marx and Lenin both contain the following three qualitative points: relationship to the means of production, position in society and labor, and the mode and quantity of obtaining social wealth. Among these three, the first two are more fundamental and decisive, while distribution is a characteristic at the level of results determined by the former two.
Second, the discourses of classical Marxist authors place particular emphasis on economic factors such as ownership relations and position in labor, according these economic factors a vital role. However, they simultaneously place necessary emphasis on the influence of non-economic factors—such as politics, culture, and education—on class determination. As Marx pointed out, the social division of labor, lifestyle, material interests, and educational level all influence class determination. Consequently, regarding the determination of the class affiliation of a particular stratum or estate, the relationship to the means of production and position in labor are the decisive factors. Regarding a specific individual, however, class affiliation is the result of the combined effect of multiple factors. While the relationship to the means of production and position in labor remain the decisive factors in the final instance, the influence of education, lifestyle, and cultural concepts on an individual's class identity and affiliation is sometimes decisive.
Third, the classical Marxist category of "class" includes multi-dimensional connotations involving the economic, political, cultural, social, and value-based spheres. Of course, the most essential dimension remains the economic connotation. Marx and Lenin both grasped the category of class at this level. Class is the difference in exploitation and the appropriation of surplus labor—that is, between appropriating or being appropriated—resulting from different relationships of ownership of the means of production. However, class is also political and social; it possesses tendencies regarding political and social lifestyles, as well as tendencies in cultural identity and value orientation. These different political, cultural, social, and value-oriented tendencies likewise influence class attributes.
II. Class Determination in Post-Western Marxism
On the question of class determination, Western Marxists generally adhered to Marxist views and positions, yet they also introduced developments and deviations. Georg Lukács placed special emphasis on the significance of class consciousness for class determination and formation, but he one-sidedly emphasized the "consciousness" dimension within "class consciousness," thereby subjectivizing and abstracting the concept of class. Antonio Gramsci, while inheriting Marx’s class perspective, emphasized the struggle for ideological hegemony: "A social group can, and indeed must, already exercise ‘leadership’ before winning governmental power (this is indeed one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power)." Herbert Marcuse emphasized the roles of technology and ideology in class determination more than classical authors. He once noted that capitalist technology and management systems "use their power and efficiency to prevent the emergence of a new subject by assimilating mind with fact, thought with required behavior, and desire with reality." Figures like Mallet and the early André Gorz also emphasized the nature of work—such as managerial and technical work—as a basis for classical determination. However, they ultimately based their judgment on the fact that such personnel remained "wage laborers," and thus the "new middle class" they spoke of was ultimately determined to belong to the working class.
Generally speaking, due to the developments of the age and changes in capitalist reality, Western Marxists were slightly more superficial regarding class determination than the classical Marxist authors. Although they occasionally deviated from classical Marxist determination, they did not yet move toward the dissolution of or rebellion against Marxist class theory. However, some new views proposed by leftist scholars of Post-Western Marxism regarding class determination have, in a sense, moved toward the deconstruction or even rebellion against Marxism. Typical examples include the following types:
First, the "overdeterminist" view of class division. Nicos Poulantzas (also translated as 尼科斯·普兰查斯) was, in a sense, a pioneer of Post-Marxism. In his book Political Power and Social Classes, he proceeded from overdeterminism [3] to argue that while economic position plays a decisive role in determining social classes, politics and ideology also play important roles. He pointed out that the constitution of a class is not related to the economic aspect alone; it is influenced by and determined by multiple factors across economic, political, and ideological spheres. "Social classes are defined by their place in the ensemble of social practices, i.e. by their place in the ensemble of the division of labour which includes political and ideological relations." Poulantzas essentially viewed economic, political, and ideological relations as decisive factors in dividing social classes. The reason power and ideology become factors in class constitution is that state power and ideological apparatuses play a role in the reproduction of class relations. Of course, Poulantzas did not treat the three elements of economy, politics, and ideology as equals. He believed that when determining social classes, the primary role is played by one's position in economic relations, and within the economic sphere, the production process serves as the final determinant. The deterministic role of the economy is expressed only in that "the economy determines which of the instances [levels] is to be dominant, and handles the shift of the determinant instance." That is, the deterministic role of the economy lies solely in its determination of which aspects will be determined by itself and which aspects will be determined by politics or ideology.
Second, the "work-class consciousness" determinist view of class division. Gorz never directly stated his standards for class division, but through his various discourses related to class issues, we can determine that Gorz primarily used work and class consciousness to determine class affiliation. For Gorz, "work" reflected more of the relationship between the laborer and the means of production, as well as their position in social production, resulting from the development of science and technology. He successively proposed concepts such as the "new working class" and the "non-class of non-workers." The "new working class" consists of experts, scholars, students, bureaucratic managers, white-collar workers, intellectuals, and migrant laborers. They do not own the means of production and possess a certain degree of independence and autonomy in their labor. They become a "class" based on the overcoming of alienation and the pursuit of meaning in work and life. However, the randomness and fragmentation of labor lead to a lack of class consciousness; thus, in Gorz's view, such groups are not the "working class" in the traditional Marxist sense, but merely a "new working class." With the development of post-industrial society, the new working class evolved into a "non-class of non-workers," consisting of the unemployed and underemployed on the margins of society, whose class composition is unclear and whose political identity is blurred. In Gorz's view, they exist outside of capitalist relations of production and are "neither produced by capitalism nor stamped with the mark of capitalist relations of production." Because they are in a state of unemployment or underemployment and lack class consciousness, Gorz called them the "non-class of non-workers."
Third, the "property-market" method of class determination. John E. Roemer believed that ownership of the means of production exerts a restrictive effect on class, exploitation, and exploited status, but class is also the result of "individual choice." As for which of the two plays the decisive role in class status, his position remained ambiguous. Roemer argued that "the emergence of class is necessary when tangible assets are unequally owned." However, "a person's class status is not externally given. Rather, it emerges as the result of his optimizing behavior, which is to maximize his utility given his initial endowments." That is, he viewed class differentiation as the natural result of social agents engaging in optimizing activities based on their own wealth. Under labor market conditions, "as a result of the optimal behavior of members and their initial assets, they end up in different class positions. Thus, through this mechanism, classes are formed." Consequently, the class status of economic participants is defined by the specific arrangement of the optimal solution for their initial property in the face of market planning under reproducible equilibrium.
Fourth, the exploitation-centered method of class determination. Erik Olin Wright...
(Wright) argues that class cannot be simplistically defined as a certain occupational classification but is instead a social relation—specifically, a social relation of control over capital, decision-making, the work of others, and one's own work. The concept of class should meet the following four criteria: class is relational; those relations are antagonistic; the antagonism stems from exploitation; and the basis of exploitation lies in differential ownership of the means of production. Wright emphasizes that class must be understood as a "relational concept," stating that "classes should be defined by their positions within specific relations of exploitation and domination." He provides three reasons: first, class examines opposing groups where social conflict exists, and this opposition implies these groups stand in some form of social relationship to one another; second, only by understanding class as a "relational concept" can class structure establish the boundary lines that define the fundamental nature of a society within the historical path of social change; third, only by understanding class as a "relational concept" can one explain the essential characteristics of the unequal distribution between hierarchies.
Fifth, the endowment-determinism method of class determination. Jon Elster opposes the following four methods of class division: first, division according to property; second, division according to whether one exploits or is exploited (as this cannot distinguish between landlords and the bourgeoisie, or slaves and freemen); third, division according to market behavior (as this standard is inapplicable to non-market economies); and fourth, division according to whether one possesses power (as it is inapplicable to market economies based on private ownership). He argues that "endowment" is the criterion for dividing classes, where "endowments include tangible property, intangible skills, and more subtle cultural dispositions. Behavior includes working versus not working, selling labor versus buying labor, lending capital versus borrowing capital, leasing land versus renting land, and issuing orders versus receiving orders in the management of common property." Based on a comprehensive examination of people's "endowments" and "behaviors," he proposes a new definition of class: "classes are groups of people who, if they wish to make maximal use of their endowments, are forced to take the same actions based on what they possess."
Sixth, the plural-multidimensional method of class division. To deal with political subjects that are anti-capitalist in nature but whose identities are not constructed around "class interests," Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, and others argue that the traditional Marxist criteria for class division must be expanded. The criteria should no longer merely be the amount of the means of production possessed; the scope of class division can expand from a single field to multiple fields—for instance, moving from a purely economic view of the possession of the means of production to the pursuit of different interests and divergent value orientations. The domains of class division can be broader, extending from the singular economic sphere to the sphere of political life, such as shared nationality or ethnicity. However, these two scholars particularly emphasize the ideological dimension; they point out that "it is only by constituting itself as a collective subject within a unified ideology that it becomes a coherent social force. Until it begins to possess some intelligible conceptual form that can explain a shared collective situation, it will not become a class or a coherent social force." To some extent, "this method is to view oneself as an ideology," and "with the formation of the ideological imaginary, a group is formed." In reality, this demotes the status of class.
Seventh, the de-classing tendency. On the issue of class determination, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri tend to negate the concept of class and class division, using broader concepts such as the "multitude" to blur the issue of class determination. They point out that the core of the multitude question is "not what the multitude is, but what the multitude can become." They believe the "multitude" is a class concept, the global political subject resisting the rule of capital under the form of Imperial sovereignty, and a universal union of the creative poor dominated by capital. The multitude represents irreducibly diverse subjects; the multitude internal to Empire cancels nationality in terms of sovereign form, its political goals point toward global democracy and the construction of a society composed of diverse identities. The composition of the multitude emphasizes a form of labor that encompasses diversity: "the multitude is a theory of economic class that does not require a choice between identity and diversity." It does not exclude groups other than wage laborers, thereby cancelling singular identities or forms of labor and reflecting a pluralistic expression of political demands. "Class" is in a state of eternal construction; the working class is always able to undergo political "reconstruction" based on the deconstruction of capitalism, incorporating more strata of workers, absorbing new elements of resistance against capital, and organically integrating various forces.
III. Characteristics and Flaws of Post-Western Marxist Class Determination
Compared to the class determination methods of classical Marxist writers, the class determinations of post-Western Marxist leftist scholars possess obvious differences and unique characteristics, while also exhibiting certain flaws.
(1) Characteristics of Post-Western Marxist Leftist Scholars' Class Determination
First, regarding the criteria for class determination, they have to some extent inherited and expanded upon the criteria of classical writers, but there are also instances of directly rejecting the classical Marxist criteria or even negating the Marxist concept of "class" itself. Most scholars generally inherit and uphold the theoretical perspective of Marx and Western Marxists in approaching class division from an economic angle. However, their understanding of the way the economy functions in class division differs significantly from Marx's. While acknowledging the role of the economy, they generally place greater emphasis on the roles of politics, culture, ideology, and other factors, or argue that the role of the economy is merely to determine when various other factors play a decisive role. Some scholars even directly negate the classical concept of "class," using the method of "articulation" [4] to link various groups with shared traits, using these groups to replace "class."
Second, the class determinations of post-Western Marxist leftist thinkers possess a strong sense of reality. Most scholars discuss and evaluate class issues by closely linking them to the characteristics of the era and the structural changes in capitalist society, classes, and strata. They have noted the changes in the working class and the proletariat in contemporary capitalist society, critiquing the composition and historical mission of the working class. They have expanded the subjects of social transformation, "articulating" the traditional proletariat with diverse subjects such as ecological movements, feminist movements, and social reform movements. This, on one hand, presents a strong sense of reality, but on the other, blurs traditional class boundaries.
Third, the criteria for class division focus more on plurality and dynamism. When dividing classes, the core elements of concern for most scholars have exceeded the scope of Marx and Lenin’s concerns, moving beyond the economic and political spheres into the realms of life, culture, education, and ideology. While affirming the role of the economy, they also fully consider the role of other elements, and to some extent even affirm the decisive role of certain non-economic factors. Meanwhile, they pay particular attention to the dynamism of class determination—that is, under the combined action of multiple factors, the class affiliation of individuals and groups may change due to shifts in certain elements, especially non-economic ones.
Fourth, their methods of class determination exhibit a shift from essence to phenomenon, and from abstraction to experience. In opposition to the Marxist method of class determination—attacked by some scholars as "essentialism"—their class determinations precisely remain more at the level of phenomena, acting as simple summaries and categorizations of certain phenomena without being able to rise to the level of essence. At the same time, their criteria for class determination belong more to the empirical level; they are simple and intuitive observations of experience that cannot rise to an abstract, essential height.
(2) Flaws in the Class Determination Methods of Post-Western Marxist Leftist Thinkers
First, in determining class, some scholars one-sidedly exaggerate the role of factors other than the economy, even taking individual elements such as exploitation, market behavior, occupation, personal endowment, or ideology as core elements. This effectively stays on the surface and represents a regression relative to classical determination criteria.
Second, the class determinations of some scholars often lack clear value objectives; the theories are relatively short-sighted, lacking sufficient applicability and explanatory power. Marxism takes the comprehensive liberation of the human being as its ultimate value pursuit, with class struggle as its important means of realization. In contrast, most post-Western Marxist scholars do not advocate a core set of values; they merely "articulate" pluralistic forces together, remaining non-committal about what is ultimately being pursued. Relative to the macro and comprehensive characteristics of classical Marxist class analysis, their analyses often focus on micro, local appearances. Consequently, they remain confined by locality and stage-specificity, resulting in limited explanatory power. Post-Western Marxist leftist scholars often replace class politics with pluralistic struggle or discourse politics. They cannot provide a rational explanation for the motive force of revolution; thus, when faced with plural goals and interests, they cannot give a convincing explanation as to what exactly leads to union, what leads to social difference, what leads to antagonism, or what leads to fragmentation.
Third, the class determination and related theoretical views of some scholars have largely degenerated into discourse politics and language games, ultimately becoming nothing more than a utopia. In the work of Laclau, Mouffe, and others, they separate ideology from social determinants and decompose society into ideology or "discourse." Discourse is everything; the struggle of the Left is to compete for "discourse power." Consequently, the political struggle of the socialist revolution becomes a struggle for discourse power, a kind of "discursive articulation." In this discourse politics and radical democracy, the proletariat is dissolved, the opposition between labor and capital is no longer important, and exploitation and being exploited become theoretical fictions. The struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie is no longer class struggle but becomes a struggle for ideology and discourse power. This can ultimately only be a new version of "True Socialism" [5]—a utopia.
Fourth, the class theories of some scholars may result in the negation of the proletariat, the disregard of class struggle, and the deconstruction of Marxism. This type of class determination, by weakening the role of economic factors, displaces the relations of production, relations of exploitation, and the opposition between capital and labor from the core of Marxist theory. The actual consequence is the deconstruction of the philosophical foundation of Marxist class theory, "dissolving Marxist class theory from a positivist viewpoint." By replacing the proletariat with a "people’s alliance" that is "constituted not by class relations, nor by any decisive social relations, but by discourse," they bring about the disintegration of the subject of Marxist historical transformation. By replacing the struggle of a unified subject—the working class—for socialism with a struggle by "plural" subjects for "radical plural democracy," they lead a shift from class politics to radical pluralistic democratic politics. Through their deconstruction of Marxist class theory, they negate Marxist doctrines regarding class, class struggle, and the historical mission of the proletariat, which constitutes a deconstruction of Marxism in practice.
IV. How to View the Class Theories of Classical Writers and Post-Western Marxism
Regarding the class theories of classical Marxist writers, we must view them historically and, on the basis of understanding their theoretical aims, grasp and apply them scientifically.
First, we must correctly grasp the purpose and methodological significance of Marxist class determination. Marx did not discuss the issue of class for the sake of dividing classes; his purpose in studying class was to reveal the developmental trends of capitalist society on the basis of historical materialism, demonstrating that the development of capitalism inevitably leads to the sharpening of class contradictions and the replacement of capitalism by socialism. Therefore, in a certain sense, Marx's views and analyses are macro and abstract. However, the standpoint and methodological perspective of classical Marxist writers in studying class issues are things we must uphold and inherit; this point admits no dilution.
Secondly, we must correctly approach the basic viewpoints and theoretical framework of the Marxist theory of class. The analysis of the class question by the classical Marxist authors is a unity of scientificity and revolutionism; we must treat both aspects dialectically. We must adhere to those viewpoints and discourses that belong to the "basic principles" of Marxism; as for those discourses which may belong to "general principles" or "individual viewpoints," we must handle them flexibly according to actual conditions and avoid becoming rigid or dogmatic. The classical Marxist theory of class is an organic, systemic theory, and we must not abandon its framework for analyzing problems. For instance, we should uphold and develop the bipolar class model based on the mode of production, the class interaction model based on social formations, and the intra-class relations model based on political events, as well as the internal linkage analysis framework formed across these three levels through the four concepts of class structure, class composition, class consciousness, and class action.
Finally, we must also rationally approach the critiques and negations of Marx’s class perspectives. We must resolutely resist the malicious attacks, slanders, and libels of certain bourgeois scholars and anti-Marxists. Regarding the distortions and misunderstandings of Marxist class theory within the leftist camp itself, we must treat them dialectically, analyzing their reasonable elements while simultaneously pointing out their existing problems. We should also view the discourses of the classical Marxist authors themselves from a historical perspective. It should be stated that the Marxist doctrine of class struggle [6] correctly reflected the social and class characteristics of that time and, from a macro perspective, conforms to the trends of socio-historical development. Since its purpose was not the mere classification of classes for its own sake, we cannot demand that the relevant viewpoints and discourses of the classical Marxist authors possess a high degree of operationality or specific-level predictability.
Regarding the viewpoints on class determination held by post-Western Marxist leftist scholars, while recognizing their problematic aspects, we must also see their partial rationality and value.
First, the class determinations of post-Western Marxism are, in part, a practical reflection of the economic, political, and stratigraphic structures of capitalist society, as well as a reflection of the actual working class. From a phenomenal level, the social and class structures of contemporary capitalist countries have indeed undergone significant changes; stratigraphic relations have become increasingly intertwined and complex, and new middle strata continue to emerge and reorganize, casting a hallucinatory veil over capitalist class relations. Some scholars have observed these changes, though the judgments they make based upon them are not necessarily correct. The current state of the working class in contemporary capitalist countries—being reified, non-revolutionary, and tending toward conservatism—is a reality that merits our serious attention and reflection. Furthermore, outside of the struggles of the working class, there exist multiple subjects of social antagonism within capitalist society. These subjects have pluralistic interest demands and cannot be directly included in the category of the proletariat, yet they are subjects with whom the proletariat should form alliances. This extends the space for the anti-capitalist struggle of the proletariat within the context of contemporary capitalism.
Second, the determinations of post-Western Marxism are, to a certain extent, a product of addressing the lack of direct applicability of classical Marxist discourse to contemporary capitalist society, thus avoiding a rigid treatment of Marxist class theory. What they seek to dismantle are merely the various dogmas [7] concerning the simplification of class and the model of revolutionary unity in Marxism. Their aim is to restore the Marxist theory of proletarian revolution, enrich its semantics, enhance its contemporary utility, and expand its class connotations and the political space of its revolutionary significance. This starting point is, of course, well-intentioned.
Finally, the relevant scholars have conducted a dynamic investigation into the composition of class and the working class. Hardt, Negri, and others argue that the working class, like class itself, changes historically, being constantly deconstructed and reconstructed. In contrast to traditional Marxism, which views class and the working class as a stable, unified, and static object or group, they believe that class and the working class are a dynamic process of combining multiple subjects that are in a state of formation, being continuously deconstructed and reshaped by capitalism. This better reflects the actual changes in the working class in contemporary capitalist society and provides a new perspective for a more in-depth and thorough discussion of the class question.