Erik Olin Wright - Class Crisis & The State (1996)

er Class, Crisis and the State 4» ERIK OLIN WRIGHTTomy parents st pale by Lah ake 8 PRP prea 12 Se On wea 78 ‘ite resend serve Lenten si London SHR cee of heen New tor NY 0m, ‘ers the inp of ew et Books ison-sel-m0-9 (=) a Publication Data, ae er shoo slate Wom he Bah LIbey -Acatatogue tor or is boot yall Library of Congres Catloging.n-Plcaton Data eaten ney neon eave rom the brary ol Cores ited in Great tai by Bees Li rr Contents Chapter 1 : Methodological Introduction 9 Linking Theory to Data in Social Research a Modes of Determination and Models f Determination 15 1 Structural linitation 6 2, Selection i" 5 Repoduction/non reproduction B 4 Limite of functional compatiblity iB 5 Transirmation a 6; Mediation 2B ‘Themes of the Book 26 Chapter 2 ‘The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalist Societies 30 Poulantes's Theory ofthe Structural Determination or Class 2 General Framework 2 Structural Determination ofthe Working Cass and New Petty Bourges a Structural Determination ofthe Bourgeise a Assessment and Critique of Poulantas's Analysis 42‘The Boundary Between the Working Class and the ‘New Petty Bourgeoisie “ ‘The Class Unity of the New and Traditional ‘ss Petty Bourgeoisie ‘The Class Boundary ofthe Bourgeoisie 39 sn Aurnatve Conception of Cat a Boundari Contradictory Locations within Class Relations a ‘The Processes of Class Relations 64 ‘The Analysis of Contradictory Locations within 7 Class Relations Class Interests and the Definition of Class Positions 87 Immediate and Fundamental Clas Interests 88 ‘The Class Location of Positions not Directly Determined by Production Relations a ‘Bxtended Definitions of Classes Class Structure and Class Struggle 98 Class Interests and Class Capacities Class Structure, Class Formation and Class Struggle 102 Conelusion baal re Chapter 3 Historical Transformations of Capitalist Crisis Tendencies Introduction IL, The Meaning of Accumulation 4, Capitalist Social Relations 2, Surplus Value II, Impediments and Contradictions in the Accumulation Process 1. The Organic Composition of Capital and the Falling Rate of Profit 2. Undereonsumption Theories of Beonomic Cr 3. Theories of the Profit Squeeze 4 State Expenditures and Accumulation IIL. The Development of Capitalism and the Impediments to Accumulation 1, The Transition from Simple Commodity Production to Expanded Reproduction 2, The Transition from Primitive Accumulation to Manufacture 3. The Transition from Manufacture to Machinofacture 4. The Rise of Consolidation of Monopoly Capital 5. Advanced Monopoly Capitalism Chapter 4 Bureaucracy and the State Weber's Argument a ut us us 14 124 126 138 aT 163 170 im im 173 178 181 183Lenin's Argument ‘Comparisons ‘The Determinants of Organizational Structure ‘The Nature ofthe State and Polities Elite-Organization versus Class Structure Organizational Form and Accountability ‘The Meaning of Contradictions and the Limits on the Possible Elements of a Synthesis: Class Struggle and Organizational Structure Chapter 5 secana Conclusion: Socialist Strategies an: the State in Advanced Capitalist Societies Bibliography Index 194 208 210 213 219 228 255 261 Acknowledgements All intellectual production is ultimately a social process, but I feel that this book has been especialy shaped by the collective ‘exchanges I have had over the past five years, Each of the ‘chapters in this book went through many versions before com pletion, and each version benefited tremendously from thecriti- fal comments I received from many people, I am especially indebted to the San Francisco Bay Area Kapitalistte Col lective, which has unquestionably been the richest forum for the development of many of the ideas inthis book. I would also like to express my special gratitude to Michael Burawoy, Manuel Castes, Roger Friedland, David Gold, Andy Levine and Luca Perrone forthe intensive debates we have had on all aspects of this work. In addition, the following people have read various pieces of the book and given me comments and suggestions ‘hich in one way or another are embodied in the final product; Daniel Bertaux, Kathy Blee, Sam Bowles, Amy Bridges, Winnie Breines, Jens Christiansen, Al Gedicks, Barbara Heyns, Alex Hicks, Rebocea Kharkov, Robert L. Kahn, Ira Katanelson, Margaret Levi, Clarence Lo, John Mollenkop, Jim O'Connor, ‘Claus Offe, Nicos Poulantzas, Adam Praeworeki, Michael Reich, ‘Jesse Schwartz, Michael Soref, Arthur Stincheombe, Al S2y: manski, Goran Therborn, Kay Trimberger, Alan Wolfe, Marcia Kahn Wright, Glen Yago, and Maurice Zeitlin. Finally, I would like to thank the editors of New Left Review, especially Perry Anderson, for their extremely conscientious and insightful comments on the original manuseript ofthis book. Most of the theoretical developments in the text over the past year were directly provoked by their criticisms.1 Methodological Introduction ‘The essays in this book have been heavily shaped by the academic context in which they were written. As a graduate ‘student in sociology Ionstantly confronted the hegemony of an empiricist, positivist epistemology in the social sciences. In virtually every debate over Marxist ideas, at some point I would beasked, “prove it!” Tothe extent that Marxist categories could be crystallized into “testable hypotheses", non-Marxists were willing (sometimes) to take those ideas seriously to the extent that debate raged simply at the level of theory, non-Marxists {ound it relatively easy to dismiss our challenges. ‘Marxists in the social sciences reacted to these pressures in| several distinct ways. Perhaps the dominant response was to dismiss the attacks ofnon-Marxist social scientists as reflecting bourgeois ideology and/or a positivist methodology. It was ‘common in Marxist student circles to argue thatthe very enterprise of formulating “testable hypotheses” was inimical to a Marxist methodology. Historical and dialectical explanation was counterposed to predictive, linear explanations. Perticular ‘hostility was reserved forthe battery of quantitative techniques ‘used in American sociology: even to use regression equations in ‘a research project was to abandon the essence of Marxism. The demand that we prove theoretical claims through empirically testable propositions, therefore, was treated as purely ideologi cal. To accept the demand would be to give up the battle by. accepting the methodological principles of positivist social10 second response was to try to generate empirical stules war Frere our angutents to even the rostatobborn ich wont clr importance inthis vein was the [age compe ope structure eden rode the 18605 an nur fod enticing pluralist interest group theory. Such sar tibuted greatly to legitimating the use of certain Ais (Srtegric in social research ato demonstrating the Merpeica character of much plaralist theory, But as many idee ln of auch yesearth have stressed, much of the Marni si charactar of Marsst shor was loti the proces. dare ange part of such Marxist empirical work am be rey Marult categories withoutusing Marzist theory Sr aN ore a third alternative: the attempt to develop cenit Rsurch agendas firmly rooted within not only the emir tthe log of Maras theory. Such an approach sarc the positivist premise tht theory construction is oe ee ae empirical generatization of Taviike rest TERR wound alee init that Marxist theory should gem Laritis et Mons about the real world whichcanbeempirically studied it ied strategy is only begining inthe United States. In ee aterapsimultencoaly to engage n debate with sree in sonal theory and to develop 0 ssl of empirical mainstream ich advances Marrst theory. Potentially, the Tessar sunernted by this orientation may become ah Im. ea Sputionby North American Marxist toMarsist steal LA few xamgle of empirical stein his hid mae nae Micha ned Reena ond the Whe Income Distribution, PD. Di ao ec eos Harvard Univer, 17 Boge Pid Freee cere dS Ctrl the War on Poverty Polit and edhe Petre ant Clans Power ond the Corl Ci: Ti Com Sei el 6 Ne. © Goat Pu. Dnaraton, Deprtment of Sede, ‘Garvey ssi Mehl rey Te Croan Cnet aa ec tonfaron te Shoptlo, 1005-1975 PD. Dewan, Cian ee Gary of Csengo 070; Pik Ob Weigh and Pe Seta Sette, Sela, Osupasine © Redo in USA, ace Parnes eMgia Wal XXIV, No- 1-2, 1975, and "Mapwit Clas Quer a ec eqs Arran Sociol eve Vl 2, No, ca nt Hts Cit, Schon ih Coptat Amerie, Hew HITE tl Aleede Del Rie, Clar Strut na lea Poles in Chile, yee rs PRD. Daserton, Department of Ssilagy, University of Wie Stn eben ee Methodological Introduction 11 ‘the essays in this book should be seen, in part, as con- tributing to the formation of this third response to positivist Social scence, While none ofthe essays constitutes an empirical Investigation ofa specific historical or structural problem, they fare ll intended to help establish the theoretical preconditions for such investigations, "The development of a stronger tradition of theoretically- structured empirical investigation within Marxism has three important preconditions: first, itis necessary that Marxists develop a broad range of research competences so that they can {n fact conduct empirical investigations in a sophisticated and fensitive way. Second, itis essential to have a deep grasp of ‘Marxist theory, so that the propositions developed do not merely tap the surface level of Marxist categories but are in fact systematically inked tothe inner logicof the theory itself. Finally, it is important to know how to link that theory to concrete research agendas. The essay’ inthis book are primarily relev- fant to the second and third of these issues. In order to under- Stand how they attempt to accomplish this, it will be helpful to ‘examine briefly the methodology of theory-construction which ‘underlies ther. Linking Theory to Data in Social Research One ofthe central epistemological premises of Marxist theory is the distinction between the "level of appearances" and the underlying social reality which produces those appearances. ‘This is not to say that “appearances” are purely ephemeral, inconsequential mystifications. On the contrary, the immediately encountered social experience of everyday life is extremely important, People starve “at the level of appear- lances", even if that starvation is produced through a social ‘dynamic which isnot immediately observable. The point ofthe distinction between appearances and underlying reality is not Inmeking he dsnton between “apparancs” anda nderying st tsrlteity Tam tinendingsongne tra ape nag oases ae ticgwurderocsonesene Poe pinot the iano weeps Ree pent eer ener nana ‘Shiota Maras srl ery shld grounded ina reveatan ot Sumy of escent Sy Gehan sn ieSS ™~—Srlts—esésSés 2 to dismiss appearances, but rather to provide a bass for their (egienation The central claim is thatthe vas aray of mpi: cael nomena immediately bservable in social life canonls be eetiined if we analyae the social reality hidden behind those srrirances It we remain entirely atte level of appearances sep eer tbe able to describe social phenomena, and even predict Those phenomena, but we cannot explain them arene then, have generally stressed the importance of ernkarsting a theory of the underlying structures of social rela: daar ng contradictions embedded in those structures, of the Hone Gi which. those underlying, structures generate the Jopearances which people encounter in everyday life, The aera grample of such an analysis is, ofcourse, Marx's dis: dees of surplus value in Capital: the equality of exchange salons (commodity relations) in the capitalist market hides Treaty relations of exploitation within production. One can ney caily predict exchange relations by simply investigating Heese ee operating atthe level of the market indeed, this carat the essential projects of neoclassical economics) but 19 soaee to explain them it is necessary to explore the dynamics mnbedded in production relations themselves ‘ts one thing to make the epistemological claim that explanation requires the decoding of hidden contradictions; it is candor to develop « strategy for studying the social world sich allows one to link systematically such underlying strucy wee processes to empirically observable phenomena, General tara Pr gpout moving from the concrete to the abstract and saa the concrete are not very helpful. The problem is how to pac rom the concrete to the abstract, and how to move back, eye relabecnce of @ coherent strategy for linking «ys ‘twmatically the abstractions of Marxist theory to concrete ermah, two problems are likely to arise. On the one hand, Mornict theory often tends to become very ideological and seePatable eo transformation from empirical study. The fre There na vast ieratare nthe piswophy f scenes hich da wth ee oa. ikecctonpbaeneen explanation, preicton and sep these er ge of ps sell sae, m hee ems tan Gn fe toro een ean an preictin, Mars 2 sallagaing thy th rail anton tte the Sw, For wal Sn oer hana tyne Ras Kee and Jobe Urry, Soe Thor of SESE Tandon 970 opel Pot Methodological Introduction 13 quentimpressionn Maris research hat llth anawersare Fregven are now pir fo the investigation, iat eat Pesta he rn ofthe metodo distance between he Tener! theory andthe acts of hry: On the her hae, tart remrch often becomes poy deste ent Dating only marginal fo he developmen of Marais theory Hisreal ovement re rchy donb ing Marit ‘Stogorie bu thse desertion Se ificalto ransate to Sestrmatins af theory, While one should ot exaggerte ereeetttndenses nevertheless th advancement of Mart theory at ear npr retarded by telack cer stategie trinity ar inorder to feta the development of sich straepes within Maram, ovo general tks ave ngrtant Fist Sewn na there me. in ne frehensbleway. This may nestle theopacty afm Hota thereat wrk oa tremens stare tuingech work os ass fr syeremate pire nvesigaton, par Teta, it serial itingich within Mars teen tonumption or premises whch are net sujet to ta ization by hse veto aa propos wh tre andi s important foiinguith betwen deintone of Soncopls and propston aot the cncept. Tobe sr thera debate over the defn of concrpts an theo cel deltas nu te oes grams he sa wold are felted. Deintons sould not be sbtary. bd a theory of tril sutures nfuenens the very dfs oe src: ‘tre. Neverbelen the ho typey of theoretical dacssion Shoulda be cofied, a lea the gin to develop ‘erie ton afl itch nora fran concn xe a ee a Seeman cupettatin a nia Eien ail Gray ole aaterng dat rm te pase the real“ conceptual apparatus that can be used in empirical research Srl seer, is not enough. Te is also important to desea, ore apsemati way of understanding the causal deree® Syeoreen te structural categories of Marxist theory rant tor appearances tapped empirical investigation ar tneMtorcalinvetigation gathers data atthe Tevel of That ey definition: events, personal tes, manifest eon vale inntana rangement, demngapic sre onr and soon. In some sense these Phenomena con- sting estructural eations Te probe isto define ‘tate vTonatically what veffets” means, If empirical inves: rane drely linked to the logic ofthe theory te tigation a ger rigor in understanding the Tog of cau gy imple inthe theory is necessary. 1 ti hin direction have ben made by Lou Althus sccm ther svcalled structurale Maraits, The concepts oer a ctermination and, more oad, sructral causal, coor iedat leant preliminary formalatonof thereltion- aa rovaeneructrevand thee maifesteects,"Thisconcept snpbetigy however, hasbeen very feat touse explicitly n sei Nclstadien Whilethismaybedvepartallytothehighlevel erperetfon at which Althusser and others have discussed Tre ecent,isalgoduetocertainproblemsintheconcptval theseconet tural causality scl particular, the global ‘ean of Srustral causality contain within ill several wrt orms of causality. In order to make the concet of cri, aT cataaliyacesilefor empirical research, therefore, st GS aken downintothsaplualtyotypesofenustin. hinting ems ee Re Spree cn ces ra al St Spotty a rsa species ene i fen fort rsa Spar Sid ie mr ing Cone tendon 1970 pp. 186.188, Methodological Introduction 15 Modes of Determination and Models of Deter- mination What follows is a provisional attempt at elaborating a more ‘differentiated schema of structural causality compatible with Marxist theory. The discussion will revolve around what I shall, label "modes of determination”, that is, a series of distinct relationships of determination among the structural categories of Marxist theory and between those categories and the appear- ‘ances of empirical investigation. These diverse modes of deter- ‘mination will then be organized into what can be called “models oT determination”, that is, schematic representations of the ‘complex interconnectionsof the various modesof determination {involved in a given structural process. Such models of deter mination can be considered symbolic maps of sehat Althus- Serians have generally referred to as "structured totaities' ‘Before discussing these diverse modes of determination, i ‘must be emphasized that the schematie diagrams representing the models of determination are largely heuristie devices. They are designed to make explicit those linkages among categories ‘which are either vague or implicit in theoretical statements ‘The diagrams themselves may appear to be highly mechanistic and rigid, not allowing for the dynamic movements which lie at the heart of a dialectical view of history. The intention, however, isto develop a way of representing the structural con- Straints and contradictions present in a given society which ‘ake that dynamic movement a non-random process. ‘At least six basic modes of determination can be dis: tinguished within the global concept of structural causality structural limitation, selection, reproduction nonreproduction, Timits of functional compatibility, transformation and medi ‘ation, While these modes of determination are highly interde- pendent, and thus a full understanding of any one of them Presupposes an understanding of all, nevertheless it will be helpful to define each of them. 1, Structural Limitation: This constitutes a pattern of deter- ‘mination in which some social structure establishes limitsSEC” °°» | 16 within which some other structure of process can vary, snd wea Tishes probabilities forthe specifi structures or processes Pea arervoraible within those limita. That i, structural lim a tapes that certain forms of the determined structare Hae an pxcluded entirely and some possible forms are more wy than others. This pattern of determination is speci sae fan for understanding the sense in which economis S0=, immportsimately” determine political and ideological struc, tres mnie structures set Limits on the possible forms of ‘esl and idesogiel structures, and make some 9 He pe ore more Likely than other, but toy donot ay oss foma mechanistic manner any given form of political fand ideological relations. eet ckample of such structurallimitatondetormina¥on eee Shahin between the economic structare andthe frre the relate im feudal society. Given the nature of esoneme oF teeta caasiealfeudalism—the control of the immedione relation’ suction bythe peasantry, the appropriation of = roan product throogh cerion the limited amount of 0 oe aoe rea representative democracy with universal sf area! stracturally impossible ata form ofthe sta, 6: ra a the structural limits established by economic suse felt out those Timits, however,» fairly wide variety of sare i could occur, ranging from highly decentralized state forms ome of politcal rue, to relatively centralized ari ates, While the given structure of feudal econone Aeon ay have shaped the likelihood of diferent spec ‘lations feudal state, it did not determine uniquely which form occurred, —m oceretTimitation does not imply that every structarsy pnb frm ofthe tate (or other structare determine! © Bosse guctural limitation) is necessarily functions Oy relation action ofthe determining structure, We shal! deat the reprosifcetion in come detail below in the discussion of sree En functional compatibility” as mode of determination ramen itis simply important o note thatthe range oF For the migy limited possibilities and the range of fonctions) AGUlniities do not necessarily coincide, Tn fats part of oor ros ting of the concept of “contradiction” will bings 0” asersious wasn which @non-correspondence Between sae Methodological Introduction 17 ‘ural and functional imitation is generated, More on this later. 2. Selection Selection constitutes those sei] mechanisms ae ee ce ofouconen arin theorems care Sec mn in ay ed rane ‘Benes In senor election en e seen ava form of sean Soe ene wee yiantsith iit Muchathe ora MeofapeiteNstarel conjunctarer canbe thos a anulaatons of the concrete patterns of section that occur sin aly Eine inte ear to complementaryformaof leon”, which an eee er rmsenive selections: Negative selec oe ere thos mchanims which exclude certain pom LonitoePontive election, on the other hand, involve some mich Jetermine specie outers artong eos Bee a ponte, What ie typically refered to a "exson- ‘ing pee” revolve round proc of postive ele in Tenis con sien dere theca sac ones want deemied y Arty llantetio of selection can be seen in the si ao Corie strucure tes and rl Feta econ the sata structure and class struggle! the one see ctareaabishes mite variation om both lass sera dehestrataect testa: theater turn atoasa Se erE chants on ore of cass struggle shaping those SS ein mis established hy the underying enna sree Taeue paar determination ave iistatedin the ole model af determination in Figure 11 {7s ditt nen tie ad ne sgt ek af as ie Ewe Src Plo he Ct SRE Weyer el Sa, Ve ‘ew im phi sa cSt ond Gott x Moser Copan, Litt SE Oe ar de tr praises ne tees tel eet in rates a ae a te eal ito, on Tors Ree me aneng ie ne pak Spe Seely lated fo th dcion of lt "faminaton What She Ruling Cars do when Rae Landos 1913 ive election daivestaratly18 cass stRUGCLE oN Srare omic, —___________> , STATE ay. STRUCTURE Tiiion rama Comte elation, only certain forms of elas toggle ia eee jon/non eproduction non-reproduction: Reproduct et open ie of Setrmination Chak ci mtation and sleaion, To aay that one sracre aaa iveduce aotner implies that the reproducing {uncon pects the reprvoaced structure from changing SRE eye To ny tat he aati te certain Fon juces capitalist economic relaons means that ample repretccgnomie relations from changing sto no Capit ‘list economic relations, and furthermore, that in the Sence of sess the economic structure Senco sacha reproduction proc ret seer Tk nt neitaby) would change in sch WAYS: Pert om Us alo Kind of imiing process Methodological Introduction 19 tains the reproduced structure within certain limits of variation. The essential difference from structural limitation is that in the latter case there is no presumption that the determined structure would necessarily change in the absence of the specific structural limitation process, whereas in the ease of reproduction such changes would normally occur. Reproduction/non-reproduction is symbolized in Figure 12 Economic STRUCTURE mvc | Topedacen nonrepasiin| Figure 1.2 Mustration of Reproduction non-reproduction and Limitation as Modes of Determination ‘To say that the capitalist state is necessary for the reproduction of capitalist economic relations is not to say that the capitalist state always functions in a perfectly optimal way for the reproduction of those economic relations. Itis quite possible forthe effects ofthe state to be far less than optimal, and even, under certain circumstances, for it to become non-reproductive, Reptoduction/non-repreduetion must therefore be understood asa variable relation of determination, not an absolute one. 4. Limits of functional compatibility: If the state is not always optimally functional for the reproduction of economic rela tons—indeed, if it is possible for the state to become non- reproductive—then we need same way of expressing. the processes which determine which forms ofthe state will be fune- tional and in what ways. This is what is meant by "limits of functional compatibility”: the mode of determination which determines which forms of the state will be reproductive and which non-reproductive, Stated in somewhat different terms, limits of functional compatibility determine what the effects of given structure of the state will be on economic structures ‘This relation is illustrated in Figure 1.3 over the page.Economic > STRUCTURE | sepradacionnonrepraion ii ofan ‘ompatlty Figure 1.3. Mlustration of Limits of Functional Compatibility + expresed in this model of determination, the economic Ae rere eth eta imi of variation onthe sructre ofthe SS tu determines the extant to whih it wil te be Fepro- see, Wythe actual structure ofthe state which emerges. The SeSEEI sue i that these tro made of determination donot Secures. he iit a fnstiona empty re ae lcally eordineted withthe Limits of structural va ae caeinis gency whet makes possible fora frm ofthe “eee tnerge which is non neproductive of economic stu TEE (0ST tra atractaralcontradieton to exist between eee ac and polticel structures When uch situation arises, Serer cre wl ccc a faily rapid transformation of the seNGhnestrvturesor the structures ofthe state willbe altered senmle shih make st once more reproductive. To a large sa tata stragte determines which of these ootsomes wl infact occur. 0 apleofimiteoffinetional compatibility asa mode cf Adermination i the relationship of the state t economic Sistas nth transition from feudalism toeapitalism: nthe sae areide ofthe Absolut sate in Western Europe, these Sao Felts eoula be sonsered reproductive of limited SeSapment ofthe eaptlit made of production within a stil ‘ee read onal sructare, Perry Anderaon deseribes this ‘EIS ae fullows: “The apparent paradox of Absolution in Wetete Europe was that ie fundamentally represented an wrenettas forthe protection of arsberatic property and SPpaTaee, yt atthe same time the means whereby this pro- Methodological Introduction 21 tection was promoted could simultaneously ensure the basic interests of the nascent mercantile and manufacturing classes... There was always a potential field of compatibility at this stage between the nature and programme ofthe Absolut- ist State and the operations of mercantile and manufacturing capital.” Ascapitalism expanded, however, the Absolutist state increasingly became an obstacle to capital accumulation. "Its feudal character constantly ended by frustrating and falsifying its promises for capital. In our terms, this structure ofthe state gradually became non-reproductive of the emerging economic Felations even though it stil fell within the structural limits of variation, The eventual result was the bourgeois revalutions: ‘the resolution ofthe functional incompatibility ofthe Absolutist state through its violent transformation. 5. Transformation: Transformation refers to a mode of deter. rmination by which class struggle (practices) directly affect the processes of structural limitation, selection and reproduction/non-reproduction. Transformation is thus fundamental to the dialectical character of patterns of determination as understood in Marxist theory: class struggle, which is itself structurally limited and selected by various social structures, simultaneously reshapesthose structures. The word “simultaneously” is important in this formulation: social structures do not first structurally limit and select class strugele, after which class struggle transforms those struc: ‘tures, Class struggle is intrinsically a process of transformation of structures, and thus the very process which sets limits on ‘lass struggle is at the same time transformed by the struggles 0 limited. This dialectical relationship between transformation and limitation is represented in Figure 1.4 It ia especially important to understand the relationship between the concept of “contradiction” and the notion of trans: formation. In our discussion of limits of functional compatibility, [argued that the potential non-correspondence between structural limitation and limits of functional compatibility ‘as modes of determination made possible the contradictions between structures. For that possibility to become actualized, Lineage of the Absolut Siete, London 1974, yp. 40-42 LASS STRUGGLE sat} ——!0s§ + —* Srare SNe srRUCTURE STRUCTURE | « —anammmnercion 1 a Fsional cpa Mode of Deter Figure 14 Dlustration of Transformation a ‘mination however, class struggle must affect social structures through relations of transformation, Class struggles are, above all, Struggles over social structures, This means that even if at given point in time the structure ofthe state falls within the Limits of functional compatibility determined by economic structures there is no reason for that compatibility to be auto: matically reproduced over time. Class struggles transform teonomie relations, thus changing the reproduction require: iments themselves; and class struggle transforms the state, thus aking it potentially les reproductive over time. There is thus fr aystematic tendency for the contradictions between classes {clase struggle) to generate contradictions between social struc- tres (non-reproduetive relations of determination) "To describe a mode of determination as transformation does rot imply that a particular structure will in fact necessarily be Methodological Introduction 23 transformed. In the case illustrated in Figure 1.4, the trans- ormation of state structures i a consequence of class strug, ‘and it may well happen that the forces for the maintenance of ‘existing structures ofthe state may be stronger than the forces {or transformation. Defining a mode of determination asa relationship of transformation means that what is at issue is the transformation of structures, not that such transformation always takes place. 6, Mediation: Mediation isin some ways the most complex mode ‘of determination. It defines a mode of determination in which a igiven social process shapes the consequences of other social processes. A mediating process must be distinguished from ‘what is commonly called an “intervening” processor variable in sociology. This distinction is illustrated in Figure 1.5. An intervening variable is simply a variable which is causally situated between twoother variables, X causes ¥ which in turn causes Z, A mediating variable, on the other hand, is one which shapes the very relationship between two other variables: Y causes the way in which X affects Z, In a sense a mediating process can be viewed asa “contextual variable" processes of mediation deter- ‘mine the terrainon which other modes of determination operate Mediation is especially important in analysing the relationship between clas struggle and relations ofstructural limi tation, selection and reproduction. For example, it is often x py ——»2 x, 2 ‘Yanan intervening vs ‘Yana mediating vaiale Figure 1.5. The Difference between an Intervening Variable ‘and a Mediating Variable“4 ‘Lass STRUGGLE stare sraUCTURE INTERVENTIONS Figure 1.6 Ilustration of Mediation as a Mode of Deter- ‘mination ‘Methodological Introduction 25 ‘economistic and apolitical, the identical structures may fune- ton very reproductively Finally, class struggle also mediates relations of structural limitation. Structural limitation does not simply define those formsof the determined structures which are impossible; it also determines the relative likelihood of various possible forms of that structure. Class struggle can mediate this relationship and alter the pattern of probabilities. This kind of mediation is particularly important in periods of revolutionary transformation of structures. For example, after a socialist revolu- tion, a variety of new state forms are structurally possible. To the extent that the working class has a history of active participation in bourgeois democratic struggles, the likelihood that _agenuinely democratic form ofthe socialist state will emerge is increased. Ifwe take all sixof these modes of determination together, we ‘can create a model of determination of the relationships among. ‘economic structures, state structures, state interventions and. lass struggle. This model is presented in Figure 1.7. This model could ofcourse be made more complex. Other elements could be added, such as the role of ideology. Or, more complex inter- connections among the elements could be posed. For example, it could be argued that the structures of the state themselves ‘mediate the transformation relationship between class struggle land the state (i.e, the structures ofthe state shape the extent to ‘which they can be transformed by class struggle). In the pre sent context, the issue isnot so much the completeness of this, specific model of determination, but the demonstration that this, kkind of model is a useful way of clarifying the relationships ‘among elements in a theory. ‘Models of determination such asthe one illustrated in Figure 1.7 should not be thought of as the end product of a serious historical investigation, Rather they are a prelude to such research, They are designed to lay out explicitly the logic of relations to be explored ina particular historical investigation. ‘A model ofdetermination charts the terrain ofan investigation; 10, This kind of “automedition” by tae structures it analogous tothe ‘Teproducio; in both canes the characteristic of «given structure determine ‘hemajeinwhich tivated by another prcesorstucture Thislevery lowe26 Methodological Introduction 27 {it does not provide the anawers for that investigation. Concrete historical studies are essential to spell out how limitation and. selection processes operate, how class struggle transforms and. mediates those relations, how the transformation of social Structures generates non-reproductive relations, and soon. The model helps to clarify the questions tobe asked in research, and it may help to facilitate the theoretical integration of different research projects, but the actual historical research is still {sential for any genuine understanding of historical development. STATE POLICIES! INTERVENTIONS STATE STRUCTURE mediation ‘Themes of the Book ven though I will use the modes of determination discussed above throughout this book, the essay’ should not be read exclu- y sively as illustrations of a methodological strategy. The basic Substantive concern of the analysis is to understand how the historically specifie contradictions of advanced monopoly capi talism pore new possibilities and constraints for socialist ‘movements, The three core essays in this book attempt to pro- ‘Vide some ofthe critical ingredients for analysing this problem. (Chapter 2 explores the class structures of advanced capitalist societies, The pivotal issue inthe chapter is how to analyse the to Nios Poulantens discssonof the relationship lasstrugple to thestate HONS aese sate stactren a appear the rlsono he stance, Hw sel itn them a set of vitone which im delimiting te lass Sa net acateeeiyactedingtoene elects which uw ergs SEE Ste ity she tims thus se Plitea!Poner ond Sov Cane tenant ak cel cmpen main ihe aed Combined Model of Determis State Structure, State Policies and Clase Struggle ECONOMIC SinverUn rcoxomic FENG timation, Figure 17 Structure,28 class location of those positions in the social structure which are ‘often loosely labelled “middle class". The concept of “eon- tradictory locations within class relations” is introduced as @ way of understanding such positions. But classes are never simply “positions” in a social structure; classes are also social forces which transform social structures. To grasp these two aspects of class theoretically, the distinction between class interests and class capacities is developed towards the end of this chapter. This in turn provides us with the theoretical tools for tackling the fundamental question of the inter-relationship among class structure, class formation and class struggle. ‘Chapter 3 surveys a variety of Marxist theories of economic crisis and attempts to link them through an analysis of the historical transformations of the accumulation process. In different periods of capitalist development, the capital accumu lation process faced qualitatively different impediments. In ‘each period the structural solution to a given impediment ‘became the basis for new contradictions and new impediments insubsequent periods. In these terms, advanced monopoly capi talism is characterized by impediments centred on the role of, the state, the necessity for the capitalist state to move towards progressively more pervasive interventions in the accumulation process itself This gradual politicization of the accumulation process has important implications for socialist movements in the advanced capitalist countries. ‘Chapter 4 centres on the problem of understanding the inter- nal structures ofthe capitalist state, especially the bureaucratic character of those structures, The basic issue isto understand the ways in which those structures prevent the working class from using the capitalist state to realize its fundamental class interests, Toanalyse this problem, the theoretical statements of Lenin and Weber on the state are systematically compared. Finally, Chapter 5 attempts to integrate the themes of the previous three chapters. Its essential question is: in What ways, fo the specific contradictions in accumulation in advanced ‘monopoly capitalism affect the relationship between the state land the process of class formation? Is Lenin's basic assessment still correet—that the parliamentary-bureaueratic republic ultimately impedes the formation of the proletariat into a revolutionary class? Ist possible, given the new contradictions Methodological Introduction 29 of advanced capitalism, forthe left to use the capitalist state as part ofa strategy for a socialist transition? What assumptions shouldbe made about the nature f the advanced capitalist state ‘in order forthe political strategy of Eurocommunism to become ‘2 genuine strategy for socialism, and what conditions would hhave to be fulfilled for that strategy to succeed? I do not have ‘adequate answers to these complex questions. But I hope that the analyses in these essays will help to give greater theoretical precision to the questions themselves and indicate what must be done to be able to answer them more fully2 The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalist Societies [All Marxists agree that manual workers directly engaged in the production of physical commodities for private capital fall into the working class. While there may be disagreement about the politi and ideological significance of such workers in ‘advanced capitalism, everyone acknowledges that they are in fact workers, There is no such agreement about any other category of wage-earners. Some Marxists have argued that only productive manual workers should be considered part of the proletariat Others have argued that the working class {Includes low-level, outinized white-collar employees as well.’ Still others have argued that virtually all wagelabourers should be considered part of the working class." If this dis- ‘agreement were just a question of esoterie academic debates ver how best to pigeon-hole different social postions, then it ‘would matter little how these issues were eventually resolved. But classes are not merely analytical abstractions in Marxist theory; they are real social forces and they have real consequences. It mattersa great deal for our understanding of class struggle and social change exactly how classes are con- ‘eptualized and which eategories of social positions are placed in which classes. Above all it matters for developing a viable 1, For example, Nicos Pouantasin "On Soil Classes" New Lf Review 8 snd in Cloner Contrary Capri: te, Londo 181, ie AT Saynanss “Trends in te American Working Clase {Serra rnc Praca, “he nara Stra Pr ‘The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 31 socialist polities how narrow or broad the working clas i seen to be and how its relationship to other elasses is understood, ‘This chapter wil explore the problem of understanding class boundaries in advanced capitalist society. Rather than review the wide range of approaches Marxists have adopted in defining ‘lasses, I will focus primarily on the work of Nicos Poulantzas, in particular on his book Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. * ‘This work is, to my knowledge, the most systematic and thorough attempt to understand precisely the Marxist eriteria for classes in capitalist society. While there are many points in Poulantzas's argument with which I disagree, his work has the considerable merit of sharply posing the problem of defining Classes in advanced capitalism and of providing some stimulat- ing solutions. A critical discussion of Poulantzas's work can, therefore, provide a very useful starting-point for the develop” ment ofanexpliit theory ofelasses in contemporary capitalism. ‘The first section below presents an outline exposition of Poulantzas's theory of the structural determination of class. Poulantzas’s basic conclusion is that only manual, non supervisory workers who produce surplus-value directly (productive labour) should be included in the proletariat, Other categories of wage-labourers (unproduetive employees, mental Tnbour, supervisory Tabour) must be placed in a separate class—either the "new" petty bourgeoisie, or in the case of ‘managers, the bourgeoisie itself. This exposition of Poulantzas, will be followed in the escond section by a general assessment, and critique of his argument, The third section presents the preliminary outlines of an alternative conceptualization of class boundaries, that hinges on the concept ofcontradictory locations within class relations. Iwill argue that not all positions in the social structure can be seen as firmly rooted in a single class; some positions occupy objectively contradictory locations be- twoen classes. The analytical task is to give such positions a precise theoretical meaning and to relate them systematically to questions of class struggle. The final section of the chapter Tinks the concept of contradictory class locations to clase struggle by developing a distinction between class interests and, class capacities. 1. For sti of clases not laced here se Bioeraphy.p. 255,2 Poulantzas’s Theory of the Structural Determination of Class ‘The following presentation of Poulantzas's ideas will necessarily be schematic and incomplete. I will discuss only the {erential elements of his views on class boundaries and not deal (vith a variety of other important issues which he raises (such as ‘lass fractions, the relationship of classes to state apparatuses, tte), While the exposition will lose many of the nuances of Poulantzas’s analysis, I hope that the basic contours of his argument will stand out, Critical comments will be kept to @ ‘minimum in this section. General Framework Poulantzas's analysis of social classes rests on three basi pre mises 1. Classes cannot be defined outside ofelass struggle. This, isa fundamental point, Classes are not "things", nor are they pigeon holes in a static socal structure, "Classes", Poulantzas ‘writes, “involve in one and the same process both class contradictions and class struggle; social classes do not firstly exist, fas such and only then enter into class struggle. Social classes Coincide with class practices, ie. the class struggle, and are only ‘defined in their mutual opposition." Poulantzas does not mean, by this proposition that classes can only be understood in terms ofclass consciousness. Class struggle, in Poulantzas's analysis, {does not refer to the conscious self organization of a class as a ‘social force, but rather to the antagonistic, contradictory qual ity ofthe social relations which comprise the social division of, labour. Class struggle exists even when classes are di organized, 2. Classes designate objective positions in the social division of labour. These objective positions, Poulantzas Stresses, “are independent of the will ofthese agents”. It is frucial hot to confuse the analysis of the structure of these ‘objective class positions with the analysis of the individuals {agents in Poulantzas's terminology) who occupy those positions, While both analyses are important, Poulantzas insists that "the question of who occupies a given postion, i. whois or ‘becomes bourgeois, proletarian, petty bourgeois, poor peasant, 4, Clases n Contemporary Caption. 9-4 ‘i ‘The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 33 fete, and how and when he does, ie subordinate to the first ‘aspect-—the reproduction ofthe acti positions occupied by the ‘social classes"® Poulantaas refer to the reproduction of these objective positions within the social division of labour as the “structural determination of elass”. These first two propositions taken together imply that in order to define classes itis necessary to unravel the objective positions within the antagonistic Social relations comprising the social division of labour. 9 Classes are structurally determined not only at the economic level, but at the politcal and ideological levels as well. This is perhaps the most distinctive (and problematic) part of Poulantzas's analysis. While it is true that "the economic place of the social agents has a principal role in determining social lasses", their position in ideological and politcal relations of domination and subordination may be equally important: "It ‘must be emphasized that ideological and political relations, .c. the places of political and ideological domination and subordination, are themselves part ofthe structural determination of class: there is no question of the objective place being the result only of economic place within the relations of production, while political and ideological elements belong only to [lass strugele}.”* Political and ideological factors cannot be relegated to the transformation of a “lassin-itsell™ into @ “class- foriteelf, bute at the heart ofthe very determination of class positions Given these premises the basic theoretical strategy Classes ContempararyCoptation, pa ERG RI ete amt a he cr Se oe ane aera SE conser tae Er peeesas cy erie te emseamaet ‘ahove). At any rate, throughout thi wil ue the expres apa ahr ent wih ite Heplen schema wth is assinatee! cone sate tuna, Sea ee reecePa Poulantzas adopts for analysing class boundaries centres on laborating the economic, political and ideological criteria ‘which determine objective class positions within the socal division of labour. We will first examine how Poulantzas does this for the working class and the new petty bourgeoisie, and then for the bourgeoisie, Structural Determination of Working Class and New Petty Bourgeoisie In the course of capitalist development the traditional petty bourgeoisie—independent artisans, small shopkeepers, ete.—has steadily dwindled, In its place there has arisen what Poulantzas calls the "new petty bourgeoisie”, consisting of white-collar employees, technicians, supervisors civil servants, «te, Under conditions of advanced capitalism, the crucial ques tion for understanding the structural determination of the working class, Poulantzas argues, eentres on analysing the boundary between the working class and this new segment of the petty bourgeoisie Poulantzas's argument proceeds in two steps. First, he dis cusses the economic, politcal and ideological criteria which separate the proletariat from the new petty bourgeoisie. The basic economic criterion he advances isthe distinction between, productive and unproductive labour. The basic political cr terion is the distinetion between non-supervisory and super. visory positions. The core ideological eriteron is the division between mental and manual labour. Secondly, Poulantzas dis- ‘cusses why this “new” petty bourgeoisie belongs to the same class as the traditional petty bourgeoisie. He argues that, although they appear quite different at the economic level, both the old and new petty bourgeoisie bear the same ideological rolationship to the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and this common ideological relationship is sufficient to merge them into a single class. The first argument explains why certain categories of wage-labourers should be excluded from the working class; the second explains why they should be considered members of a common class, the petty. bourgeoisie. We will examine the first of these arguments in some detail, the second more briefly. ‘The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 95 Economie Criteria Poulantzas argues that the distinction between productive and “unproductive labour defines the boundary between the working class and the new petty bourgeoisie at the economic level. All ‘workersareproductivelahourersandall unproductive labourers are new petty bourgeois (as we shall see, some productive labourers are also petty bourgeois). Poulantzas thus decisively rejects wage-labour per se as an appropriate criterion for the working class: "It is not wages that define the working class economically: wages are a form of distribution of the social product, corresponding to market relations and the forms of “contract” governing the purchase and sale of labour power. Although every worker is a wage-earner, every wage-earner is certainly not a worker, for not every wage-earner is engaged in productive labour.” Poulantzas defines productive labour in a somewhat more restrictive way than most Marxist writers: "Productive labour, in the capitalist mode of production, is labour that produces surplus-value while diretly reproducing the materat elements that serveas the substratum ofthe relation ofexploitaion: labour that is directly involved in material production by producing usewvalues that increase material wealth." The conventional efinition of productive labour by Marxists does not explicitly restrict it to labour directly implicated in material production. Poulantzas, however, argues that “labour producing surplus: valueis broadly equivalent to the process of material production inits capitalist form of existence and reproduction”. He insists that this definition is consistent with Marx’ usage of the concept of productive labour, since Marx always associated surplus-value creation with commodity production, and com- ‘modity production according to Poulantzas) is always material production, Given this definition of productive labour under capitalism, Poulantzas argues that unproductive wage-esrners must be ‘excluded from the ranks of the proletariat because they lie outside the basic capitalist relation of exploitation. In dis. ‘cussing commercial employees as an example of unproductive 20.1, ». 2, EL hid. 316, tate in origin 12 hid p 2236 labour, Poulantzas writes: “Of course, these wage-earners are themselves exploited, and their wages correspond to the repro- Quction oftheir labour-power. "The commercial worker... adds to the capitalis’s income by helping him to reduce the cost of, realizing surplus-value, inasmuch as he performs partly unpaid labour,’ Surplus labour is thus extorted from wage-earners in ‘commerce, but these are not directly exploited inthe form of the dominant capitalist relation of exploitation, the creation of surplus-value."" ‘The working class is defined by the fundamental class antagonism within capitalism between direct producers, who are separated from the means of production and produce the social surplus produet inthe form of surplus-value, land the bourgeoisie, which owns the means of production and ‘appropriates surplus-value, Unproductive wage-earners, while clearly not members of the bourgeoisie, do not contribute to the production of the surplus product. Thus they are not directly texploited in the form of the dominant capitalist relation of exploitation and so, Poulantzas argues, cannot be included in, the working class, Political Criveria ‘As Poulantzas stresses time and time again, ecqnomic criteria alone are not sufficient todefine the structural determination of class In particular, political and/or ideological criteria exclude certain categories of productive wage-carners fom the working tlass. The use of political criteria is especially important in Poulantzas's analysis of the class position of managerial and ‘supervisory labour. Within the process of material production, supervisory labour is unquestionably produetive because of its rolein coordinating and integrating the production process. But within the social division of labour, supervisory activity represents the political domination of capital over the working class: "In a word, the despotism of the factory is precisely the form taken by the domination ofthe technical division of labour by the social, such as this exists under capitalism. The work of ‘management and supervision, under capitalism, is the direct reproduction, within the process of production itself, of the poli 18 hi 22, ee ‘The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 37 tical relations between the capitalist class and the working "Flow then does Poulantzas reconcile these competing criteria? [At the economic level, supervisory labour in commodity production is exploited in the same way that manual labour ia fxpleted; but at the politcal level, supervisory labour par tispates in the domination of the working clas. Poulantzas solves this problem by turning tothe distinction between the Social division of labour and the technical division of labour. ‘While he never explicitly defines the differences between the two, the general sense is that the technical division of labour represents structural positions derived from the particular {echnologies used in production (or forces of production), ‘whereas the social division of labour is derived from the social Sreanization of production (or relationsof production). Now, itis t basic proposition of Marxist theory that "in the actual orgaa- faation of the Inbour process, the social division of labour, directly dependent upon the relation of production, dominates the technical division"” Poulantaas then argues thatthe posi tion of supervisors as exploited productive labour reflects their role in the purely technical division of labour, whereas their postion of political domination of the working class defines their role in the social division of labour. Given this assertion, he concludes that supervisors’ “principal function is that of extracting surplus-value from the workers", nd on this basis they must be exchuded fom the working class altogether. ‘Supervisors however, are azo exclided fom the bourgeoisie, for while they politically dominate the working class they are alsopolitically dominated by capital itl. This specifi positon within political relations of domination and subordina- fion—subordinated to capital while dominating the prolet- fariat—defines “the political criteria. for the new petty bourgeoisie. Ideological Criteria ‘The working class is not only exploited economically and dominated politically, itis also dominated ideologically. The central 14. bi, p27 18. dp 2838 axis ofthis ideological domination within the social division of labour is the division between mental and manual labour." Poulantzas argues that the mental/manual division excludes the working class from the "secret knovledge” ofthe production process, and that this exclusion is necessary for the repro: ‘duction of capitalist social relations. "Experts" of various sorts ‘at all stages of the production process help to legitimize the Subordination of labour to capital, by making it appear natural that workers are ineapeble of organizing produetion themselves, The division between mental and manual labour thus represents the ideological prop for the exclusion of workers from the planning and direction of the production process." Experts, are the direct carriers of this ideological domination; thus, like supervisors, they are excluded from the working class. ‘This ideological criterion is especially important in deter- ‘mining the class postion of certain categories of engineers and technicians, Engineers and technicians are generally pro ductive wage-earners, and although many of them occupy positions within the supervisory structure (and thus are new petty bourgeois because of political criteria), there are subsltern technicians who donot directly supervise anyone, Nevertheless, Poulantzas argues, because ofthe primacy ofthe social division 17 defining the mentalimanaa!Iakoue division, Poulanten writes "We oul tn any that every form of work tha tae he orm of owe Fee ‘thick the diac proces are exclude, fale en the mel lbout si othe ‘hitalt poducion prcee ieespectveatsempcl natural content and ‘Eathievo beter she direct proces tally do know how perform his Stork bt dona sags ot yehance\ orth tey inact dnt ke ow oper tine they are Sstamatialy hee oy fot whether esinchare simply nothingthaeneds ote knows iba» 28) Pocontae ‘tho very cartl ao a define ata labour "rain work and anual Intour se hand wort” Woe theres rug srreepondence between these the dations, he ental panda! dvinon must be apidered a aapect ‘hovocial divine! abou ana nt techni acta wheter massa or bate Brimariyenanand inthe labour proces Rte i pertagtonote ta clei! deminatin, Sn Houlntznse framework bas thing to i be coscouness f workers Heaogy 18 {he divin of abou between mental and nal sce conateats the ‘Mzolopcaldornination of he working aus means thatthe mara elf of {hedvistnexcluds workers trom the kowinapeeceany fr the ction ot {he production proeesOF coun och a xenon has consciences om con obi ie lve ht te ae ry nepaboe Enindion in vealifeapective ofthe Sees of worker ‘* | The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 39 of labour over the technical division, and because within the Social division of labour even subaltern technicians (as mental Tabour) occupy a position of ideological domination over the working class, they must be excluded from the proletariat and considered part of the new petty bourgeoisie, ‘The ‘mental/manual division is central to the determination of the elass position ofall mental labourers, not just technicians, engineers and the like. White-collar workers in general participate if only in residual ways, in the elevated status of men. tal labour, and thus participate in the ideological domination of the working class. Even low-level clerks and secretaries, Poulantzas insists, share in the ideological position of mental labour and thusbelong to the new petty bourgeoisie rather than the proletariat." ‘Asin the case of political eriteria, capital dominates the new petty bourgeoisie ideologically. The division between mental and manual labour simultaneously supports the ideological domination of manual labour by mental labour and’ the ideological subordination of mental labour to capital. Experts ‘may participate in the “secret knowledge” of production, but that knowledge is always fragmented and dominated by the requirements of capitalist production and reproduction The Class Unity ofthe New and Traditional Petty Bourgeoisie Poulantzas admits that it might seem strange to categorize the ‘new and traditional petty bourgeoisie in a single class. He even agrees thatthe traditional petty bourgeoisie "doesnot belong to the capitalist mode of production, but to the simple commodity form which was historically the form of transition from the feudal to the capitalist mode" How then can two groupings 28 Ts dos ot anh Pater metalnars ison Featacts He stresses hat he tema asa con &reprstoed wet {he pty tourgecse sland tht many new pty burgess te ‘Shvenaubordinted omental stourwithn ic cassee mera akan Testa labour aspect door ot fect the new ety urge io an unde SSrntated manner. Certain seeuone of are aed eet Gthet, sab septate poco mental dren nithn ent aat Letts tuba ison they alo experience share within sent Iatoor alt" tp. 256, 3h pp. 240 ‘Ramelomaenss once near t cis iyi cents tne ser at iene urn nd ac ea snithenew ne atgcesaiccntae eis ee eomeda tetesunceiene ena inbedstrea anata theron iF omen nes ase Ipiseandteprtatia ice it eh Mpa ty ena wee sy Surg Se ae he ne Mince tw nt ne ese harass of ei tad de Swi eps ara ae piviourenebaroelat hagnthneaeaiee These ens i ti ca ee sy Emin euteaeptleen tu rs the rele of capes ina Iaina her a enact ee diem Ato ieanonee te a trae burns ai ean Spo yoaton sera ghee tte olan Surv eae si ats he onan en ahem ‘Raul obarern Pula more omered hy he_deley of arent within the peay bower "Batids 238 “yt ‘The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 41 fol anal busine Powe Fetahi Aa areal sone ion of the petty bourgeoisie as an intermediateclass. esis astrong tendoney toe the state nan inbereniy ae it aree whove tle i that of abitrating between the esol cee Wh Poulanteaamtahatincrain os ideologies of the two petty bourgeoisies are different, TETeiis tht the unity fe uicently trong as to warrant Considering them a single class tural Determination ofthe Bourgeoisie Mhacesineiscsson ofthe boundary between the working Ui and the new patty bourgese Poslanaas ones on pol ittandideclogieal enter, nthe diecusson ofthe boegesse hcoentate on the rly eon evel Hs nese Masts thatthe bourgeisie must be defined notin terme fa el nse of propery oer bt tre thevubetantive dimensions which charaterie the il rela fon of production, Two such dimensions are pareary Important Bronomic Oumnership: This refers to the "veal cao contol of the means of prodction, te. the power to Ssslgn the meant production egven oss ands pose ot topo sbtainl” Sih eer voarhip mat ote ified ith gel titted property "hse ‘Stowe underssed an ral economic ownership conrel of he tmean of production ta be distinguished frm legal ownership, Irhch is santioned by law and belongs fo the superstrctie Tholam,ofenrengenerly ratifies eomomsc ownership, tt is posite forthe forme of ogal ownership ott corned with ret enomic ownership Posesion: This i defined athe Ghost to put the mean of production int operation” This felrs tothe actual onto ver the ppsicaleperaton of po- action In foal sey, the peasant generals retained pox scsi ofthe means of production white the feudal rng class teantined omar ownership capitalist society, the ther hand, he bourgeois has bth esnemi wmership ana as ie mine eh2 ponent mene of peti. Th wrkng cl i Tarte rom conte anyone od ao at Sri vey pe fio a The dines of ea ans of prdtin Lint oeeripa pmo ater ape itn mnt du an cuge™ Posy {Foe ens eat te ftlane of ep {Ey se the lee lhe thy telnet Digs espe deter i pa of cp eed arte aan fe Moti corain ees done Sas img teagan a ieee ons ‘ir tinea pts oe rs ae Favs nalig ewe eu een ‘Amtalurwadten ther noe disonote iin porn un nde te een frre rE lpn hap dt ae Para ne the pn feta he cing age iodine etch fn yer and whol he ons Feat scopy the at oop sa tly Sep cs rte tad mallets eas es eras enero fe tern ca Tolan gle hat he preci latent een sone opi ange aly Sad Sian Tn tr pes ofr ao ‘notch hn ne rcp oa pay copa nr pr eset sone Super and pono. ply te serps a phy cps sire vy teen oan ws Ereonentel ins gl coe er manages foarte ener hve ene eae rr aa ce Sy ate ee Setup Neverthe, Fanta int tht ee See Gin mere it aaa Bote tenet a pane SRLS my ng An fee The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 43 aciations that we have analysed between the relationships of ‘Stonomie ownership and possession (i.e. the direction of the Jabour process) do notin any way mean that the latter, exercised by the managers, has hecome separated from the place of eapital"! Capital remains aunitary structural postion withinelass lations even if the functions of capital have become dif. erentiated It is this structural position which fundamentally determines the class location of managers as part of the bourgeoisie Poulantzas has very little to say about the specific ideological land political criteria defining the bourgeoisie, other than that they occupy the position af ideological and political domi nation in the social division of labour. The most important Context in which Poulantzas explicitly treats such criteria isin the discussion of the heads of state apparatuses. Such postions belong in the bourgeoisie, Poulantzas argues, not because they directly oecupy the place of eapital at the economic level, but because "in @ capitalist state, they manage the state functions: in the service of capital”~" The class position of such agents is thus not defined directly by their immediate social relations of production, but rather indirectly by the relationship ofthe state HMsef to the capitalist class. Assessment and Critique of Poulantzas’s Analysis ‘The following critique of Poulantzas's analysis will parallel the foregoing exposition.” First, the logic of his analysis of the cate fie dresapn ofonopty cpa hes fp. 106-180, He ‘ters became concentrated more rapidly than the Inboue process settally ‘eamecentraizedine unserunfied direction Tharenltwesthat urng®his ‘la phase of eonanration, monopaly capt elf wan charstrard by ciate swnerabip ofthe menne of prafucion wich ony parti owere of DPmnemion. eas nt until what Pounce cls the resting prod of ‘onopty caption that sccm ownership and posesion wer aly ‘Btorated within monopey copa ace. 5 ThisasesamentofPoulnte's analysis oflase wil feuson the actal“ oundary between the working class and the new petty pourgeoisie is examined, The discussion focuses on two er ease | that there is little bass for regarding the distinction Petereen productive and unproductive labour as determining the boundary of the working class at the economic level 2. that Poulanteas’s use of political and ideological factors effectively tindermines the primacy of economic relations in determining {lace position, Seeondly, Poulantzas's claim that the traditional cal new petty bourgeois are members of the same class is Snticized on two grounds: 1. the ideological divisions between Che two categories are atleastas profound asthe commonalities; 2 while ideological relations may play a part in the deter uination of class position, they cannot neutralize divergent {Jace postions determined atthe economic level. Finally, there {sa brief examination of Poulantzas’s treatment of the boundary ofthe bourgeoisie, The main criticism made here is that Sar all managers should be considered an integral part of the ourgouisie, even if they participate in certain aspects of relations of possession. ‘The Boundary between Working Class and New Petty Bourgeoisie eusllbe helpful in our discussion of Poulantzas's perspective to present schematically the criteria he uses in analysing the Tinactural determination of classes, Table 2.1 presents the Criteria by which he defines in the most general way the work: fg class, the traditional and new petty bourgeoisie and the capitalist class. Table 2.2examines in greater detail the various Conibinations of eriteria which define different sub-categories Siithin the new petty bourgeoisie. Its important not to inter ‘Prot the categories in these typologies as constituting disrete, PInpirical “groups”. ‘This would certainly be a violation of Gnihe epstemlogclanumptions which underlie hit analy Til thus nt SEaSeE hme ths aturel concept las trie and esata desl we eiciuareat uel category ihe Maras Re ese a del wth these ess ined, om reviews of Pere a 2 are preseeupied with hese question rater than the sb Poulain work are ore tha i eae aula i point to eng [Bbienaa' work es ler level o abstraction Ye. arlouer Exot” Domine, Suter Dama” Suter. Soop Latour Vel we vn Vale” Extortd Extorted Borges SSS Prataiot yoy ot Dt opener a SEERA /> Seeman re atomeincabo “to say that sup labour i etorted fom stuns athe wir nea Keats pode ba neverteesaagsted, nee TE WHASE 1 48 ok Table 22 Various Combinations of Criteria f the New Pets urgeoiie Exploiter Exploited Domina Subor- Domne” "Su Me nage aoe Oe ae Blips Labour Value ‘ale’ Bxtorted Exar ‘abun pcris in Sctatrn mental Iatar se ‘manoallabour* + oe iabour Superson Feetmeansond Irena Frocton cho Ts cnego | (eget a46 Poulantzas's view of social classes. The purpose ofthe typologies is tohighlight the relationships among the various eriterie, not to turn the analysis of elasces and class strug into a static exercise in categorization Let us now turn to the question of Poulantzas's use of the productive/unproductive labour distinction in hisanalysisofthe boundary ofthe working class, and then to the logic of his use of political and ideological factors as criteria for class. Once these two tasks are completed, we will examine some statistical data fon the size of the proletariat in the United States using Poulantzas's eiteria, Productive and Unproduetive Labour ‘There are three basic difficulties in Poulantaas’s discussion of productive and unproductive labour: 1. problems in his defini tion of productive labour; 2 the lack of correspondence between the productive/unproductive labour distinetion and actual positions in the labour process; 3—and most significantly —the lack of fundamentally different economic interests between, productive and unproductive workers." Productive labour, o Poulantzas, restricted tolabour which both produces surplus-value and is directly involved in the Process of material production. This definition rests on the Paw “Full Contrl = No Control (See Table 27 for proce dfnitons) presents the basic relationship between the unambiguous loea- tions illustrated in Table 2.8 and the contradictory locations. In addition to the three socal processes discussed above, this chart also contains three juridical categories: legal ownership of property, legal status as the employer of labour power, and legal status as a seller of labour power. These three juridical pro- esses have been included because they so often are treated as the determinants of elass position. It must be kept in mind in referring to them that the juridical criteria are of strietly see- fondary importance; the fundamental issue remains the pat terns of contradictory locations defined by the three substantive processes of class relations. Contradictory Locations Between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie One thing is immediately obvious from Table 2.9. The contradictory quality ofa particular location within class relations isa variable rather than all-or-nothing characteristic, Certain ‘olution Forexample a raftran who work in factory on weekdays may lperate aa slterployed pat. hourgns atta on weekends and erenings, ‘White toh dul cles membersip may be smportant im cream hs "Seurstanet it der ot pane he ame Lindo algal role postions ‘hich are teteles laced na soneraditory way within clase lations.i i E The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 7 positions can be thought of as occupying a contradictory {ocation around the boundary ofthe proletariat; others as oceu- pying a contradictory location around the boundary of the bourgeoisie, "The contradictory location closest to the working class is that cof foremen and line supervisors. Foremen typically have litle real control over the physical means of production, and while they do exercise control over labour power, this frequently does not extend much beyond being the formal transmission belt for orders from above. It is difficult to say whether during the course of capitalist development over the past century, the class location of foremen has moved closer to or further from the working class. On the one hand, the early foreman often par ticipated directly in the production process alongside workers land even defended workers against arbitrary treatment by the boss. On the other hand, the foreman in the nineteenth-century factory often had much greater personal diseretion and personal power than today. In the nineteenth century, authority within the capitalist factory was typically organized in much the same ‘way as an army. There was a simple chain of command and the authority at each level was absolute with respect to the level below. Such a system Marx aptly termed “factory despotism”, and foremen in such factory had atleast the potential of being petty despots. As the capitalist enterprise grew in scale and complexity, the authority structure gradually became more bureaucratized. As Weber would put 1, foremen increasingly became the administrators of impersonal rules rather than the dispensers of personal fists Richard Edwards, in study of work norms in bureaucrati, cally structured capitalist organizations, describes this shift {in authority relations as follows: "What distinguishes modern enterprises from their earlier and eruder prototypes—and in particular, what distinguishes bureaucratic organization from simple hierarchy—is that in bureaucratically organized enterprises, the exercise of power becomes insitutionalized. External, arbitrary, personal commands from the boss are re. placed by established rules and procedures: ‘rule of law’ replaces ‘rule of personal command’. Work activities become directed by rules, Supervisors at all Ievels, no longer direct- ing the worker's activities by personal instruction, merely78 enforce the rules and evaluate (reward or penalize) their sub- ‘ordinates according to pre-established criteria for adequate work performance. More and more, the work structure is 0 that administrative control can replace executive ‘The developmentof the capitalistenterprise has thus pushed foremen in two opposing directions: they have moved Turther from workers by becoming less involved in direct production, and they have moved closer to workers by gradually hhaving their personal power bureaucratized. Superficially at Teast, it would seem thatthe first of these tendencies probably dominated during the first partof this century, while the second tendency probably dominates today. In any event, when the control of supervisors over labour power becomes so attenuated that the supervisor lacks even the capacity to invoke negative sanctions, then the position really merges with the working class proper and should no longer be thought of az a con- tradietory location, This would be the case, for example, of the chief of work team who has certain special responsibilities for coordinating activities of others in the team, but lacks any real power over them, At the other end ofthe contradictory location between work fers and capitalists, top managers occupy a contradictory loca tion at the boundary of the bourgeoisie. While top managers are generally characterized by limited participation in economic ‘ownership, they differ little from the bourgeoisie in terms of, relations of possession. Again, at the very topof the managerial hierarchy, corporate executives essentially merge with the capitalist class itself ‘The most contradictory locations between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are occupied by middle managers and what can loosely be termed “technocrats”. Technocrat in this context refers to technicians and professionals of various sorts within the corporate hierarchy who tend to have a limited degree of autonomy over their own work (minimal control over what they produce and how they produce it} and a limited control over subordinates, but who are not in command of pieces of the Productive apparatus. Middle managers, on the other hand, tontrol various pieces of the labour process; they have contral {8 Alienation and equality: Capitalist elation of Praduction in Busnes Enterprises. Phi. Dacron, Deparment! Eee Hares. 10 The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 79 not only over immediate subordinates but over part of the ‘uthority hierarchy itself. Both middle manegers and techno- rats have, in Harry Braverman’s words, one foot in the ‘ourgeoisie and one foot in the proletariat. In discussing new technical occupations and middle management, Braverman writes: "If we are to call this a ‘new middle class’, however, as any have done, we must do so with certain reservations. The ‘ld middle class occupied that position by virtue ofits place ‘outside the polar class structure; it poseessed the attributes of| neither capitalist nor worker; it played no direct role in the Capital accumulation process, whether on one side or the other. ‘This ‘new middle clas’, by contrast, occupies its intermediate position not because it is outside the process of increasing capital, but because, as part of this process, it takes its charac teristics from both sides. Not only does it receive its petty share ofthe prerogatives and rewards of capital, but it also bears the mark of the proletarian condition." Unlike line supervisors ‘and foremen on the one hand, and top managers on the other, middle managers and technocrats do not have aclear class pole to which they are attached, The contradictory quality of their class location is much more intense than in the other cases we have discussed, and asa result ie much more difficult toassess the general stance they will take within class struggle. Contradictory Locations between the Petty Bourgeoisie and Other Classes ‘The analysis of the contradictory locations between the petty bourgeoisie and other classes poses a somewhat different prob- Jem from the contradictory locations between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, since it involves locations between different ‘modes of production rather than within a single mode of production, “The contradictory location between the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie is conceptually simpler than between the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The distinctive feature of Capitalist production is the appropriation of surplus-value ‘through the exploitation of workers in the labour process. In simple commodity production, on the other hand, there is no exploitation; whatever surplus is produced is generated by the (8. Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capt» 48780 petty-hourgesis producer and his/her family. In genen true heerliiaet otvery onal anh at Sccumolaton i likely to our, When a parsehonra ducer employs single helper there san amedts eke gee the social relations of production, forthe labour ofa workey ee ‘Row be exploited. Still, the surplus-value appropriated fr na ‘single employee is likely tobe very small; most importantly, it likely to be less than the surplus product generated by the Petty-bourgeois producer him hersell This is especially thee since frequently in petty-bourgeois production a ‘considerable amount of labour is contributed by unpaid family members. As additional employees are added, the proportion of the taitt surplus pad thas yneratedby te pty burgeae gh lines At same point hecomes less then half Surplis predict, and event becomesa small rch total surplus. At that pont the pety-dourheos ee becomes firmly a small capitalist. There is noa priori basis fo . deciding how many employees are necesenry to hecomee aot capitalist. This number would vary conidesbe dts technologies employe nreductionand fondo zeros In any event between sucha sal eae aa pure petty-bourgeois producer lies the contradictory locatic 7 between the capitalist class and the petty- -bourgeoisie. 7 Thecontradictory locaton between the pety ene and the proletariat can perhaps best be understood by returning to the histori proceso of proetsriantzation of the petty he fei The ental Byam unering th aa Sea the ned of capital tinea ta cont one he Ma Process. Each step of the teansormation elses Feneaton cpl coniatn nthe uring ste rest producers, utili the case formal eee agement. the det producer has no cond whet eer "ithe work Thrice scontantybeingence ia the begioning ofthis eentany. aeamehow completed at Teday thre are sil exteores of emplayees who have a certain degree oftontal ove teirown iminadateconinen of ‘ork ovr their immediate labor praca oes ea the labour process has not been completely proletarianized ‘Ths, even though such employees work fr te le, ‘The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 81 ofcapital and even though they have lost the legal status of feing selfemployed, they can still be viewed as occupying fesidual islands of petty-bourgeois relations of production ‘thin the capitalist mode of production itself. In their immedi- te work environment, they maintain the work process of the {ndependent artisan while still being employed by capital as rage labourers. They control Aow they dotheirwork,andhaveat Teast some control over what they produce. A good example of this isa researcher in a laboratory or a professor in an elite “university. Such positions may not really involve control over ‘ther people's labour power, yet have considerable immediate tuntrol over conditions of work (i. research), More generally, ‘many white-collar technical employees and certain highly skilled craftemen have atleast a limited form ofthis autonomy in their immediate labour process. Such minimal control over the physical means of production by employees outside of the authority hierarchy constitutes the basic contradictory location between the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Whilethere issome debateon the question, it seem likely that inthe course of eapitalist development over the pas fifty years, this particular kind of contradictory location has been somewhat reduced. It is cortainly true that white-collar employees have increased as a proportion of the labour force, but as Braverman has forcefully shown, this expansion of white-collar employment has been combined with a constant proletarianization ofthe working conditions of white-collar labour. It remains to be shown whether the net effect of these two tendencies the expansion of white-collar employment and the proletarianization of white-collar work—has increased or Aecreased the contradictory locations between the working class and the petty bourgeoisie. At any’ rate, it seems almost ‘certain thatthe large majority of white-collar employees, especially clerical and secretarial employees, have—at most— trivial autonomy on thejob and thus should be placed within the ‘working class itself How much autonomy is really necessary to define a position| 1s oocupying the contradictory location between the working clase and the petty bourgeoisie? Surely the criterion of abso lutely any autonomy whatsoever is too broad. While the his- trical data on the labour process are rather meagre, it is2 through minutely subdivd utely subdivided labour process gover Principles of aceniic management Moat worker nero time, have been able to maintain at le i smn levels of contra over th over the pace of work, the scheduling a the Eontent of wrk, teCleary then a een arbitrariness will inevitably enter into ani igoronaly to define the smi autonomous emplayce cass eee ovisionally, the minimum crerion for conten which I wil adopt is that such positions must veh ees some control both over what is produced (minimal econo ownership) as well as h penning : how it is produced minimal pesconcn This meansthat postions sch as laboratarytsheien en Ret be inhi inthe sen-autonomous sear ae ae category incor anc te eer ets ow tare fp Kouta ita ean So gil ma any winamp ieee bray murano {ermal criteria are applied to such positions The somenuiense see pts! labour and this discussion of sem-autonomaus enpionces eee ‘The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 83 Several other contradictory locations could be discussed. For example, the owners of fast food and gas station franchises could beseen as occupying a contradictory location between the petty Pourgeoisie or small employers and managers. While they maintain some of the characteristics of self-employed indepen- ‘dent producers, they also become much more like functionaries for large capitalist corporations, Professors with large research grants which enable them directly to hire research assistants, teretaries, etc, could be thought of as occupying a con” fradictory location between the semi-autonomous employees fndsmall employers. Other special eases could be given, bat the ‘most important contradictory locations are the ones discussed above. ‘The Size of Contradictory Locations ‘On the basisof the same data we used to analyse the size of the working class using Poulantzas's erteria, we can make some Tough estimates ofthe sizeof the various contradictory locations within class relations, The results are presented in Figure 2.2 ‘The criteria used to operationalize the high and low estimates {or each category are given in Table 2.10. ‘Unfortunately, the survey that was available did not contain ‘any precise information on the autonomy of workers in the tense we are using that concept. The survey did, however, contain a number of questions on subjective evaluations of job characteristics, Respondents in the survey wore asked to indi- fate whether a series ofjob descriptions characterized their own job "a lot, “somewhat”, "a litte” or "not at all". Two of these descriptions bear on the question of job autonomy: “A job that allows you a lot of freedom as to how you do your work” “"Ajob that allows you to make lot of decisionson your own.” ‘These questions are obviously subjective, since it was left up ‘ordination ofthe production posts a a whale Poulatzs so ompbasies ‘hates mental atourin he senoe ofthe terme enough tas bave IER owed, te neers oactully woe ith he products proses ite founate 17 sbine. Semautonamogr emplyece are 9 thew terme ttmlayes with sch knowledge ofthe production prceesara le who bare {henge to ve-uch nos ngeon tue) Thisinwbt mesma have Imnimol contol over what produced and how tis produced[4 BouRGHOISIE Midite managers ‘Tebmcerate Foemen be spartans PROLETARIAT tases Li Figure 22 Distribution Population into Contradiet NOTE: See Table 22. for Tow estimates, \ontraictry Locations within Clas Relations of the Economically Active tory Class Locations (1968) ‘The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 85 toeach respondent todefine what “alot” means, what “freedom” means, what "decisions" means, and so on. The fact that 46 per ‘ent of the respondents say that having alt of freedom characterizes their job "a lot", and 49 per cent say that making alot of Aecisions describes thei job “alot” reflects the subjective quality ofthe questions. For the purposes ofthe present analysis, I will assume that individuals within positions which are ‘genuinely semi-autonomous will answer a lot” to Both of these [subjective job descriptions. ‘The high estimate of the contradictory location between the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie (11 per cent ofthe economically active population) includes all non-supervisory employees who score high on both. ‘ofthese descriptions. The low estimate adds information about the respondent's occupation to this subjective criterion of job autonomy. The U.S. Department of Labour has constructed a “Dictionary of Occupational Titles” (D.0.T.) which codes all ‘ecupations in terms ofthe typical relationship to data, things ‘and people whieh characterizes that occupation. The low esti- ‘mate ofthe semi-autonomous employee category (5 per cent of the economically active population) includes all non- supervisory employees who scored high on the subjective aut- ‘onomy questions and whose occupation is classified as having a complex relation todata and things inthe D.O.T. (see Table 2.10 for more detailed explanation). Because of the extreme vague- ness of the subjective autonomy question, this low estimate is probably closer to the correct proportion. "The figures forthe contradictory location between the working class and the bourgeoisie are also only rough estimates. Since all we know is whether or not the respondent supervises people, we have certainly included some positions which involve virtually no real control over labour power and thus should belong to the working class proper. We have also included some top executives in the contradictory location who should really hhave been placed in the bourgeoisie. In any event, this latter problem involves a very small proportion of the total population, perhaps 1-2 per cent ofall managers, Noquestions were asked in the survey which enable us accurately to distinguish between top managers, middle managers and technocrats, and line supervisors and foremen. We can use occupational tiles to make some erude estimates. We will assume that all super-The Clase Structure of Advanced Capitalism 87 sjsors who say that they are professionals, managers or techni Usne are probably technocrats, middle managers or top man- Geer All the rest we will assume are line supervisors or fore- seer The high estimate for this bottom category includes all Bavervicors who are not classified in the top-middle manage- isnt position; the low estimate excludes operatives and labour- {rs most of whom are probably heads of work teams rather than Ectualforemen, On the basis ofthese estimates, approximately 42 per ent of the economically active population falls into the midille manager/top manager contradictory location between ‘the working class and the bourgeoisie, while somewhere between 18 per cent and 23 per cent cccupy the contradictory location at the boundary of the working class. If we take ten. employees as the cutoff point for small capitalists, then the fontradietory location between the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie consists of about 6 per cent of the population. Ifwe take fifty employees a the cut-off, then this increases to 7 per data ano th icles operatives and labourers by lth fhe cent. ‘Overall, on the basis ofthese statistics, the working clas (i.e on-supervisory, non-autonomous employees) in the United States consists ofbetween 4] andS4 percent of theeconomically ‘active population. At the boundaries ofthe working class are {another 25-35 per cent ofthe population, depending upon which fstimates are used. The total potential class bass fora socialist ‘movement, consisting of the working class and those contradictory loctionsclosest tothe working class, is thus probably some: ‘where between 60 per cent and 70 per cent ofthe population, ployees plas atlas oa perisory employes who sare an bth quesuons nee Class Interests and the Definition of Class Positions ‘To briefly recapitulate the argument so far, we have analysed the class relations of capitalist society in terms of three pro- | cesses underlying social relations of production: control of labour power, control of the physieal means of production and control of nvestments and resources. The central class forces of || capitalist society—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat—can be ‘understood as representing polar class positions within each of these three processes, The petty bourgeoisie, on the other hand, iP is defined by the second and the third ofthese processes within simple commodity production. We then defined contradictory ‘Table 240 Criteria Used in High and Low Estimate fo Sine oC Semi-auon Enployees Managers ‘Tota88 forces within the capitalist mode of production otto the petty bourgeoisie in simple commodity production. This led to the visors occupy a contradictory location between th bourpes and the proletariat; small employers occupy such a Position between the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie; and come autonomous employees occupy a contradictory location between the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat. 7 the rtvin no far claorated. Such postions would Snelade Immediate and Fundamental Class Interests slept te glace southow ew use the term ntaents before we discuss the distinction between immedi sn fidametal eel of clas interest To make ts boutebective clase interests into meke a claim about potontad gurcvesoflssatr "makes noses salto talsbst interests” which can never beome actual abjectives of eal strigale Not ll potontal objectives of clase score: however can beconadered clas nteese, We herefor need tobe ables 72 Toul abathe eine help ey spite nse mangling ile on he epee sce hv te eon ron fier ae mr of ae Ny Ice ak sou real etisalat» na The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 89 istinguish between objective class interests and other kinds of aMoresta (potential objectives). Class interests in capitalist tovtety are those potential ajectives which become actual ob- ives of struggle in the absence of the mystfications and setortions of capitalist relations. Class interests, therefore, are {na sense hypotheses: they are hypotheses about the objectives tatraggles which would oceur ifthe actorsin the struggle had a sontfieally correct understanding oftheir situations. Tomake theclaim that socialism isin the “interests” ofthe working class {snot simply to make an ahistorical, moralistic claim that sforkers ought to be in favour of socialism, nor to make a nor- tative claim that they would be "better off” in a socialist oeiety, but rather to claim that if workers had a scientific linderstanding of the eontradictions of capitalism, they would in fact engage in struggles for socialism.” In these terms, the very definition of lass is systematically linked tothe concept of lass Struggle: to define a postion as located within the working class fs to ay that such a position can potentially sustain socialist objectives in class struggles. ‘Within this general conception of class interests itis possible to distinguish between what can be termed immediate and fundamental interests, Immediate class interests constitute interests within a given structure of social relations; fundamental interests centre on interests which call into question the structure of social Telations itself" That is, immediate {a.Tis joa eomewbt oversimplified acount of interests Mysticaton i theory fair which tev the translation o jective intents 0 scice atves within the clas struggle: The reresienes of he sate oyna eens en ec er SRitn pot i shat pone clas interes ot pnt actual ebjers ae crt Rear mrugee whith sool! emerge inthe sbence of oh ‘eine sel ost ht he te coef me ey “eine an mp non ef hw ratonlty Of ease actors (under specified Wjetine adios iba leo do wine ilerinn notions f eon 08 {llenal uty macnusng ndiduate Thar i no sim tht object SERIE Wil hore becuse Indvduals qua fdas porscnally bv ifs understanding of hte can stunt. Closs terest ca only be SERESDG Sebati pte! tgs motes teal ot imply invidone Tn stint Seven ine a nde ine ot ‘Reinurens While TEluttre “one rurstrgeon, the eral eve fo what the seve of ‘Sroade soot he time Harner thot sue90 interests are interests defined with thin « given mode duction interests which take the mod of production or ‘iven}, while fundamental interests are defined between moter stereduction ie » they call into question the mode of producti on itsel he immediate economic interests of the working clase for example, are defined largely by strugales ed largely by market relations Strugeag for wages, better living conditions, better education oppor tunes snd so forth al constitute strugles for sets fined within the base stricture of capitalism, Strugpes for scion he ter hand challenge te premises of pt ist relations and reflect the fundamental interests of . teat interests of the work almmediate interes, ae oot “a” intr they are incomplete” interests The struggle over wages reflects «cor rect understanding hy workers f their immediate conditions of xine whine thererton tug toque tions of wages, however, reflects . reflects an incomplete understand afte naar captaincy aan ifalorap possibilty of transcending the entire system of capi exploitation through socialism walnin immediate and fundamental interests interests donot exist apart fom gach ther they are dnt ke On the ane hand ecause immediate interests are real, because they impinge directly om the day-today existence of workers in capitalist, society, it is utopian to caneive of clas struggle organied around fundamental interests which doe nt aswell eal with Immediate interests On the other hand, the working eats is much more divided a¢ the level of immediate interests than at the level of fundamental interests Silled workers ere gen erally in much more favourable market conditions thon "5 Beh net oie ely mat ty {eentiation This espe wer Ma Web whe dees dase prima ‘encent of class: that the kindof chance in the market isthe decisive moms - snl prowntsa mm cnn fete ndedualsite. Clas suai SSoirentameny amar aration ene enther Roth, New York: 1968, p.928 | This general stance has been 1 stern dealt eenhinammnsmsec ‘The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalism 91 ‘unskilled workers and thus often have different immediate Teresta from other workers, Because of labour market sex ‘Montation, male workers may have different immediate inter- tate from female workers, black workers from white workers, Because immediate interests divide the working class, and pecause they do not direety cal into question the structure of, Capitalist relations, the durability of capitalism depends, in fart, on the extent to which struggles over fundamental inter- Pete are displaced into struggles over immediate interests Tis contradiction between the immediate and fundamental interests of the working class pervades debates on the left: socialist struggles must take seriously immediate interests, and Jet struggles over immediate interests tend to undermine Micialist struggles. This contradiction cannot be wished away: it Isinherent inthe class relations of eaptalist society itself. Only jn.a revolutionary situation do the struggles over immediat find fundamental interests begin fally to coincide (indeed, this night be part of the definition of a revolutionary situation: a Stuation in which the struggle for objectives within the domi- rant mode of production directly reinforces struggles over the ‘mode of production)" ‘The Class Location of Positions not Directly Determined by Produetion Relations With this understanding ofthe distinction between immediate ‘and fundamental interests, we can now approach the problem of the class location of various positions in the social structure ‘which are not directly determined by production relations. Asa feneral proposition, the class location of such positions is {lstermined by their relationship to the fundamental interests bfelasses defined within the social relations of produetion, Let tus see what this means for a number of specific eategories of positions defined outside of production relations. 716. One way interpreting André Gor ota fponrformis reforms 1 eae eee ine evel mediate interests ch, eves Noetttlngrysituotins tend to Teiforeesrugees over fandamenta rare thin dete oc peuntat there nna tension between sechrefome = ‘Godanetl eget: but i er teply hat ttn the range of posnble ee oepalible wih eptlce cal eelatins sare af toch more EEDA SiR endamental intrest fhe morking clos than other2 1. Housewives. A variety of strategies have been adopted to deal ‘with the class location of housewives. In some accounts, domes: tieproduction is treated asa subsidiary mode of production in its town right, in which the male oecupies the position of exploiter fand the female, the position of exploited. In other accounts, household production is treated as the final state of capitalist production teelf, and the housewife as an unpaid worker whois Indirectly subordinated to capital.” "A much more straightforward way of dealing with this question isto examine the fundamental interests of housewife posi tions. In particular, in what sense do the fundamental class Interests of the housewife of a worker differ from those of the ‘worker himself? One might want toclaim that she has different interests as a woman, but do her class interests differ in any meaningful way? Does she have any less of a fundamental Interest in socialism? Unless one is willing to argue that working class housewives have different interests with respect to sotialism, then it isclear that they fall within the working class. TPisdoes not in any way imply that the sexual division of labour is unimportant, that women are not oppressed within that divi sion of labour, but simply thatthe sexual division of labour does hot create a division of fundamental class interests between husbands and their housewives.” 2.Students. Like housewives, students are not directly engaged in production relations. The class locations of students, there fore, must be defined by the elass location into which they wil ‘move upon the completion oftheir studies. Student position, in For review of aleratine strate of cast aa of asive st Teen’ ee Rete of Rodel Paiva! Exon Sumer 186 78 Tae rentment of tls ation of hoanewves aetna we sent re auger ton tebe ane ‘mitted ite ea te tty eather una ana ve fae ey ata oth praca restos then ieee Eitne dat lentinettne unewf ena Sehned a heresband bt ine ita octyete hey buthares prt indeed, areicton exe Seapeccl tste mon itary neg qendetat les een fhe wma terms of te way in whe nerd nw copa eat i esueton The oly way oe {Spin ow tefl einmrad the tocxamine he ass neaton oe ola ‘The Clase Structure of Advanced Capitalism 98 this sense, should be thought of as pre-class positions, as positions which are linked with greater or lesser certainty to specific class destinies, Daniel Bertaux has suggested that the appropriate way of dealing with such positions is as parts of class- ‘trajectories: lifetime structure of positions through which an individual passes in the course ofa work career.” Student slots constitute the first stage of such trajectories, and their class location must be defined by the class content ofthe trajectory as fa whole. It is the fundamental class interests of such tra Jectories, rather than the class origins of the student which defines their class location. {3 Pensioners. Pensioners pose the opposite problem from students, They occupy post-class locations rather than pre-class locations. But like students, their class can only be understood in terms of the trajectories of class positions to which they are linked, 4, The unemployed; welfare recipients. Temporarily nem: played people—the reserve army of the unemployed-—pase no special problem for a class analysis. Like students and pen- toners, they are tied to trajectories of class positions, and this defines their basic claas location. The category of permanently ‘unemployed, on the other hand, is more problematic. In ela. sical Marxism, such positions were generally identified as “lumpenproletariat”, the underclass of society. This is not an entirely satisfactory way of classifying such positions, for it ‘suggests that they have fundamentally opposed interests to the ‘working class, and thus would play at best an ambivalent role in focialst struggles. 2, Dane Barta, Destin Personnels Structures de Cla, Pais 1977 I perma corespandence,ereauthasogaete thal clot poems should EeSntestood ne tajectories rather than “empty places” The tmp that S's corantbscrmacy a gvennddsT clan sation say iil pen rca Orel ere coef lec these erm eto dagree of such determina, how ite spread ost verte Itcyee how tir iuerbuted nthe ponfation, emus aed heat rinple cating he oid obo of scat mobity aooagh there = = Say fb changes ich wah mba oe mci aa ey Gece shase ai’ singe tuscry. "he oly enone ly wood Be ‘tartans n which idols move from one tesjetary to another

Erik Olin Wright - Class Crisis & The State (1996)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Erik Olin Wright - Class Crisis & The State (1996)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like