A Marxist Critique of Weberian Class Analyses, Jon Gubbay (1997)

A MARXIST CRITIQUE OF WEBERIAN CLASS ANALYSES
Author(s): Jon Gubbay

Source: Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 1 (FEBRUARY 1997), pp. 73-89
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42855770
Accessed: 06-07-2016 00:28 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociology
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Wed, 06 Jul 2016 00:28:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SOCIOLOGY Vol. 31 No. 1 February 1997
73-89
A MARXIST CRITIQUE OF WEBERIAN

CLASS ANALYSES
Jon Gubbay
Abstract Almost without exception, defenders and critics of the (Weberian) project
of class analysis have denied the validity and utility of what they take to be Marxist
conceptions of class. It is argued here that: first, the aims and structure of Marxist
class analysis are quite different from those of Weberian class analysis; second,
sociological contributions to the current debate have failed to address the most
significant insights of Marxist class analysis, namely the labour theory of value; and
third, Wright's supposedly exemplary Marxist research programme, being also
deficient in this respect, shares common ground with its Weberian critics. Thus the
case for Marxist class analysis has gone by default, a situation which this paper
attempts to redress.
Keywords: class analysis, Marxism, exploitation, labour values.
Goldthorpe's Rejection of 'Marxist Class Analysis'
The nature and purpose of the project of class analysis has been defined by
Goldthorpe and Marshall, and widely quoted by other contributors to recent
debates, as follows:
... it explores the interconnections between positions defined by employment

relations in labour markets and production units in different sectors of national
economies; the processes through which individuals and families are distributed and
redistributed among these positions over time; and the consequences thereof for
their life-chances and for the social identities that they adopt and the social values
and interests that they pursue (1992:381).
They foreswear any assumption that class is crucially causal to life-chances,

identities and action, instead insisting that this is a matter for investigation. In
defending themselves against critics of class analysis, they take pains to
distance their programme from theoretical preconceptions supposedly
characteristic of Marxist sociology, which they readily acknowledge would flaw
the project.
Thus Marxist class analysis is presented as a theory which has the following
characteristics:
1 . ... all class relations must be necessarily and exclusively antagonistic

2. ... individuals holding similar positions within the class structure will thereby
automatically develop a shared consciousness of their situation and will, in
turn, be prompted to act together in the pursuit of their common class interest
74 JON GUBBAY
3. ... political action . . . can be understood simply as the unmediated expression

of class relations and the pursuit of structurally-given class interests
4. ... at the crisis point of successive developmental stages a particular class
(under capitalism the working class) takes on its Mission* of transforming
society (all quotations ibid.: 383-384).
They contradict each of these presumptions. First, they argue that the existence
of class conflict does not presume a theory of exploitation and note that non-
zero sum game situations promote class compromises. Secondly, rather than
presume a tendency to class-based collective action they propose an open-
ended investigation of the variety of conditions which promote different forms
of consciousness - including different forms of class consciousness. Thirdly,
they insist that political action can flow from factors other than class positions
and, in any case, such action depends upon the formation and mobilisation of
political identities, for example, through the agency of political parties.
Fourthly, they point out that there are diverse courses of social development
and the role of class in these historic processes is highly contingent.
Arguably, they portray Marxist sociology in its most vulgar form and it is
actually quite doubtful if many avowed Marxist sociologists could be found
who would subscribe to the account against which Goldthorpe and Marshall
inveigh. However, it is not the purpose of this paper to counter their mis-
representations of Marx or contemporary Marxists so much as to acknow-
ledge that they do correctly identify fundamental points of difference between
two forms of class analysis, which may be conveniently labelled 'Weberian'
and 'Marxist'.
For the purposes of this paper, I shall consider as 'Weberian' all class
analyses which start from some definition of 'class situations' according to
differences in life chances insofar as they derive from economic factors.
(Weber's own class analysis was certainly of this sort, focusing on how the
personal and property resources that individuals bring to, and use, in the
market result in differential life chances.) The aims of Weberian class analysis,
well-stated in the quotation at the beginning of this paper, are quite different
from those of Marxist class analysis. Goldthorpe and Marshall (1992:393)
rightly note that Marxist class analysis presumes a theory of exploitation and
bases the rationale for defining classes in a broader theory of social dynamics.
The overall Marxist project seeks an understanding, in terms of relations of
production, of possible courses of development, dynamics and dissolution of
capitalism. More specifically, Marxist class analysis aims to identify and
characterise classes, exploring how they relate to each other in generating,
appropriating and allocating surplus labour. Although Goldthorpe and
Marshall are correct in noting that Marxist class analysis is entangled in
concepts and theories designed to provide a grasp on historical development,
it is far from axiomatic that this entails a dogmatic or degenerate research
programme. Marxism is, as Goldthorpe and Marshall rightly insist (1992:
A MARXIST CRITIQUE OF WEBERIAN CLASS ANALYSIS 75
385), highly politically and sociologically ambitious, but this fact in itself is
not grounds for dismissing it, except perhaps by appeal to a generalised
objection to 'historicism'.
In disclaiming what they take to be Marxist presumptions, Goldthorpe and
Marshall present their version of class analysis as theoretically agnostic.
Indeed, this is the source of Pahl's objection that they evade criticism of their
class analysis project by refusing to articulate their own theoretical presump-
tions explicitly - although Pahl's 'guess' is that they 'subscribe to a hidden
agenda of marxisante theory' (1993:257). Payne has recently responded to
Pahl's attack by noting that Goldthorpe and Marshall do subscribe to the
theory ťthat employment relations are patterned not in a continuous way, but
in clusters' (1996:340) and that there are direct and indirect causal chains
linking these class differences to mobility, life chances, social identity and
action. It is far from clear that defending Goldthorpe and Marshall on the
grounds that they do postulate such causal chains is welcome to them, since
they had insisted that: ťit is integral to the research programme that specific
consideration should also be given to theories holding that class relations are
in fact of diminishing importance for life chances and social action or that
other relations and attributes - defined, for example, by income or con-
sumption, status or life style, ethnicity or gender - are, or are becoming, of
greater consequence' (1992:381). With regard to the patterning of employ-
ment relations, there is a characteristic problem in defining 'classes' in all
Weberian class analyses, including that pursued by Goldthorpe and Marshall.
The problem is simply how theoretically to ground and operationalise a
criterion of similarity and/or mobility closure by means of which to aggregate the
multitude of different 'class situation' into 'classes'.
Building on Crompton's discussion (1993:49-52), three types of class
schema are distinguishable - nominal , weakly relational and strongly relational.
A nominal schema is taken to be one where 'classes' are defined atheoretically
by aggregating individuals (or households) according to their positions on at
least one dimension of inequality and, perhaps, also on other putatively
socially significant dimensions. A simple example would be where two classes
were defined according to whether individual incomes were above or below
the median income; a slightly more complex nominal schema would be where
four 'classes' are defined by cross-cutting that distinction with that between
manual and non-manual work.1 Such 'classes' might provide convenient
means of presenting information on statistical correlations with housing
tenure, household consumption, mortality or whatever.
A weakly relational class schema is also one where 'classes' are defined by
aggregating individuals (or households) according to their positions on at least
one dimension, but the selection of these dimensions and the way divisions
are drawn between them has a rationale within a research programme.2 For
example, Erikson and Goldthorpe state that, 'The principles of differentiation
that we adopt have been mainly derived from classic sources, in particular,
76 JON GUBBAY
from Marx and Max Weber. But these principles have been adapted, under
the influence of various later authors, to try to meet the specific requirements
of analysing class mobility . . .' (1993:37). Whether they have defined these
principles with adequate explicitness and operationalised them effectively is,
of course, another matter.
Finally, a strongly relational class schema is one deriving from a theory about
society as a totality which identifies relations between 'classes' as crucial to its
dynamics. 'Classes' are thus defined as related to one another through
interactive processes and powers. Marxist class analysis is but one example of
such a class schema. For example, in Mosca's political sociology, the history
of society is a history of power struggles between two 'classes', an organised
minority and a disorganised mass. Within the terms of such a theory, 'classes'
are real entities although, characteristically, there are conceptual problems in
elaborating the model with auxiliary, intermediate and ambivalent 'classes'
and in operationalising the location of actual persons.
Crompton (1993:57-8) regards both Goldthorpe's and Wright's class
schemata as relational but it is argued here that the former is at most weakly
relational and sometimes falls into being nominal. It is also argued that, as
Wright's class analysis has changed and developed, it has shifted from being
strongly to weakly relational . It might appear implausible to deny that any of
Wright's class analyses are strongly relational because he has insistently stated
that it is his aim to construct theoretically grounded concepts of classes in
relations of exploitation (1979a, 1985:27-37, 1989:277-88). Accordingly, the
whole of the third section of this paper is devoted to showing that he has
actually moved decisively away from achieving this objective, although neither
he nor most of his commentators fully acknowledge this. With regard to
Goldthorpe's class analysis, the case is somewhat more straightforward.
In the oxford Mobility studies, categories of occupational function and
employment status were allocated into classes according to similarities in their
market and work situations:
... we combine occupational categories whose members would appear, in the light
of the available evidence, to be typically comparable, on the one hand, in terms of
their sources and levels of income and other conditions of employment, in their
degree of economic security and in their chances of economic advancement; and,
on the other hand, in their location within the systems of authority and control
governing the processes of production in which they are engaged (Goldthorpe
1980:39).
A simple but serious objection is that the 'available evidence' is nowhere

stated, nor is there even a clear statement of the criteria of similarities in
market and work situations. Furthermore, aggregation according to similarity
of market situations, only implies a weakly relational class schema of co-
presence in an integrated market. With regard to work situation, there is a
reference to 'systems of authority and control' but no characterisation of
classes as related to one another in interactive processes and powers. In his

more recent work, Goldthorpe no longer distinguishes classes according to
similarities in 'market situation' and 'work situation' but rather similarities in
'positions within labour markets and production units' . This formulation ' seeks to
bring out more clearly that the schema is intended ultimately to apply to positions,
as defined by social relationships, rather than to persons' (Erikson and
Goldthorpe 1993:37). In fact, this turns out to be little more than a termino-
logical shift, in no way characterising powers and processes of class relation-
ship and, indeed, not significantly modifying the class schema.
It is true that Goldthorpe claimed in his earlier presentation to be concerned
to investigate classes constituted as 'social collectivities' - actually 'social
classes' in Weber's terminology - as categories 'identifiable through the degree
of continuity with which, in consequences of patterns of class mobility and
immobility, their members are associated with particular sets of positions over
time' (1983:467). Scott defends Goldthorpe's procedure, on practical grounds
given the datasets available, in making, 'an informed professional judgement
about the boundaries of social classes and only then to seek a post hoc empirical
justification by looking at mobility patterns among the social classes that are
identified' (1994:937 and footnote 3). However, none of Goldthorpe's
extensive research on social mobility has demonstrated that the classes he
defines possess this 'continuity' and, even if they did, this would not amount to
a strongly relational conceptualisation of classes. Indeed, Morris and Scott
(1996) argue effectively that as Marshall et al. develop the Goldthorpe class
analysis they collapse into a nominal class schema: their classes '. . . refer not to
real collectivities but mere nominal categories defined pragmatically or, one
might almost say, in an ad hoc manner. Employment relations are used to
categorize occupations, as they were in the original schema, but the lines that
separate one "class" from another are no longer seen as demographic
boundaries' (1996:49). Although it is useful to be reminded of the significant
degree of arbitrariness in the definition of the Goldthorpe classes, this does not
imply that his project is mindless empiricism and, indeed, there is much in the
findings of the research programme of interest to Marxists as well as Weberians.
In arguing below that Wright's class analyses have become weakly relational ,
they are contrasted with Marxist class analysis, which is strongly relational. It
will then be argued that Wright's approach is best characterised as Weberian
rather than Marxist. But first it is necessary to sketch out what I take to be
elements of Marxist class analysis.
Elements of Marxist Class Analysis
I earlier defined the project of Marxist class analysis as that of identifying

classes in capitalist society as interacting entities in the generation, appro-
priation and allocation of surplus labour. Of course, this definition is
78 JON GUBBAY
disputable. Leaving aside tedious disputes about whether or not this is what
Marx really meant, the project might be rejected as futile were it to be shown
that such classes cannot be identified or, even if they were, that exploration of
their character and relationships throws little light on the dynamics of
capitalist society. I do not think that the futility of Marxist class analysis has
been demonstrated and, indeed, argue below that it has a promising future -
but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
As I understand it, in Marxist class analysis, 'class' is definitionally linked to
the distinction between necessary and surplus labour. The former is the
amount of labour required of the producers, under existing technology and
expectations of skill and effort, to produce the goods and services sufficient to
secure their maintenance and reproduction, subject to culturally conditioned
standards of consumption. Insofar as the economically dominant class exerts
control over the producers' labour, they are in a position to enforce labour in
excess of the socially necessary amount - that is, surplus labour - and are able
to appropriate some or all of the corresponding product. It is in this sense that
the economically dominant class and the class of producers are conceptualised
as exploiting and exploited classes. The sorts of class locations, and thus the
forms of exploitation, vary according to the mode of production; in particular,
in capitalist society, the bourgeoisie is able to appropriate surplus labour from
the proletariat in spite of uncoerced labour contracts. Profits are possible,
consistent with accounting in socially necessary labour time (Values'), on the
basis that labour power generates more than its own value. In terms of control
in the workplace, workers' acceptance of the labour contract subordinates
them to the direction of the capitalists who purchased their labour power.
Even though it is registered in the market as profit, the process of exploitation
takes place as relationships of discipline and supervision within production.
Thus the general conceptualisation of classes as 'social positions within the
social relations of exploitation' (Wright 1981:150) can be made specific to
capitalism as locations in the overall flow of value within the generation , appro-
priation and allocation of surplus value . Classes are thereby defined in a strongly
relational sense, as interacting entities in a social totality. The interpretation
offered above is not that the existence of capitalist and working classes is
logically derivable from the process of siphoning off surplus value - nor that
the existence of classes logically entails the labour theory of value. Rather, the
argument is that they are definitionally interrelated: on the one hand, con-
tinuity and change in the structure of class relations and, on the other hand,
the process of pumping surplus value round the system.
At this most abstract stage of the analysis, the focus of attention is not the
undoubted differentiations and social relations within classes. For example,
within a class there are specific structures of age, sex, domestic labour, skills,
pay differentials and geographical locations - and, between classes, mobility
and associations of friendship, kinship and household composition. Accord-
ingly, the maintenance and reproduction of a class refers to how it is
regenerated as a differentiated and related whole rather than as an aggregate of

individuals. Variation within classes and individual links across classes are
important for Marxist class analysis, but this requires attention at a more
concrete comparative-historical level. From a Marxist perspective, such
differentiation and relationships are of interest, not simply in order to provide
detailed and cogent descriptions, but because of implications for the specific
mechanisms of appropriation and allocation of surplus value and the
dynamics of class consciousness. The very processes of pumping surplus value
round the system constitute and reconstitute the interrelated agents who
execute these tasks, though this is typically achieved in an uneven fashion -
occasionally disastrously so. Thus the Capitalist' class should be understood
as a complex and changing combination of positions, practices and rules; for
it to survive it must be constantly reorganised and recruit personnel for the
specific tasks it faces - strategic planning, personnel management, investment
appraisal, market research, engineering design, production management and
so on. All this requires socialisation and systems of incentives, which are a call
on surplus value. Likewise, the reproduction of the working class involves
regenerating through family, education, health care and social security persons
with an appropriate range of personal attributes, skills, health, motivations
and expectations.
It follows that Marxist class analysis cannot be demonstrated or refuted by
appeal to statistical correlations with income, voting or value preferences (e.g.
Wright 1985; Marshall et al. 1988) for these are highly contingent and
subject to the sorts of multiple determinations mentioned above. Rather the
validity or otherwise of the account relies upon an economic analysis of
capitalist production, distribution and exchange and the extent to which
classes can figure insightfully in coherent and applicable accounts of
historical developments - variant forms of the state, economic policy,
monopolisation, economic crises, changing forms of work and so on (e.g.
Cliff 1974; Reuten and Williams 1989; Mandel 1962; Harman 1984;
Braverman 1974). The utility of Marxist class analysis may well be challenged
on grounds that the modern economy now operates on quite different
principles to those assumed in the Marxist account, or that equally plausible
stories can be told about historical developments without appeal to the
Marxist notion of class. But defence or rebuttal of the approach requires
detailed argumentation rather than a snapshot test or application of a
methodological criterion.
That said, the above account is clearly inadequate in relation to many
aspects of the contemporary reality of 'advanced' capitalist societies. Much
has changed over the years - including the rise of gigantic corporations often
oligopolistic and operating on a world scale, expansion of functions of the
state without consequent increase in its staffing, and growth in employment in
commercial and banking sectors at the expense of manufacturing and
extraction. The question then is whether it is possible to modify and develop
80 JON GUBBAY
Marxist class analysis to take äccount of these changes and, if so, whether this
is a fruitful exercise. This is the task that Wright sets himself.
Critique of Wright's Weberian Synthesis
Wright is a crucial figure in recent debates on class analysis since he is widely

taken as representative of a sophisticated Marxist class theorist, who is con-
cerned to apply Marxism in empirical sociological research. He has been
prolific, creative and admirably responsible to criticisms. However, his
readiness to engage in the arguments of his critics on their ground, and the
drive to demonstrate the fruitfulness of his approach in empirical research on
the statistical correlation of his class categories with income and conscious-
ness, has moved him far away from Marxist class analysis as defined above.
There are two main proposals that Wright had advanced for mapping the
class structure - and some later 'reconsiderations' (Wright 1976, 1985, 1989).
Driving concerns have been the location of the 'middle classes' and
distinguishing (western) capitalism from (eastern) socialism, while typifying
both types of society as class-divided.
In the 1976 paper, Wright argued, contrary to the theory of managerial
revolution, that top corporate executives are unequivocally members of the
bourgeoisie exercising 'real economic ownership' (i.e. control of the
accumulation process), even if they are not legal owners and their incomes are
as wages/salaries. This early map distinguished contradictory class locations
between bourgeoisie and proletariat, namely that lower level managers and
supervisors are both wage labourers dominated by the capitalists employing
them and agents of capitalists in dominating the proletariat (1976:32-5). This
is a perfectly reasonable way of preserving the notions of dominating and
dominated classes while capturing the contradictory roles of managers and
supervisors, with the implication that their consciousness is likely to be pulled
in opposite directions. Even in this early map, Wright was aware of the need
for refinement because, at the more concrete level, these contradictory
locations are typically hierarchies of authority. His attempt to construct a
complete picture of class structure became problematic in other respects when
he identified the petty bourgeoisie as another basic class and then two further
contradictory classes between it and the bourgeoisie (small employers) and
proletariat (semi-autonomous employees) (1976:35-6). As he acknowledged
subsequently, there is nothing particularly contradictory about these two
locations and the identification of work autonomy with a position between
proletariat and petty bourgeoisie is unjustified (1985:53-4).
In later self-criticism of the 1976 map, Wright put most weight on its
tendency to substitute concepts of 'domination' for 'exploitation'. He argued
that the earlier map is defective in lacking a notion of objective class interests
antagonistic to one another. That map was, indeed, vulnerable to this
criticism since forms of appropriation were not specified and thus capitalist
domination of the proletariat appeared as 'control' abstracted from economic
relationships. However, in the 1985 map, rather than explicitly theorising the
implicit relationship of creation and appropriation of surplus value, Wright
chose to redefine 'exploitation'. In short, Wright set out his intention to
construct a class map that gave centrality to exploitation but he was unwilling
to do this by appeal to a labour theory of value, it is illuminating to trace back
his reluctance to do this to two papers which he contributed to the debate on
neo-Ricardianism (1979b, 1981). This debate had been sparked by
Steedman's (1977) polemic to the effect that the rate of profit can be
calculated from a knowledge of the real wage and socio-technical conditions
of production (i.e. the relative inputs on materials and labour time/effort),
without reference to surplus value. Steedman argued, accordingly, that the
labour theory of value was redundant and even led to insoluble paradoxes, so
should be rejected.
Wright's 1979 paper defended the view that the amount of surplus value
generated influences the rate of profit but does not do so alone. He argued
that it sets maximum and minimum limits to the rate of profit while con-
ceding to the neo-Ricardians that the precise level was fixed by the influences
of real wages and socio-technical conditions of production. Nevertheless, he
argued forcefully that classes in the neo-Ricardian framework could only be
defined in a Weberian fashion as 'market classes', and claimed that his
approach provided the basis not just for a mathematical calculation of profits
but for an explanation of their very possibility (1979b:82,69).
In the 1981 paper, Wright was unnecessarily sensitive to the criticisms that
he had failed to identify causal mechanisms from surplus value to profits and
had employed circular definitions of 'class' and 'surplus labour' in terms of
each other (Hodgson 1981). In this paper, he had little difficulty in showing
that class exploitation can be defined in abstract terms across different modes
of production without reference to the labour theory of value, so he rebutted
the charge of circularity (Wright 1981:145-50). The argument is quite sound
but the central point at issue is the definition of classes specifically in
capitalism and, in this respect, there was no reason why he should be
embarrassed to admit to the circularity. That is, there is a logical rather than
causal relation between the definition of capitalist and proletarian classes, on
the one hand, and creation and appropriation of surplus value on the other.
Accordingly, Wright's quite correct demolition of vulgar defences of the
labour theory of value does not justify his reconciliation with the neo-
Ricardian viewpoint. Nevertheless, that is exactly what he did, inspired by
Roemer's version of neo-Ricardianism.
Although Roemer's (1982) model is complex and rigorously argued in
mathematical terms, the conclusion that is reached is quite banal, namely that
those who are relatively well rewarded exploit those who are relatively poorly
rewarded and that they are able to do so because of their command over
82 JON GUBBAY
productive assets. This conceptualisation of 'exploitation' is weakly relational

and is external to production relationships. Different types of asset are taken
to correspond to different dimensions of class exploitation. In Wright's exten-
sion of Roemer's model four types of asset are distinguished, namely owner-
ship of one's labour power, ownership of means of production, organisational
assets and possession of skills/credentials. His multidimensional map of
capitalist class structure is then constructed by drawing a series of dis-
tinctions, beginning with that between owners and non-owners of the means
of production. The former are sub-divided by the size of their property assets
and the latter by the two dimensions of organisational assets and expertise/
credentials. Note that this move separates domination in production - now
renamed 'organisational assets' - from ownership and, indeed, 'real economic
ownership' is dissolved into 'legal ownership' (Wright 1985).
There is another strand to Wright's auto-critique: that defining classes in
terms of domination in his map was as capable of identifying classes in
'actually existing socialism' as capitalism. Somewhat perversely, Wright failed
to take this as a virtue of his former theory and thus as grounds for denying
that supposedly socialist societies can be validly so identified; instead, he took
the view that private ownership of the means of production is crucial to
defining capitalism. Thus, as noted above, the principal axis of class division
in capitalist society was taken as legal possession or lack of possession of the
means of production. However, Wright follows Roemer in acknowledging that
the abolition of private ownership of the means of production does not
necessarily end class society. Indeed, the Russian class system has been
characterised by Wright in terms of socialist exploitation (of experts by virtue
of their skills and credentials) and statist exploitation (of managers by virtue
of their organisational assets).
Even when originally formulating the 1985 map, Wright acknowledged
conceptual difficulties with skills/credentials and organisational assets and his
subsequent reconsiderations have only deepened his disquiet (1985:93-5,
1989:310-12). These reconsiderations have led him back toward positions he
adopted in 1976 but have not resulted in a fully revised map. Thus, skills and
credentials were recognised as sources of relative advantage and disadvantage
in labour markets, but Wright eventually concluded that it is only in this weak
sense that there can be said to be 'skill and/or credential classes' (1985:95).
Indeed, what counts as a valued skill or credential depends not on their
inherent qualities but rather the demands by employers for particular sorts of
workers; it is true that exclusionary or usurpatory strategies may affect labour
supply and thus modify the pattern of differential wages, but such processes
are best understood as intra-class competition. Also, in his reconsiderations,
Wright criticised his 1985 map, as compared with the earlier one, for treating
'organisational assets' possessed by managers of capitalist enterprises as bases
of class domination analytically separate from their role as agents of capitalist
proprietors (1989:311). He became unhappy with the notion that possession
of organisational assets could be separate bases for exploitation because of the

demonstrably false implication that managers, in both private and public
sectors, would share an interest in replacing 'capitalism' by 'statism'. Drop-
ping the concept of organisational asset exploitation enabled Wright to return
to his earlier insistence that top managers of private capital have virtually
identical interests to the owners. Note that this argument is framed by the
view that capitalism is necessarily a system in which capital is privately owned.
However, the crucial analytical point is that managers of capitalist enterprises
are committed to units of capital - whether they be privately or state
owned - and not, as Wright claims, committed specifically to the interests of
owners. The concept of ťorganisatioal assets' is not at all illuminating because
of its reified character and associated tautologies; to say that managers possess
organisational assets is simply to say that they have the capacity to exercise
control. The problem is to specify the uses to which such control is put -
appropriation of surplus value, support for reproduction of class relationships,
resistance to prédations of other states or whatever.
Wright is admirably frank in bringing out the similarities of his class
schema to that of his putative rivals. Thus, he writes:
Once you adopt a fairly differentiated Marxist class concept of the sort I have
advocated, then in practice there is not actually all that much difference in the
nature of the empirical class structure Variables' that are generated in neo-Marxist
and neo-Weberian frameworks; after all both acknowledge in one way or another
that differences in property, skills/credentials/autonomy are bases for differentiating
locations in the class structure. If you compare Goldthorpe's seven-category class
structure schema (or the more elaborate eleven-category schema that contains a
range of subclass divisions) with my analysis of class structure in terms of multiple-
exploitation mechanisms, for example, you will find that in practical empirical terms
the contrast is not great (1989:318).
Crompton, in a critical comment on the efforts of Marshall et al (1988) to

evaluate the relative merits of Goldthorpe's and Wright's schema, accepts that
they 'were defined for different purposes and on the basis of different (implicit
and explicit) theoretical assumptions' (1993:76). This is also Wright's own
view, for he vigorously advocates a Marxist approach on normative ,
methodological and theoretical grounds (1989:319-20). However, the arguments
he advances are unconvincing. The normative aspect, is his personal commit-
ment to a theoretical framework that identifies 'the possibilities for and
obstacles to emancipatory social change'. Leaving aside the element of value
judgement in this commitment, it is notable that his hopes for a classless
society are grimly pessimistic by most Marxist standards, understandably
perhaps given his acknowledgement that socialism does not end class
exploitation (1985:287-90). The theoretical ground for favouring a Marxist
perspective is that it makes it possible to link 'structured social conflict' with
class as a force in 'epochal social change'. This argument is not particularly
persuasive in Wright's case since the link is not actually present in his own
84 JON GUBBAY
work, except at the level of metatheory. The methodological consideration is

that concepts are better developed within a set of theoretical constraints rather
than, as in the Weberian tradition, ad hoc (1989:320). Now, it has certainly
been Wright's intention to provide a theoretical basis for his class analyses
around the notion of 'exploitation', but this only appears as a background
concern in his 1976 map and as a very impoverished concept in his 1985 map.
The processes and powers of class relationship are not specified theoretically
in any of his class analyses, particularly since 1979, so what he constructs are
'maps' rather than 'models'.
Whether or not one agrees with Wright's shift to a Weberian perspective, it
is important not to prolong the confusion that has resulted from his failure,
and that of most of his critics and supporters, fully to acknowledge this.
(However, see Edgell 1993:24-6.) Burris (1987) has acutely observed the
emergence of a new 'synthesis' from Wright's work but mistakenly identifies it
as neo-Marxist rather than Weberian.
The Promising Future of Marxist Class Analysis
Weberian class analysis, as exemplified in the empirical research of both

Wright and Goldthorpe, begins by identifying inequalities in economic status
and the occupational structure and then exploring their consequences for life
chances, consciousness and action. Marxist class analysis, as defined in this
paper is quite a different project. It starts from, and constantly relates back to,
the dynamics of capitalist society as a whole. The research programme of Marxist
class analysis consists of exploration of how surplus value is created and pumped
around the system by interacting classes and fractions of classes, and investigation of
the conditions which foster or hinder these processes y associated tensions which the
system itself generates and the consequences thereof for conflict and cooperation
between and within classes. The economic dominance of the capitalist class,
which is a tiny minority of the population, requires the active cooperation of a
much larger category of persons carrying our managerial, promotional and
coercive functions within state and capitalist organisations.3 As wage
labourers, these people may be more or less securely tied to the interests of the
capitalist class by relatively privileged rewards and locations in disciplinary
structures. The less there are such ties the less there are ambivalent class
interests; proletarian class consciousness is thus a possibility - but only a
possibility because of many other contingent factors.
Although Marxist class analysis is a distinct enterprise from Weberian class
analysis, it is possible for it to draw upon insights and research findings of the
latter, although reinterpretation is then necessary. For example, research
within a Weberian framework on social mobility, life chances, values and
identities might be utilised within a Marxist analysis of the mechanisms
promoting and inhibiting class consciousness.
It may be useful, in drawing this section to a close, to suggest ways in which

the theoretical apparatus of Marxist class analysis might be profitably
developed. First, more dynamic interactive class models should be con-
structed; that is, the image of the flow diagram between classes and class
fractions is superior to that of the typology or map. Tracing the circuits
through which value created by the working class is pumped around the
system and exploring the pumping mechanisms indicates the dependencies
and sources of conflict and alliance within and between classes (Gubbay
1990). Perhaps the useful hydraulic metaphor could be improved by an
electronic one.
Secondly, there is a need to re-examine the foundations of the labour
theory of value in order to reconceptualise the state as part of the system it
regulates rather than as an agent which 'intervenes' in it. That is, at the
highest level of abstraction, what is needed is a model of the relation between
labour power, capital and state functions in regulating the system - rather
than introducing this third element at a lower level of abstraction. The 'state
derivation debate' provides a possible way into this sort of analysis (Hirsch
1978; Reuten and Williams 1989).
Thirdly, an adequate model of class structure should take full account of
capital and labour outside the realm of production of surplus value, in
particular in banking, commercial and property capital, where the workers
employed enable their employers to obtain surplus value created elsewhere
(Crompton and Gubbay 1977:85-90). Accordingly, different categories of
wage labourers employed by (private or state) capitalists can be distinguished
but, despite being differently located within the overall flow of surplus value,
similarities in their market and work situations justify them being treated as
fractions of a single class rather than as different classes. (Note my willingness
to draw on the typically Weberian concepts of market and work situation!").
The very term 'relationship to the means of production' misleadingly narrows
the range of positions within the various classes though, admittedly, the
phrase 'relationship to the means of production, commerce, banking and
property' is rather a mouthful. Furthermore, there is a need for properly
theorised ways of conceptualising the location of state employees, other than
those employed by state capital, in the overall flow of value (Carchedi
1977:Chapter 2, Gubbay 1990). If, as I advocate, classes are to be defined
with respect to accumulation as a whole, not just hiring and enforcement of
the labour contracts, then there is a need for some analysis of the functions for
which state employees are hired. Adapting Gough's (1975) treatment, one
might distinguish four broad types of activities - those which promote social
order, whether by enforcement (e.g. policing) or concession to need (e.g. state
pensions), and those activities which tend to improve quality and/or reduce
costs of capital (e.g. roads) and labour (e.g. education) to capitalists, and the
state itself. Apart from those employed in the coercive apparatus of the state,
whose class position needs separate treatment, the working class can be taken
86 JON GUBBAY
to include not only those who create surplus value but also those who are
dominated by managers in the tasks of pumping it around the system and
securing conditions to sustain both these processes. Contradictory class
locations can, of course, be defined outside the realm of production of surplus
value.
Fourthly, class analysis needs to provide an opening to historical under-
standing of the changing forms of social division by gender, 'race' and nation
that cut across classes. For example, the social reproduction of classes is a
crucial context for understanding domestic labour. Unwaged domestic
labour - whether carried out by men, women or children - transforms wages
into consumption in a way that maintains and reproduces labour power. This
is an essential part of the total labour of capitalist society, though it nowhere
figures in capitalists' accounts. Accordingly, there is a whole research pro-
gramme as to how it is that domestic labour is gendered and how that
interacts with the gendering of waged labour, and with what consequences for
class consciousness (Smith 1978).
Finally, class consciousness should be seen as neither the automatic
product of the existence of classes nor as entirely independent of them. Of
course, the structure of class relations is held in place by the concrete actions
of real people which are affected by all sorts of contingent intentions and
particular circumstances. It is perfectly reasonable to presume that people can
have class interests of which they are unaware - and it is thus unreasonable to
ridicule the notion of false consciousness per se> though it may be entirely
justified in criticising a particular assertion about where the interests of the
working class really lie. That said, there are real constraints built into class
situations which pattern social relations in a reproductive fashion. Thus the
capitalist is constrained by market competition, on pain of business failure
otherwise, to appropriate and accumulate surplus value; such a drive is a
necessary means to attainment of other personal goals or sacrifice of
them - or, indeed, adoption of this drive as a personal goal. Many different
forms of consciousness are viable among workers with regard to their em-
ployers - for example, deference to their cultural capital, support for profit-
boosting policies in the belief that this will improve job security, individual
ingratiation, defence of differentials or sectional advantage based on sex, 'race'
or craft, support for collective bargaining, revolutionary class consciousness.
Forms of consciousness and identification with particular groups are inter-
dependent. However, although the range is wide, it is far from indeterminate.
Two logical poles define parameters to forms of consciousness among those
who are relatively disadvantaged - firstly, the predicaments of contingently
defined groups and secondly accommodation to those who are most powerful in
that unequal social order. That is, forms of consciousness are unlikely where
there is no rationale, whether soundly based or not, for individual or collective
self-interest. This way of hypothesising the connection of class interests and
class consciousness, which is quite contrary to Goldthorpe and Marshall's
presentation of Marxism, is admittedly quite abstract so it calls for a com-

parative historical research programme rather than some simple test.
Conclusion
This paper has sought to contrast Marxist and Weberian class analysis and has
argued that only the former is strongly relational. Goldthorpe's class analysis
cannot be strongly relational , which is surely as he would wish, because it is not
embedded in a theory of capitalist dynamics. His research programme is un-
equivocally Weberian, as I have defined it, and accordingly experiences
problems of conceptualisation and operationalisation when aggregating class
situations into classes - which, in turn, tends to lead to nominalism . In spite of
his stated aims, Wright's tenuous or inadequate conceptualisations of
'exploitation' never enabled him to relate his class analysis to capitalist
dynamics. In the 1976 map the nature of this relationship is effectively
characterised as one of domination, while in the 1985 map it is that of the
market relationship of owner to propertyless wage labourer. This is a move
away from a strongly to a weakly relational class schema - and a reconciliation
with Weberian class analysis.
Wright, Goldthorpe and their various co-researchers have produced
valuable and insightful findings from their research programmes. I have
suggested that they can be incorporated into the much more theoretically and
politically ambitious project of Marxist class analysis, built around a modified
form of the labour theory of value. However, I am sensitive to the objection
that much work still needs to be done to demonstrate the fruitfulness of
Marxist class analysis.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Rosemary Crompton, Stephen Edgell and anonymous referees who

commented on earlier drafts but, of course, they share no responsibility for my errors
and misunderstandings.
Notes
1. Note that these four classes do not form an ordered hierarchy but that is not a
reason for judging them to be relational , any more than this being a relevant
criterion in the case of the Goldthorpe schema (Crompton 1993:59).
2. The distinction between descriptive and weakly relational class schemata is one of
degree of theoretical explicitness and coherence of the research programme to
which it is applied. For example, to regard inequalities in post-tax incomes as
pertinent makes presumptions, at least implicitly, about disposability and
household sharing - though defining 'classes' by reference to the those above
and below the median is to introduce a criterion of no sociological significance.
On the other hand, drawing the distinction at the level of unemployment benefit
could make it into a weakly relational class schema, if, for example, there were a
88 JON GUBBAY
research programme to investigate relationships between low wages and work

discipline, labour mobility and household composition.
3. Scott estimates that the core of the capitalist class is only around 0.1% of the
adult population (1991:82).
References
Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital . New York: Monthly Review Press.
Burris, V. 1987. 'The Neo-Marxist Synthesis of Marx and Weber on Class' in N.
Wiley (ed.) The Marx-Weber Debate. Newbury Park: Sage.
Carchedi, G. 1977. On the Economic Identification of Social Classes. London:
Routledge.
Carchedi, G. 1986. 'Two Models of Class Analysis', Capital and Class 29:195-215.
Cliff, T. 1974. State Capitalism in Russia. London: Pluto.
Crompton, R. 1993. Class and Stratification. Cambridge: Polity.
Crompton, R. and Gubbay, J. 1977. Economy and Class Structure. London:
Macmillan.
Edgell, S. 1993. Class. London: Routledge.
Erikson, R. and Goldthorpe, J. H. 1993. The Constant Flux. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Goldthorpe, J. H. 1983. 'Women and Class Analysis: In Defence of the Conventional
View', Sociology 17: 465-88.
Goldthorpe, J. H. (With C. Llewellyn and C. Payne) 1980. Social Mobility and Class
Structure in Modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon.
Goldthorpe, J. H. and Marshall, G. 1992. The Promising Future of Class
Analysis: A Response to Recent Critiques', Sociology 26:381-400.
Gough, I. 1975. 'State Expenditure in Advanced Capitalism , New Left Review
92:53-94.
Gubbay, J. 1990. 'A Marxian Analysis of National Income and Expenditure', in D.
Cooper & T. Hopper (eds.) Critical Accounts. London: Macmillan.
Harman, C. 1984. Explaining the Crisis. London: Bookmarks.
Hirsch, J. 1978. 'The State Apparatus and Social Reproduction: Elements of a
Theory of the Bourgeois State', in J. Holloway and S. Picciotto (eds.) State and
Capital : A Marxist Debate. London: Edward Arnold.
Hodgson, G. 1981. 'Labour and Profits', in I. Steedman et al. (eds.) The Value
Controversy. London: New Left Books.
Mandel, E. 1962. Marxist Economic Theory. London: Merlin.
Marshall, G. et al. 1988. Social Class in Modern Britain. London: Hutchinson.
Marshall, G., Roberts, S. and Burgoyne, C. 1996. 'Social Class and the
Underclass in Britain and the USA', British Journal of Sociology 47:22-44.
Morris, L. and Scott, J. 1996. 'The Attenuation of Class Analysis: Some Comments
on G. Marshall, S. Roberts and C. Burgoyne "Social Class and the Underclass in
Britain and the USA"', British Journal of Sociology 47:45-55.
Pähl, R. 1993. 'Does Class Analysis Without Class Theory Have a Promising Future?
A Reply to Goldthorpe and Marshall', Sociology 27:253-58
Payne, G. 1996. 'Investing in Class Analysis Futures', Sociology 30:339-54.
Poulantzas, N. 1975. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: New Left Books.
Roemer, J. 1982. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Reuten, G. and Williams, M. 1989. Value torm and the ótate. London: Koutledge.
Scott, J. 1991. Who Rules Britain? Cambridge: Polity.
Scott, J. 1994. 'Class Analysis: Back to the Future', Sociology 28: 933-42.
Smith, P. 1978. 'Domestic Labour and Marx's Theory of Value', in A. Kuhn and A.
Wölpe (eds.)j Feminism and Materialism. London: Routledge.
Steedman, I. 1977. Marx after Sraffa. London: New Left Books.
Waters, M. 1991. 'Collapse and Convergence in Class Theory', Theory and Society
20:141-72.
Wright, E. O. 1976. 'Class Boundaries in Advanced Capitalist Societies', New Left
Review 98:3-41.
Wright, E. O. 1979a. Class Structure and Income Determination. New York, Academic
Press.
Wright, E. O. 1979b. 'The Value Controversy and Social Research', New Left Review
116:53-82.
Wright, E. O. 1981. 'Reconsiderations', in I. Steedman et al. The Value Controversy.
London: Verso.
Wright, E. O. 1985. Classes. London: Verso.
Wright, E. O. 'Rethinking the Concept of Class Structure', in E. O. Wright (ed.)
1989. The Debate on Classes. London/New York: Verso.
Biographical note : JON GUBBAY is Lecturer in Sociology at the University of East

Anglia. His current research activity is in political economy, social surveys and
curricula and pedagogy in higher education.
Address: School of Economic and Social Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich
NR4 7TJ.

A Marxist Critique of Weberian Class Analyses, Jon Gubbay (1997)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Marxist Critique of Weberian Class Analyses, Jon Gubbay (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A MARXIST CRITIQUE OF WEBERIAN CLASS ANALYSES

Author(s): Jon Gubbay

A MARXIST CRITIQUE OF WEBERIAN

Keywords: class analysis, Marxism, exploitation, labour values.

Goldthorpe's Rejection of 'Marxist Class Analysis'

... it explores the interconnections between positions defined by employment

They foreswear any assumption that class is crucially causal to life-chances,

1 . ... all class relations must be necessarily and exclusively antagonistic

3. ... political action . . . can be understood simply as the unmediated expression

A simple but serious objection is that the 'available evidence' is nowhere

classes as related to one another in interactive processes and powers. In his

Elements of Marxist Class Analysis

I earlier defined the project of Marxist class analysis as that of identifying

regenerated as a differentiated and related whole rather than as an aggregate of

Critique of Wright's Weberian Synthesis

Wright is a crucial figure in recent debates on class analysis since he is widely

productive assets. This conceptualisation of 'exploitation' is weakly relational

of organisational assets could be separate bases for exploitation because of the

Crompton, in a critical comment on the efforts of Marshall et al (1988) to

work, except at the level of metatheory. The methodological consideration is

The Promising Future of Marxist Class Analysis

Weberian class analysis, as exemplified in the empirical research of both

It may be useful, in drawing this section to a close, to suggest ways in which

presentation of Marxism, is admittedly quite abstract so it calls for a com-

I am grateful to Rosemary Crompton, Stephen Edgell and anonymous referees who

research programme to investigate relationships between low wages and work

Biographical note : JON GUBBAY is Lecturer in Sociology at the University of East

You might also like