Lin Deshan: Class and Race: Discourse Transformation and Its Implications in Mainstream Western Social Analysis
In contemporary Western discussions surrounding identity politics, racism has become a core issue. Previously, discussions on this topic were primarily concentrated in the ideological and cultural spheres, emphasizing a multiculturalist perspective. From a historical perspective, however, the rise of racist theory within post-war Western ideological and cultural spheres occurred during the process in which traditional class discourse receded. Nevertheless, there remains a distinct deficiency in academic discussion regarding how these two discourses transitioned during political competition, and how the conceptions of mainstream Western political forces shifted. By tracing the changes in the status of class discourse within mainstream Western social analysis—particularly the discursive logic and conceptual shifts of liberal and European social democratic forces across the left-right political spectrum regarding class and race—this article explores the significance of class and race issues for the identity politics of different political forces.
I. From Class Politics to Racism: The Discursive Shift in Mainstream Western Social Analysis
In the 20th century, class politics dominated Western politics for a considerable period, and class discourse became the dominant discourse of social analysis. This demonstrated the influence of Marx’s view of class. However, following the 1950s, alongside new changes in contemporary capitalism, Marx’s class discourse faced challenges from various quarters. The increasingly prominent status of the racial issue as a new problem of identity politics was undoubtedly the result of relevant forces responding to these challenges from the ideological and cultural spheres. The discursive shift from class politics toward racism is a reflection of the changing themes of Western political competition.
(1) Marx’s View of Class As a core concept of historical materialism, Marx’s concept of class includes several fundamental points: (1) Individuals exist as members of a collective presented in the form of a class; a class consists of a group of people who have the same relationship to the means of production, and it is defined and divided according to people's positions within specific modes of production and exchange. (2) Social consciousness is a reflection of class consciousness; class consciousness is the common thought formed by people based on a shared position in production, and "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." (3) "The economic production of every historical epoch and the social structure necessarily arising from it constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch; consequently (since the dissolution of the primitive communal ownership of land) all history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes at various stages of social development."
This method of social analysis—explaining social relations by proceeding from material relations of production—profoundly influenced modern Western social stratification theory. Dennis Gilbert argues that Marx’s theory of ideology and his views on the link between social class and the political process serve as an effective starting point for modern research. However, unlike the stratification theories of mainstream Western sociology, Marx’s concept of class is the core content of the materialist conception of history; the various elements constituting the aforementioned view of class cannot be stripped away from one another. Precisely because of this, Marx’s view of class is regarded by mainstream Western sociology as material determinism or reductionism. While the latter absorbed Marx’s view of class, it simultaneously attempted to "correct" the "one-sidedness" of his determinism. This tradition can be traced back to Max Weber's view of class in the early 20th century.
(2) The Prominence of Racial Identity and the Critique of Racism Upon entering the 1950s, new changes appeared in contemporary capitalism, particularly in the class structure. Coupled with the background of the Cold War and its political constraints, class discourse faced challenges from many sides. These challenges were mainly directed at traditional class consciousness and class struggle. The socio-political background lay in the new class structure—especially the emergence of the new middle class—and the institutionalization of class conflict resulting from democratic politics. Through the struggles of the working class and its political parties, the demands of class politics were effectively incorporated into the operation of democratic politics. While this mitigated class contradictions, it also eroded the concepts of class and class struggle. Against this backdrop, liberals declared: "Class is an increasingly obsolete concept."
Discussions targeting Marx’s view of class primarily concentrated on its "material determinism." Dissenters argued that the key to understanding issues of injustice, poverty, and alienation was culture rather than economics. Consequently, a focus on ideology and culture became a new trend in the intellectual sphere. Among Marxists, the effort to "correct" material determinism began with Antonio Gramsci’s pre-war focus on ideological and cultural issues. Gramsci emphasized: "Man is above all spirit, that is, he is a product of history, not of nature." Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony profoundly influenced 20th-century Western Marxist discourse; the introduction of the racial issue was one result of this trend. In the view of Western Marxists, the traditional Marxist view of class simplified social relations, including the reduction of cultural phenomena to material relations. Especially against the backdrop of the rise of New Social Movements, the subjects of political mobilization were no longer class members, and the focus of public attention was no longer traditional classes and organizations, but rather new social cleavages and the resulting new problems of identity. Critical Race Theory (CRT) emerged as the times required. This theory emphasizes the "salience and persistence of forms of social identity and conflict based on race," placing them above class-based social identities. The increasingly prominent status of the problem of racism in the ideological and cultural spheres and in political competition is closely related to three changes in the socio-political and cultural environment.
First is the systematic reflection on modern social conflict and the critique of traditional discourse within the ideological and cultural spheres, set against the backdrop of post-war prosperity and the transformation toward a post-industrial society. In the context of the "retreat of class"—where the concept of class was deemed insufficient to summarize certain major new social problems—emerging radical movements sought to find new identity issues within the ideological and cultural spheres. Arguments concerning racial-cultural identity and difference subsequently became the focus of this agenda. During this process, postmodern theory developed rapidly, such as the anti-foundationalism of the 1970s and 1980s. This epistemology, which rejected seeking the foundation of knowledge in pure experience or pure reason, laid the discursive foundation for the development of a series of postmodernist theories. Furthermore, the revival of Western Marxism in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the rise of Critical Race Theory in Europe and America, also played an important role in the discursive construction of race and racism theories.
Second is the transformation of the themes of political competition. Facing changes in social structure and the post-war political consensus, and driven by the needs of electoral competition, Social Democratic parties—as traditional representatives of the working class—began to seek cross-class alliances. This led to a trend of transforming from "class parties" to "people’s parties" or "catch-all parties." Diluting ideology and the class base became the primary characteristics of this transformation, which also brought about the identity problem of the New Left. This prompted Social Democratic parties after the 1960s to begin catering to the newly emerging radical liberal ideological and cultural movements, highlighting new identity consciousness. This was centrally reflected in greater protection of individual freedoms, identification with multiculturalism, attention to the rights of ethnic minorities, and respect for difference. In contrast, conservative forces in Europe and America tended toward conservatism on racial issues, emphasizing the impact that cultural diversity brought by immigration had on traditional mainstream social values. This divergence and the racism it triggered provided an opportunity for the rise of right-wing populist political forces. Racism divides people into "us" and "the other," naturally fitting the discursive needs of populism, while the prevalence of populism in turn reinforced social fragmentation based on racism.
Third, changes in the internal and external environments caused and exacerbated social cleavages in developed capitalist countries regarding national and racial issues. Since the 1970s, a series of changes in the internal and external environments of developed capitalist countries in Europe and America, including new developments in globalization and regional integration, led to the increasing prominence of the immigration issue. Developed capitalist countries in Europe and America are the main recipients of immigrants; immigration brought them new social conflicts, exacerbated social cleavages, and triggered racism. Meanwhile, the aforementioned processes—along with the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe—eroded traditional concepts of national borders while simultaneously leading to a resurgence of nationalism. The interweaving of various problems, on the one hand, heightened the complexity of the problem of racism in Europe and America, causing racial prejudice, racial discrimination, and problems of racist ideology to overlap; on the other hand, it also reinforced the role of race in the construction of new identity consciousness.
Under the aforementioned background, the status of race as a new form of identity within social identity has become increasingly prominent, thereby further highlighting the value of the critique of racism in the ideological and cultural spheres. In the new critique of racism, particularly in Critical Race Theory, "racism" is primarily viewed as an ideological structure used to refer to how ideas based on differentialism are integrated into—and shaped by—existing legal and social institutional constructions. In terms of research methodology, relevant studies focus on discussing how racism, as a result of social and political construction, racializes the relationships between individuals. Among these, the influence of Critical Race Theory is particularly prominent; it is dedicated to analyzing how social, political, and legal systems, as well as the media, shape social concepts of race and ethnicity, and how they are in turn shaped by the latter. There is a certain intersection between Critical Race Theory and Western Neo-Marxist research on racism, the latter of which attempts to reapply Marxist methods to establish new links between race and class.
II. From Class to Race: Liberal Conceptions and Positions
Liberalism is the core of the mainstream Western value system and played a special role in the process of the transition from class discourse to racial discourse. During the period when class discourse was dominant, liberalism developed its own class discourse while catering to that dominant discourse. After the war, liberals acted as the vanguard and main force in the process of "de-classing"; their concept of civil rights laid the intellectual and political foundation for the development of consciousness based on racial identity. Meanwhile, the contradictory positions existing within the liberal conception of race also set the stage for the divergence of different political forces under the liberal spectrum surrounding the problem of racism.
(1) Weber’s View of Class and Its Influence As Anthony Giddens stated, Western class analysis is primarily based on two different discourses: scholars inheriting the Marxist tradition further developed the ideas proposed by Marx himself, while other scholars mainly continued Weber’s view of class. Weber’s view of class absorbed the social analysis method of explaining social relations based on material relations of production from Marx’s view of class, but sought to "correct" Marx’s material determinism. Weber defined a class as "any group of people who find themselves in the same class situation." "Class situation" represents the typical chance for a supply of goods, external living conditions, and personal life experiences, whereas a person's "market position" strongly influences his or her overall "life chances"; thus, "class situation" becomes "market situation." However, although Weber acknowledged class and the position of the individual within the market, and pointed out that the distribution of material property is related to property rights, he simultaneously maintained that the division of social status is not affected by class divisions. Weber also introduced the concepts of "status" (Stände) and "power." Status is used to represent differences in the honor or social prestige accorded to social groups; wealth is not the only factor affecting social status, as factors such as lifestyle also influence a person's social status. Power, on the other hand, is expressed through political parties. Parties differ from the impact of class and status on social stratification; they are groups composed of individuals with common backgrounds, aims, or interests. Marx explained status differences and party organizations starting from class, whereas Weber argued that although both are influenced by class, they cannot be simply reduced to class divisions. Parties may cross class lines, and status differences and party organizations can, in turn, affect the economic conditions of individuals and groups, thereby influencing class. Thus, while acknowledging that class is related to people's material production status, Weber stripped away the relationship between class, social status, and social consciousness. Giddens believes that Weber supplemented and refined Marx’s theory, avoiding a rigid, polarized model.
The 20th-century liberal conception of class is an inheritance and development of Weber’s view of class, particularly evolving two concepts from his thought. The first is the concept of "social status." Weber believed that social status is the result of the interaction of multiple factors; it depends not only on material wealth but, more importantly, on lifestyle, education, and prestige. The second is the concept of the "open society." Weber argued that a social relationship can be called "open" if (or as long as) its system of rules does not exclude anyone willing to participate, and it in fact acts accordingly. Conversely, a relationship is "closed" if, according to its subjective meaning and binding rules, certain groups are excluded, their participation is limited, or conditions are attached. Clearly, while recognizing class differences in existing society, the concept of the "open society" proposed a theory of dynamic social equilibrium, thereby finding a rational basis for "overcoming" Marx’s logic of class struggle. In contemporary Western social analysis, these two concepts and methods are widely applied, and liberal racial discourse is likewise permeated by these ideas.
(2) Liberal Racial Discourse
In Western society, the discourse shift from class to race also bears a distinct liberal imprint. Liberals were the primary advocates of "de-classing politics" in the field of post-war Western political thought. On one hand, they utilized the development of democratic politics and civil rights to dissolve the influence of the Marxist view of class; on the other, they injected liberal ideals and principles into the construction of new identity consciousness, including racial discourse.
Liberals used post-war socio-political changes to reinforce "de-classing politics." The contemporary liberal Ralf Dahrendorf directed his spearhead straight at Marx’s conception of class: "There may have always been class conflicts, but class conflict was not always the dominant form of strife, and in the future, it will certainly not always be the dominant form of strife." Dahrendorf argued that two changes led to the transformation of conflict forms in modern society: first, the transition from status to contract—that is, the transition from a hierarchical traditional social structure to open modern social stratification; second, the rise of civil rights, where Dahrendorf particularly emphasized T.H. Marshall’s [5] views on citizenship. Marshall distinguished between "quantitative or economic inequality" and "qualitative inequality"; the former might be impossible to eliminate, but with the help of equality of rights, the latter could potentially be eradicated. Dahrendorf also borrowed Theodor Geiger's phrasing of the "institutionalization of class conflict" to analyze how class conflict was incorporated into democratic institutional norms: "The tension between capital and labor has been recognized as a principle of the structure of the labor market and has become a legitimate institution of society. ... The methods, weapons, and techniques of class struggle have also been recognized and thus controlled. This struggle is carried out according to specific rules of the game. Therefore, class struggle has lost its worst possible scenarios; it has been transformed into a legitimate tension between countervailing power elements. Capital and labor struggle against each other, form compromises, negotiate solutions, and thus determine wage levels, working hours, and other working conditions."
While downplaying class consciousness, liberals turned to highlight identity consciousness based on civil rights, leading to the rediscovery and exploration of the racial issue. In traditional Marxist class discourse, the racial issue is subordinate to class relations. However, liberals view the racial issue as a matter of citizenship and status rather than a class issue. Dahrendorf emphasized that while class consciousness or boundaries have become blurred, the struggle over citizenship is the greatest social conflict in modern society. The racial issue has been increasingly highlighted as a new identity consciousness—an inalienable identity that "is not an economic status" but rather "distances people from market forces, or even liberates them from market forces." "This question touches upon human identity, because where a person or an individual belongs is determined by their identity." Therefore, "answering this question means drawing some lines," and these lines are "clearly discernible" geographically, by skin color, or in other respects. Race is precisely such a discernible boundary of identification, embodying identities derived from natural or cultural differences.
In discussions surrounding racism in Western society, one can clearly see that traditional liberal concepts have been effectively applied to the construction of racial identity. Describing the psychological motivations of Western racism, Pierre-André Taguieff [6] noted: "When Max Weber reflected on the relationship between 'ethnographic' affinity and the sense of honor belonging to a social group (class or stratum), he proposed a psycho-social model based on the fear of losing social status. This relationship is imagined as a special form of the disappearance of hierarchy between 'superior' (commanding) groups and 'inferior' (enslaved) groups." He argued that this ethnocentric model established by Weber is similar to the mechanism of "class contempt": "The belief that one's own customs are good whereas the customs of outsiders are lowly (which is what racial honor supposes) corresponds exactly to the honor of 'social status' (ständlich). 'Racial honor' is a mass-based specific honor because it is available to all members of the community of origin to which they believe they belong."
Furthermore, inclusion and exclusion, as core concepts of liberal social analysis, also run through the liberal view of race. Liberals emphasize "equality of opportunity" rather than "equal results" and use the concepts of inclusion and exclusion to replace the traditional concepts of equality and inequality, the latter of which are considered to bear the traces of class discourse. Dahrendorf pointed out that "the struggle of various groups for horizontal (national, cultural) inclusion or exclusion" should not be seen as "class conflict." Giddens also argued: "The concept of exclusion does not involve the division of a hierarchical society, but rather the mechanism of excluding people from certain groups from the social mainstream." Liberal political forces based on pluralist values oppose racism, support inclusion policies, and in principle accept the protection of ethnic minorities. Post-war, they pushed forward progressive legislation and institutional reforms on a series of issues such as decolonization, the movement against anti-Semitism, and opposition to apartheid.
However, unlike the positions of radical progressive forces, liberals often treat the racial issue as an identity issue unrelated to class or as a purely socio-cultural phenomenon, viewing it as specific racial discrimination rather than a systemic institutional problem. Their basic stance toward the racial issue is: to recognize legal equality in the sense of civil rights and, in principle, not oppose the removal of obvious racist obstacles, but they do not aim to eliminate factual racial inequality, thus recognizing or even tolerating actual differences between races. The "equality of opportunity" flaunted by neoliberalism expresses this very position, which in fact means recognizing the existence of differences based on race and skin color. Consequently, while proclaiming equality of opportunity, some conservative liberals often intentionally or unintentionally interpret the racial roots of inequality by highlighting racial differences. This is what Taguieff calls "implicit racism"—racism that does not appear in an explicit theoretical form, clear assertions, or rational demands. In the eyes of Marxists, this is a form of substantive racism.
(3) Liberal Contradictions and Divergence on the Issue of Racism
Although liberals emphasize increasing inclusion on the racial issue, significant contradictions exist in their positions and policies. These contradictions stem from two factors: first, the contradictory elements inherent in liberal racial discourse itself; second, the heterogeneous nature of liberalism as a system of thought, and the resulting divergence of related political forces and their notions.
Stuart Hall [7] argued that whether one can "live with difference" has become the "primary question of the 20th century." The essence of the racism problem lies in how to understand and treat difference. On this issue, clear contradictions exist in liberal political positions and policy propositions. On one hand, pluralism is the political slogan of liberalism. Liberalism flaunts pluralism, maintaining an attitude of identification and inclusion toward multiculturalism; the coexistence of plural interests is also the core of the modern democratic system it defends. On the other hand, because individual identification with racial identity and claims to rights directly affect the identity of the community and the rights of others, liberals are essentially skeptical of whether a "multicultural society" is viable. Based on this skepticism, they often adopt a policy stance of contracting identity on racial issues. Thus, although modern Western society speaks voluminously of multicultural concepts, Dahrendorf emphasized that a "multicultural society" is "the exception, not the rule," suggesting that the assumption that modern society should find it easier to live with differences than previous societies might be wrong. Based on skepticism regarding multicultural compatibility, liberals often accept discourse that exaggerates racial differences and advocate for identity contraction on issues of race and immigration. "According to the logic of identity contraction, defending national identity manifests as the strengthening of state border controls," which "overlaps with a security-centered view (viewing immigrants as an invasion that erodes national sovereignty and leads to insecurity)," resulting in an increasing emphasis on security in immigration policy. This indicates that the liberal concepts of inclusion and exclusion contain obvious self-contradictions.
Furthermore, from a historical perspective, liberalism as a system of thought is multi-sourced and constantly changing, making it a hybrid system. In political reality, different political forces in contemporary Western countries—especially the traditional left-wing and right-wing mainstream parties—have overlapping ideological relationships with it. Precisely because of this, both radical and conservative political forces can find a conceptual foundation and theoretical basis in liberalism. Since the 1960s, liberal ideology has evolved into two different or even opposing trends on the racial issue. One is radical liberalism, which seeks to further amplify differences in actual society and the protection of the rights of minority groups (including race and gender). This is primarily based on its understanding of racism: that the problem of racism as an ideology is actually a problem of institutions and culture. This implies a tolerance for the existence of factual racism [8], as racism viewed as an ideology is a form of systemic institutional oppression and cultural exclusion. The other is conservative liberalism, which seeks to inherit and protect traditional values (especially social values) and, in this process, consciously incorporates racist elements, holding strong skepticism toward whether a "multicultural society" can truly exist. After the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the increasing ideological polarization between the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States became a typical manifestation of this opposition. In Europe, this opposition is expressed in the divergence between social democratic parties—which have moved toward becoming "People's Parties" [9]—and other center-right parties. Entering the 21st century, the phenomenon of polarization surrounding identity politics also centrally reflects this opposition.
Therefore, facing the rise and challenge of right-wing populist parties (which essentially appeal to racism), political forces claiming to be defenders of the traditional liberal value system (including liberals and conservatives) face an awkward predicament: on one hand, they flaunt their defense of pluralism and oppose overt racial discrimination and racism, using this as their main proposition to resist right-wing populist parties; on the other hand, in increasingly polarized identity politics competitions, they oppose the pluralist propositions of radical liberalism and emphasize restricting difference.
III. The Awkward Predicament of European Social Democratic Parties on Class and Race Issues
The decline of class discourse and the construction of racial discourse are closely related to the post-war political choices of European social democratic parties. As parties that were deeply influenced by Marxism in their early years and claimed to represent the working class, European social democratic parties chose to downplay their class character ideologically and organizationally in the face of challenges brought by changes in social structure, implementing a cross-class "open strategy." Simultaneously, they highlighted their new identity by catering to radical liberalism, which directly influenced their stance on the issue of racism. Both these factors brought new problems to social democratic parties, leading to a crisis of identity consciousness and a divergence of their supporting forces.
(1) The Theory and Practice of "De-classing Politics" in Social Democratic Parties
Most social democratic parties in European countries were born between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emerging as products of the integration of the labor movement with socialist thought. Taking the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) as an example, its early period was deeply influenced by Marxism and guided by Marx's theory of class struggle, imbuing it with a radical revolutionary character. Even after embarking on the path of reformism, it maintained distinct class identity characteristics in both its ideology and political organization. However, against the backdrop of changes in social structure and the socio-political environment after the war, social democratic parties fell into a bottleneck of political development. Reformist forces within these parties argued that this was primarily caused by the constraints of their class identity and image. Guided by these reformist forces, social democratic parties undertook a series of "de-classing" reforms in both ideological and organizational spheres. Ideologically, social democracy adopted "democratic socialism" as its new credo; while emphasizing the moral foundations of socialism, it took democracy (rather than class struggle) as its primary path. Politically, it emphasized class cooperation over class confrontation and regarded "peaceful social reform" as the sole path to human liberation, advocating for the transformation of capitalism through the role of the state. Through these changes, traditional class concepts gradually faded within the discourse system of social democratic parties. After the 1990s, although social democratic parties continued to use the term "class," it was primarily employed to express "class differences." Entering the 21st century, the Swedish Social Democratic Party declared that it had gradually replaced "class society" with the "welfare society." Organizationally, symbolized by the reforms surrounding the adoption of the 1959 Basic Programme of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (the Godesberg Program [10]), the SPD claimed to have "transformed from a working-class party into a people's party." Otto Kirchheimer summarized this transformation with the concept of the "catch-all party," the main feature of which was the dynamic of reducing class dependence. This included setting aside the party's ideological ambitions, de-emphasizing its own class attributes and class origins, and ensuring the establishment of links with various diverse interest groups.
Based on the historical origins and realistic foundations of social democratic parties, "de-classing" has been a long-term, incremental process, inevitably filled with pain and contradictions. Their natural link with the working class and its organizations (labor unions) makes it difficult for social democratic parties to truly sever these ties in actual political competition. From the perspective of political practice, although the ideological and organizational transformation of social democratic parties centered on attracting the "new middle class," for a considerable period (at least until the 1990s), the working class remained the strongest and most stable support base for social democratic parties in various countries, despite its gradually declining proportion. Therefore, it was difficult for social democratic parties to truly face all social strata equally in the literal sense of a "catch-all party." More accurately, the social democratic party of this period was a party that used the working class as its primary base while gradually opening up to other classes, especially the new middle class. It sought to build a cross-class alliance, but its foundation lay in a stable alliance with the traditional working class, reflected particularly in the stable relationship between the party and labor unions. For social democratic parties, a "catch-all" trend in the true sense manifested in the "Third Way" [11] of the 1990s, because the "Third Way" advocated by Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder centered on the middle class rather than the working class. It is thus easy to understand why, despite the continuous dilution of their class character, traces of class remained in their values and political programs, and labor unions continued to be valued. For example, the Swedish Social Democratic Party emphasized in its 2013 party program: "The ideology of the labor movement is a method of analyzing social development. Fundamental to this is the materialist conception of history, namely the recognition that factors such as technology, capital accumulation, and the organization of labor play a decisive role in society and people’s social conditions."
Under the banner of democratic socialism, social democratic parties effectively replaced class discourse with power discourse. They viewed capitalism as a "system of power," arguing that a minority uses economic power to hold political power disproportionate to their demographic weight. This "power gap" implies a gap in the degree of freedom, and eliminating this gap is the goal of social democracy. Social democrats attempted to achieve this goal without changing the basic economic system of capitalism, adopting democratic methods including economic democracy, political democracy, and social democracy. In practice, while social democratic parties advanced political democracy to a certain extent, they met with stubborn resistance from capitalists on the issue of economic democracy. This led to an imbalance between economic and political democracy, though for a time, rapid economic growth and the development of universal welfare partially masked the problems brought by this imbalance. When the environment changed, especially during the globalization process dominated by neoliberalism after the 1980s, this imbalance significantly intensified, and European social democracy generally fell into an identity crisis. In terms of organizational and political strategy, the increasing tension between the parties' attempts to cater to the new middle class and their electoral dependence on the working class (including unions) exacerbated this identity crisis and brought greater uncertainty to the development of social democratic parties. Particularly against the backdrop of "new social movements" [12], the new middle class ideologically catered more to radical-liberal values, tending toward diversity and principles of difference; meanwhile, traditional industrial workers tended more toward traditional values. After entering the 21st century, the conflict of values between these two forces within the social democratic parties became increasingly apparent. The direct result was that the working class, belonging to the traditional left, shifted toward right-wing populism in large numbers during elections. The impetus for the "de-classing of politics" by social democratic parties was originally to expand their organizational and mobilization capacities, but from a long-term trend, it is clear these capacities were not strengthened by this "catch-all" trend. This stimulated a re-evaluation of class identity by European social democratic parties, leading to a visible trend of returning to class politics to varying degrees in the 21st century, especially after the 2008 financial crisis.
(2) The Influence of New Left Cultural Liberalism on European Social Democratic Parties
As social democratic parties diluted traditional class consciousness and sought a reconstruction of their identity, the Cultural Liberalism movement of the Western New Left emerged. Driven by the strategic need to cater to the new middle class, social democratic parties became increasingly inclined to accept radical-liberal propositions in ideological and cultural spheres to highlight their own radical identity. However, this choice also made the competition for identity consciousness within the social democratic camp overt and led to the increasing alienation of a portion of the traditional workforce.
The primary reason social democratic parties de-emphasized their identity as representatives of the traditional working class was to increase their appeal to the burgeoning new middle class. To this end, they needed to develop a new ideology capable of catering to this force. In this context, the Cultural Liberalism movement of the Western New Left that emerged in the 1960s provided an opportunity, nurturing radical ideas among the new generation of youth and directly influencing European social democracy. The main force and vanguard of this movement were intellectuals in the cultural field. Unlike the traditional middle class, the new middle class mostly consists of knowledge-based professionals whose work environments mainly involve social interaction (such as teaching, management, and consulting). Therefore, they need to embrace cultural diversity, making them more receptive to cultural liberalism in their cultural outlook and more likely to identify with or even participate in new social movements. They uphold universalist and anti-racist positions, opposing the cultural conservatism of the traditional right on many issues, thus making them almost a "political reserve" force for the left.
However, the expansion of cultural liberalism's influence also brought new problems to social democratic parties, primarily the fragmentation between the new middle class and the traditional working class. As social democratic parties grew distant from the traditional working class and its labor organizations, the latter began to alienate themselves ideologically from social democracy, leading to changes in working-class voting behavior and the subsequent phenomenon of "class dealignment." This provided an opportunity for the radical right to attract working-class support through cultural issues. The disillusioned working class, especially traditional manual laborers, increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with universalist values tinged with cultural liberalism. In this context, the polarized ideology and propaganda of right-wing populism (including xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and anti-universalism) satisfied the psychology and emotions of this segment of workers to a certain extent. Opposition to cultural liberalism became a powerful weapon for the extreme right to attract a portion of the working class. As researchers have pointed out, the failure of the leftist egalitarian agenda led to the disillusionment of the popular strata with leftist politics, which in turn led them to support right-wing populist forces out of an "illusory choice."
(3) The Social Democrats’ View of Race
The changes in the class position of social democratic parties and their radical-liberal leanings in ideology and culture determined their discourse and policies on race. Early social democratic parties were deeply influenced by Marxism and saw the elimination of class rule and exploitation as the most fundamental path to achieving equality; consequently, for a long period, the programs of social democratic parties made no separate mention of racial issues. This situation began to change as their concept of class faded. After the 1960s, social democratic programs began to express more positions on issues such as racial oppression, immigration (refugees), and racism.
The social democratic view of race is built upon two requirements. First is the demand for more thorough and universal equality. For example, the Frankfurt Declaration [13] of the Socialist International declared: "Socialists fight for the abolition of all legal, economic, and political inequality between men and women, between social classes, between town and country, between regions, and between races." This determined the basic position of social democrats in opposing racial oppression and racial discrimination. In 1960, when the Swedish Social Democratic Party first raised the racial issue in its party program, it expressed a similar position: "All people, regardless of social status, gender, race, or language, should be treated equally." Adhering to this position, social democratic parties insisted they were "anti-racist parties, committed to equality between groups of different skin colors, races, religions, and different cultural attributes." Second is the demand for the protection of minority rights. This requirement stems from both the social democrats' understanding of democratic principles and its consistency with the radical-liberal concepts of the New Left they catered to. In the Godesberg Program, "the rights of minorities" were emphasized as a democratic principle. Based on this principle, social democrats have been more inclined to pursue equality of outcome across a range of inequalities, including racial issues. The radical liberalism of the New Left further amplified the protection of minority rights into multiculturalism. The combination of these two established the basic position of social democrats on the issue of racism, particularly reflected in their understanding of the "power gap": "Gaps in social power are not easily eliminated. When the possibilities for people's development depend on whether they belong to a certain group, it indicates the existence of a power structure." The issue of race is one such problem within this power structure: "Racist structures still exist in our society, which limit the lives of some people while granting privileges to others. Racists rely on imagination to divide people into different racial groups and maintain the gaps in power and resource possession between them." Eliminating the power gap means supporting the weak: "The task of social democrats is to support those who are disadvantaged. Only in this way will freedom in our society expand." Based on this cognition, social democratic parties emphasize the protection of the rights of ethnic minorities on the issue of racism. While class identity consciousness has gradually faded, the welfare society has increasingly become the vital path for social democrats to eliminate power gaps. On this basis, social democrats further emphasize "commitment to cultural integration, supporting exchanges between people of different cultures and backgrounds. Such exchange is based on the equal value and equal rights of everyone, regardless of social, gender, and racial background."
It must be pointed out that while the class consciousness of Social Democratic parties has gradually faded, it remains preserved to some extent, especially when facing identity crises. This is also reflected in their stance on the racial question. For example, while the Swedish Social Democratic Party supports the struggle to narrow gaps in substantive rights, it also opposes treating issues belonging to the class structure as racial problems: "While racism and social class structures reinforce one another, there is a danger in social discourse of treating the class structures of impoverished groups and locales as racial problems. Social Democrats resolutely oppose this practice." Clearly, the imprint of class remains upon Social Democrats, causing them to show a distinction from liberals when analyzing racial issues.
In short, on the issues of race and racism, Social Democratic parties both express a consensus with liberalism and display their own unique characteristics. Based on historical traditions and political ideals, Social Democratic parties catered to and developed radical liberal concepts regarding the racial question. However, after entering the 21st century, against the backdrop of changes in the international and domestic environments, the concepts and policies of Social Democratic parties on racial issues encountered immense challenges. This is particularly related to the increasing prominence of the immigration issue and the development of the welfare society. The former brought about a crisis of cultural identity revolving around racial differences, thereby causing the cultural integration proposed by Social Democrats to face great challenges. The latter directly impacted the positions and policies advocated by Social Democrats to eliminate gaps in rights. Social Democratic parties advocate for opposing racism through the comprehensive development of welfare. The Swedish Social Democratic Party argued: "The best way to struggle against racism is to strengthen equality by creating full employment and developing universal welfare." However, in the context of prominent immigration issues and the crisis of the social welfare system, this policy proposal appears extremely feeble. It has not only invited opposition from conservative political forces but also triggered strong dissatisfaction among traditional industrial workers—the main "losers" in the process of globalization—who have served as the long-term stable base of Social Democratic parties. These forces have, in turn, become an important foundation for right-wing populist parties. This highlights the contradiction between ideal and reality when Social Democratic parties pursue a more universal equality (narrowing the gap in power).
On the racial question, the positions and policy proposals of Social Democratic parties also involve a fundamental issue: the problem of solidarity. In today’s developed Western countries, although various ethnic minority groups are equally victims of racism, they often have conflicting interests when seeking policy protection, especially redistribution policies. In the past, class solidarity—particularly the existence of labor unions—mediated the contradictions between these interest groups to a certain extent. But today, with the weakening of labor unions, ethnic minorities lack a basis for solidarity. For example, regarding European immigration policy, different groups such as asylum seekers, refugees, and migrant workers have inconsistencies in their interests when seeking redistribution policies, which in turn affects the decision-making of EU member states when formulating policies to eliminate relevant barriers. Therefore, progressive forces gathered under the banner of "Social Europe" emphasize that in order to seek alternative policies on immigration, groups that are legally represented as different categories must unite politically. However, in current Western countries, the prospects are not optimistic. Social Democratic parties are thus in a very awkward position regarding racial policy.
IV. Conclusion: The Significance of Class and Racial Discourse
As an ideological and institutional analytical tool, racial theory developed in the post-war period, rising alongside the decline of class as a method of social analysis. By analyzing the conceptual shifts of the two mainstream political forces in contemporary Western society—liberals and social democrats—revolving around class and racial issues, we can see that, on the one hand, although the influence of Marx’s discourse on class has significantly declined in mainstream post-war social analysis, the social drivers behind this phenomenon are often exaggerated. The more primary driver for the conceptual shift in these two forces is the need for political competition. For Social Democrats in particular, the reason for choosing to change class consciousness and discourse was not the "retreat of class," but rather a change in their self-positioning—more precisely, the needs of electoral politics. As demonstrated by a large volume of contemporary Western discussions on class and race, identity consciousness and identity politics are, to a greater extent, the result of political and cultural shaping; in particular, they reflect the consciousness of the dominant social class, which precisely confirms Marx’s view of class. In fact, class discourse has not completely disappeared. From Western social stratification theory and critical theories of racism, one can still see the shadow of class discourse, though it is expressed more through Weberian discourse [14]. The reason mainstream political theory abandoned Marx’s class discourse is perhaps even more due to the critique of the existing capitalist system embodied in Marx’s class discourse, as well as the concept of antagonistic class relations it established.
From the perspective of racial discourse, although there is no shortage of attempts in Western intellectual and cultural circles to replace class consciousness with race as a new identity consciousness, the complexity of the racial question makes it impossible for people to reach a consensus on concepts, analysis, or research methods. This uncertainty makes it difficult for race—whether as an identity consciousness or as an analytical tool—to replace the position of class in traditional social analysis discourse. However, as Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia has pointed out: "the persistence of racism implies that it has a utility, that is, racism has psychological, social, political, and institutional ends to achieve." As a form of institutional critique, critical theories of racism also have theoretical and practical significance; they help people perceive the essence of capitalism in a more multi-dimensional and profound way.
Furthermore, as a form of critical theory, the critique of racism is not entirely antithetical to class analysis. Class analysis is precisely the direction that some progressive scholars within critical racial theory are striving toward. They are attempting to re-apply Marxist methods to analyze the problem of racism. Examining the relationship between race and class struggle—including the role of class struggle, labor organization, and ethnic minority solidarity in resolving racial discrimination and oppression—also helps people recognize the contemporary significance of Marx’s view of class.
(About the Author: Lin Deshan, School of Political Science and Public Administration, China University of Political Science and Law) Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Global Theoretical Trends (Guowai Lilun Dongtai), Issue 1, 2024.