Class Struggle Analysis: A Critique of Class Structure Analysis

Author(s): Alvin Y. So
Source: Sociological Perspectives , Spring, 1991, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 39-59
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1389142

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1389142?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociological Perspectives

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sociological Perspectives Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 39-59
Copyright ?) 1991 Pacific Sociological Association ISSN 0731-1214

CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS:

A Critique of Class Structure Analysis
ALVIN Y. SO
The University of Hawaii, Manoa

ABSTRACT: Initiated during the 1970s as a critique of mainstream

stratification analysis, Neo-Marxist class-structure analysis seems to have
reached an impasse by the late 1980s. In order to develop class analysis
further, many analysts have called for a shift in orientation from the
drawing of a static class structure map to the study of class struggle
dynamics. Responding to this call, this paper develops a class struggle
analysis for the study of politics and history. This analysis has three compo-
nents: (1) The conditions of class struggle, focusing on class structure,
protoclass, and movement organization; (2) The processes of class struggle,
examining the struggles over class, consciousness, organization, goals,
strategy, and boundary; and (3) The consequences of class struggle, inves-
tigating both the micro-level of subjective experience and the macro-level of
class and structure. By bringing class struggle back into stratification
theory, this new emphasis opens new research frontiers and sharpens the
power of class analysis.

CLASS STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

Neo-Marxist analysis was developed in the early 1970s as a critique of the main-
stream stratification theory (Carchedi 1975; Poulantzas 1973; Stolzman and Gam-
berg 1973; Syzmanski 1972; Wright 1976). Instead of studying income distribu-
tion and occupational prestige scores, neo-Marxists focus on the production
sphere of the political economy. Instead of assuming harmony among social
strata, neo-Marxists stress conflict among different classes. And, instead of at-
tempting to justify the status quo, neo-Marxists advocate the transformation of
capitalist societies.
According to Wright, the aim of class analysis is to study class formation, class
struggle, and the historical trajectories of social change. Thus, Wright (1985:37)
points out that the Marxist concept of class "is not meant to be used simply in the

Direct all correspondence to: Alvin Y. So, Department of Sociology, Porteus Hall 247, University of Hawaii at
Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822.

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
40 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 34, Number 1, 1991

description and analysis of the structural properties of society. It is also, funda-

mentally, meant to provide a way of understanding class formation and class
struggle."
With such an aim, class structure analysis generally undertakes the following
research agenda: (1) The definition problem: the aim is to clarify what social class
is and how to define it; (2) The boundary question: efforts are spent in drawing
up a clear map of class structure, delineating the number of classes and their
boundaries; (3) The data-fitting procedure: census or survey data are brought in
to match the class map; (4) The discussion on political implications: how the
drawing of the class structure map may alter movement.
During the 1970s, the most popular class structure analysis was Wright's
(1976) "contradictory class location" map. For Wright, class locations are con-
tradictory in the sense that while they are in between the basic classes and carry
the characteristics of both ends, they are also torn between the two opposing
class interests. For example, managers are said to have a contradictory location
between capital and labor because they share relational properties of both work-
ers (as they receive wages and are subject to the controls of capital) and capital-
ists (as they exercise supervisory and management functions). Consequently,
managers may exhibit ambiguous class behavior because they are not sure
whether they are for capital or for labor.
In the 1980s, Wright (1985) developed another class map that centers upon the
concept of asset exploitation. In this new scheme, exploitation occurs when the
oppressing class benefits at the direct expense of the oppressed. Or, to put it
differently, a class is exploiting another class when the former's wealth depends
on the appropriation of the fruits of the latter's labor. Based on this definition,
Wright suggests that three types of assets (means of production assets, organiza-
tion assets, and skill/credential assets) have led to three forms of exploitation in
capitalism. Thus, the bourgeoisie exploit through ownership of the means of
production; managers exploit through organization assets; and experts exploit
through skill/credential assets. In capitalism, the means of production is the
dominant form of exploitation while organization and skill assets are subsidiary.
Two types of criticisms have been leveled at Wright's analysis (Burris 1987;
Carchedi 1986; Giddens 1985; Kamolnick 1988; Mann 1986; Meiksins 1987, 1988;
Wright 1989). The first, which can be labeled as the "insider's critique," focuses
on whether there is a better definition of class, whether class boundaries are
appropriately drawn in the typology, and whether the present class structure
map is an improvement over the previous formulations. Carchedi (1986:197), for
example, criticizes Wright for adopting a "micro-individual logic" and thus over-
looking the macro-social structure. Other critics question whether the three
types of assets are really separate dimensions of exploitation.
The second type of criticism can be called the "outsider's critique" because it
doubts whether class structure analysis can help to explain the "historical trajec-
tories and social change" in capitalism. Giddens (1985:383), for instance, found
Wright's new book "disappointing" because

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS 41

the work is heavily abstract and typological. In spite of the fairly frequent
references to class struggle and consciousness, there's very little life of move-
ment in the material that constitutes the bulk of the text.

Meiksins (1988:82) similarly complains that Wright's static model fails to study
"the complex and contingent historical process through which capitalist rela-
tions of production shape actual patterns of class conflict."
What, then, explains the class structure analysts' reluctance to follow their
own advice to study class politics? One possible explanation is their structuralist
assumption, which places theoretical concepts at a higher level than empirical
data. The drawing of class structure maps is a conceptual exercise, so it can be
logical, neat, and put into a typology form. The study of class struggle, however,
requires a detailed examination of ever-changing historical processes and unex-
pected events, which can hardly be fit into the "empty places" of a class map.
In addition, many class structure analysts may also want to avoid studying
class struggle by using survey research data. Wright, for instance, relies heavily
upon quantitative methods, including survey and questionnaire data collecting
techniques, for his class analysis. While quantitative methods provide informa-
tion to fill in the empty places in the static class map, it is doubtful whether they
are relevant to the study of class struggle dynamics (Burawoy 1987). In fact, as
Wright (1985:142) has acknowledged, class struggle needs to be studied by
"macro-historical data" and "comparative analysis." However, Wright (1985:143)
confesses that comparative historical research is "beyond [his] present research
capabilities," so he just focuses on "dependent variables which are directly tied
to individuals." As such, Wright tailors his research to a topic that he can study
with survey data.
It seems that contemporary class analysis has reached an impasse (Meiksins
1987:38). Not much can be achieved by criticizing each other's class structure
maps and, unless researchers offer a better alternative than Wright's asset-
exploitation model, class analysis will gradually lose its ability to study the
historical dynamics of capitalism. One by one, researchers begin to call for the
shifting of the orientation of class analysis-from class taxonomy to class action,
from static class-structure mapping to the dynamics of class struggle, and from
typological exercises to historical analysis (Dawson 1990; So and Hikam 1989).
Responding to the call in the literature, this paper attempts to develop a class
struggle analysis for the study of politics and history.

CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS

Drawing largely on studies of labor politics in contemporary capitalism, the

following discussion outlines the critical issues and the research agenda of a
class struggle analysis. For the sake of schematic presentation, the discussion is
divided into three phases: (1) The conditions for class struggle, which include
class structure, protoclass, and movement organization; (2) The processes of

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 34, Number 1, 1991

Figure 1
A Schematic Presentation of Class Struggle Analysis

The Conditions for Class structure

Class Struggle Proto-Class and Movement organization

Over class
Over consciousness
The Processes of Over organization
Class Struggle Over goal
Over strategy
,Over class boundary

The Consequences of Empowerment versus alienation

Class Struggle Primacy versus dilution of class
Dialectics of struggle and structure

class struggle, focusing on the struggle over class, consciousness, organization,

goals, strategy, and boundary; (3) The consequences of class struggle-whether
class struggle will lead to empowerment or alienation, to the primacy or the
dilution of "class," and to the consolidation or the transformation of the existing
structure (see Figure 1).
It should be stressed that class struggle is a dynamic historical process. If one
examines class struggle over a long time-span, the consequence of the present
class struggle will emerge as the condition for the next round of class struggle.
As such, it is only for the sake of schematic presentation that this paper labels
some institutions and activities as conditions and others as consequences. In
empirical research, conditions and consequences are always interrelated
throughout the historical process of class struggle.

THE CONDITIONS FOR CLASS STRUGGLE

Class Structure

The starting point for carrying out class struggle analysis is to examine the class
structure of a society. Class structure analysts such as Wright have made several
significant contributions to this aspect. First, Wright (1989:271) correctly insists
that

class structure [remains] conceptually pivotal to clarifying the overall logic of

class analysis. To speak of class formation or class struggle as opposed to

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS 43

simply group formation or str

and know what it means. .. (italics in original).

Second, Wright's assertion that class structures are constituted by antagonistic

exploitative relations rooted in production is certainly well-taken. This explains
why members of the same class share objective interests that are independent of
their subjective understandings, and why the material interests bound up with
classes are inherently opposed to each other. Third, Wright (1989:275-276) has
elaborated the concept of class structure "in ways that would enhance its analyt-
ical power both in concrete analyses and in micro-analyses." Anchored at a
lower level of abstraction, Wright's concept of class structure provides a new
research agenda that enables researchers to carry out "comparative historical
and institutional analyses of variations in the class structures of capitalist so-
cieties."
However, Wright's concept of class structure could still be enriched in several
ways. Instead of conceptualizing class structure as a set of empty locations filled
by people, it would be better to understand it as a set of structured relationships
that are enduring, recurring, and institutionalized. In fact, Wright (1989:302)
sometimes stresses this relational concept of class over his locational concept of
class, as he acknowledges that "class locations are positions-within-relations."
The relational concept is better because the locational concept carries too much
of the metaphor of a building: as there are rooms and floors in a building, so
there are locations and classes in a class structure. Influenced by the locational
concept of class, researchers often assume that the partitions among class loca-
tions (like the walls of a building) are real, so they can study class locations in
isolation from one another. Thus, the working class location can be studied by
itself without tracing the relationship between labor and capital. Furthermore,
this locational class structure could distract researchers from the study of rela-
tions among classes to the study of individual traits. For example, researchers
using the locational concept could end up posing such individual-level questions
as "which class location should a young college-educated secretary-who is
working for the state, married to a middle-level manager, and spent part of
family income in buying stocks-belong in?" Finally, the locational concept
tends to have a static bias. In this conception, class locations (like rooms in a
building) are almost permanent and cannot be modified without dismantling the
structural boundaries. Nevertheless, if the focus were on relationships instead of
on locations, it would be easier for researchers to conceptualize the dynamics of
class relationship in the history of capitalism.
In addition, the concept of class structure could be enriched by examining
how capital accumulation has provided a structural linkage between class rela-
tions and reproduction relations. Class relations, the essence of which is exploi-
tation in the production sphere (De Ste. Croix 1984), does not exist in a vacuum.
Instead, class relations are embedded in a set of reproduction relations which are
generated outside of production. According to O'Connor (1988), it is the dy-

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
44 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 34, Number 1, 1991

TABLE 1
Capital Accumulation in the Production and Reproduction Sphere

The Production Sphere The Reproduction Sphere

Structural Contradiction Exploitation and appropria- Self-destructive appropriation

tion of surplus value from of conditions of production
direct producer (labor power, space, and
environment)
Agency Classes The state versus social move-
ment organizations
Object of Transformation Production relations Reproduction relations (condi-
tions of production)
Forms of Politics Class struggle New social movements (femi-
nist, ethnic, urban, environ-
mental)

namics of capital accumulation which set up the structural contradictions in both

the production sphere and the reproduction sphere (See Table I).
In the production sphere, the structural contradiction is centered upon exploi-
tation (the appropriation of surplus value from the direct producer), and it is
through exploitation relations that fundamental classes and class divisions first
emerged in modern capitalism. On the one hand, the logic of accumulation
propels the capitalists to maximize profits and to lower labor costs, thereby
increasing the rate of exploitation. On the other hand, capital accumulation
threatens the existence of the workers, thus providing a structural pressure to
induce workers to struggle for the control of what to produce, how to produce,
and how to divide the surplus product (Becker 1989). Capital accumulation,
therefore, has inevitably set up the dynamics of class contradiction between
capital and labor. Since this is a structural contradiction built into the production
sphere, other classes are forced, in one way or the other, to confront this con-
tradiction and to develop a set of structured relationships with capital and labor.
In the reproduction sphere, the structural contradiction is centered upon
capital's self-destructive appropriation of labor power, urban space, and envi-
ronment-which Marx calls personal, communal, and external "conditions of
production" respectively (O'Connor 1988:16). The contemporary crisis of health,
education, and the family; the urban crisis (megacities, congestion); and the
ecological crisis (deforestation, pollution, global warming) exemplify this self-
destructiveness. On the one hand, since "conditions of production" are not
produced as commodities, the logic of accumulation propels the state to make
these conditions available to capital in the required quantities and qualities, and
at the right time and place. As O'Connor (1990:1) points out,

All activities of the liberal democratic state which do not concern money and
armed force can be categorized under the heading, 'regulation or production

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS 45

of conditions of production.' Obvious examples are: 1. Labor, family, educa-

tion, and welfare policy; 2. Urban, transport, communications, land use, and
zoning policy; 3. Water, air, land, coastline, and parkland policy.

On the other hand, capital accumulation threatens the very existence of human
beings and nature, thus providing a structural pressure to induce women, ethnic
minorities, urban residents, environmentalists, and peace activists to wage polit-
ical struggles against the state on capital's abuse of these "conditions of produc-
tion. " In this respect, it is through the dynamics of capital accumulation and the
crises of reproduction of "conditions of production" that new social movements
first emerged in modern capitalism in the late twentieth century.
The merit of class structure analysis, then, is to lay bare the objective class
contradictions rooted in capital accumulation and the embeddedness of class
structure in reproduction contradictions. As such, does the analysis imply that
people who personify these contradictory relations will have a natural tendency
to struggle for their own interests? The answer is: "Not quite." This is because
there are also structural constraints that block the translation of class contradic-
tions into real class struggles.

Protoclass and Movement Organizations

Side-by-side with structural contradictions are structural constraints, which

can be conceptualized as conservative dynamics to preserve the existing class
structure. Dahrendorf (1959) and Bourdieu (1984) have spelled out some of these
structural constraints:

* Political constraints, such as political intimidation, repression, and

execution. The state denies the rights to form opposing organiza-
tions and to express political opinions.
* Technical constraints, such as the lack of leadership to articulate a
workable strategy for political struggles.
* Social constraints, such as the lack of a channel of communication
(e.g., the isolation of French peasants during the mid-19th cen-
tury) and the absence of a structural pattern of recruitment (e.g.,
delinquents).
* Cultural constraints, such as the lack of "cultural capital" to wage
an effective challenge to the dominant cultural values.

Due to these structural constraints, contradictions in class structure are insuffi-

cient to induce the agents to engage in political struggles. Too many times, the
agents are so atomized and fragmented that they are unable to form a collectivity
to protect their class interests. As Marx and Engels (1936:49) lament, the separate
individuals, even when they are personifications of the same set of class rela-
tions, can be "on hostile terms with each other as competitors." Accordingly,

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
46 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 34, Number 1, 1991

researchers should call this aggregate of atomized, fragmented, and competitive

individuals a protoclass rather than as a full-fledged class (Wright 1989:294). The
new concept of protoclass is needed because it deters researchers from falling
into the structuralist's error of assuming that "class is instantaneously present"
in class structure and is always ready to engage in political struggle (Thompson
1978:149). The concept of protoclass also reminds researchers that an aggregate
of atomized individuals bearing the same class relation is, to use Bourdieu's
(1989) term, just a "theoretically constructed class" or a "class on paper": it has
yet to be transformed into a "real class."
Even when members of a protoclass have developed a feeling of solidarity
with one another, and even when they have risen up in resistance against a
common enemy, they still may not form a "real class." Members of the pro-
toclass may be attracted to reproduction issues and want to solve the problem of
reproduction before addressing the problem of class exploitation. Thus movement
organizations in the form of feminist caucuses, civil rights groups, or environ-
mental coalitions are formed at the expense of class formation. An important
agenda item for class struggle analysis, therefore, is to explain the critical transi-
tion from protoclass and movement organization to "real class." In other words,
to describe the conditions under which members of a protoclass will engage in
collective class struggle instead of in individualistic competitive struggle or in
reproduction struggle.

THE PROCESSES OF CLASS STRUGGLE

Struggle Over Class

As Thompson (1983:114-115) illuminates, class does "not rise like the sun at an
appointed time," instead "class happens" when people, personifying a set of
class relations, begin to become aware of and articulate their objective interests,
organize themselves into a collectivity, and wage their struggle in class terms
with their opponents. The birth of class, therefore, is a subjective process,
through which, as Thompson (1983:116) puts it, "class is defined by men as they
live their own history, and, in the end, this is its only definition." It is through
this subjective experience immersed in struggle that a protoclass is transformed
into a class making history.
Thus, the first act of class struggle, as Wright (1985:123) and Przeworski (1977)
put it, must be a struggle over class-a struggle over the definition, the articula-
tion, and the interpretation of objective interests and subjective experiences in
class terms.
This struggle over class may start with intraclass struggles, i.e., the struggles
over class among different segments of the same protoclass. A militant segment
must convince or coerce other segments that class issues are indeed more impor-
tant than reproduction issues. Unless the militant segment has a hegemonic
control over other segments and imposes upon them its definition of class expe-

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS 47

rience, "class" is not likely to form. In other words, unless class issues are put
into the forefront of struggles and articulated at the expense of reproduction
issues, the protoclass will remain a movement organization rather than being
transformed into a class. Observing this process of intraclass struggle over class,
Scott (1988:84-85) comments that there was a "disappearance of feminist con-
cerns and female voices" among English workers in the early nineteenth century
that allowed their struggles to center upon class concerns.
The struggle over class can also start with interclass struggles. Even when
there is a militant segment battling the capitalist boss, the subordinate class
needs to convince the dominant class to interact with its members in class terms
rather than otherwise. From the dominant class's viewpoint, however, it may be
advantageous to displace class struggle into a reproduction struggle. This occurs
when the dominant class is frightened by the prospect that class struggle has the
potential of expanding into class revolution, capturing state power and challeng-
ing the existing property relations. Thus, the dominant class may want to accen-
tuate the reproduction aspects (e.g., ethnicity) of the struggles because such
issues can more easily be deflected from the political economy. For example,
when the plantation workers in Hawaii started a strike in the early 1920s, the
plantation owners responded by representing the struggle as one between the
loyal white Americans and the unfaithful Japanese immigrants in Hawaii (Takaki
1983).
Formulated in this way, the topic of struggle over class opens up new research
frontiers, since many crucial research questions remain to be answered. For
example, exactly when, through what structural contradictions, and under what
circumstances does a segment discover "class" and militancy? What role have
capital accumulation and other structural changes in the capitalist economy
(such as increasing the rate of exploitation) played in promoting "class" issues?
What means does a militant segment use to convince or coerce its fellow work-
ers? Even when "class" has happened, how do reproduction issues (like gender,
ethnicity, urban space, environment) come back to limit, to distort, to stimulate,
or to enrich the experience of class? In sum, "class experience" conceptualized as
a field of struggle, oscillating between exploitation and reproduction issues,
containing "multiple and contested meanings," is always historically specific.
The class analysts' task, therefore, is to bring out this historically specific mean-
ing of class.
The struggle over class, then, marks the critical transition from a protoclass
and a movement organization to a "class." Once class has emerged, the multi-
faceted class struggle processes-including the struggles over consciousness,
organization, goals, strategy, and boundary-will follow.

Struggle Over Consciousness

In class struggle analysis, consciousness is seen not as an outgrowth of class

contradictions but, rather, as a historical process emerging out of class struggle.

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
48 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 34, Number 1, 1991

Borrowing from the formulations of Therborn (1986) and Giddens (1982), class
consciousness can be classified into three levels. Proximate consciousness emerges
when members in the subordinate class try to defend their interests in the
immediate locales that affect their daily life. This consciousness usually starts in
the workplace, when the subordinate class members question the length of the
working day, the pace of work, wages, the loss of the control of work, and so
forth. From the workplace, class grievances can then spread to the community
sphere: to demands for better schools, more clinics and hospitals, less police
harassment, and new child care facilities.
When class members begin to express concerns over class issues other than
those located in their immediate locales, they develop generalized consciousness.
At this level, union members lend their support to strikes in other industries and
they condemn high unemployment rates in other regions. Generalized con-
sciousness arises when class members are on the offensive, attacking the struc-
tural roots of class inequalities, exposing the dominant ideology as a cover-up for
irrationality and exploitation, and debunking the dominant class members as
greedy and lacking in humanity.
Transcendence consciousness develops when the subordinate class members see
themselves as belonging to the ascending class-a class that is more progressive
than the existing dominant class; a class that develops out of the most advanced
forces of production; and a class that represents the future of all the people in the
society. Transcendence consciousness emerges when class members not only
believe that the present mode of production is doomed to failure, but also have
faith that their fundamental class interests lay in the construction of a future
society.
While the subordinate class envisions transforming its consciousness from the
proximate to the transcendence level, the dominant class is determined to sup-
press its opponent's consciousness at as low a level as possible.
The dominant class can counterattack through such ideological suppressions
as the tightening of controls over the mass media and educational institutions.
The aim of the dominant class is to maintain cultural hegemony by suppressing
radical ideas. If total suppression is not possible, the dominant class can wage
another counterattack by denouncing the subordinate class ideology as false,
nonscientific, and harmful to the existing society. For example, the dominant
class may argue that workers should not engage in a class struggle because it will
lower productivity, reduce the nation's competitiveness in the world market,
lead to job loss, cut the state's tax revenue, and result in fewer social services
delivered to the workers. And if condemning subordinate class ideology is not
enough, the dominant class will wage another counterattack by glorifying its
own ideology, such as the claim that its values are universal and eternal. For
example, capitalist values, like self-interest, profit-seeking, utilitarianism, and
individualism, are taken to be part of human nature and thus exist in all human
societies.

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS 49

In sum, the above discussion conceptualizes class consciousness as a "histor-

ical process"-it can be clarified or intensified from the proximate level to the
transcendence level, or it can be mystified or diluted in a reverse direction, all
depending on the historically-specific outcome of the struggle over conscious-
ness between the subordinate class and the dominant class. In this respect, it
requires a fairly long time-span to trace the rise, the fall, and the constant
shifting nature of class consciousness in struggle.
This historical approach of class consciousness points to many new research
issues that need to be addressed. For example, what explains the specific form of
class consciousness in a society? Is it a matter of structural factors, cultural
factors, or both? Exactly how can one level of consciousness be raised to a higher
level? Which particular class segment is responsible for formulating class con-
sciousness? And, following Lenin's argument, is a vanguard party needed in
order to carry out the task of raising consciousness?

Struggle Over Organization Forms

Although the subordinate class wants to have a favorable organizational form

to promote its struggle, the dominant class prefers its opponents to wage its
struggle in a way less favorable to them. Consequently, the particular organiza-
tional form used by the subordinate class to promote its interests is again a
product of struggle with the dominant class.
In class struggle analysis, this struggle over organizational forms may begin
with the transformation of mass spontaneity into an organizational weapon. Class
happens when the subordinate class struggles in its surrounding locales, trying
to defend its immediate interests in the workplace. Through the experience of
struggle, the subordinate class members gradually develop comradeship, soli-
darity, and a democratic relationship with one another; and they are enthusiastic
to participate in the struggle.
In order to sustain the struggle over a long period of time, however, informal
spontaneous resistance has to give way to formal organizational resistance.
Mass enthusiasm cannot last forever, and the masses need an organization to
plan long-range goals, to develop political strategy, and to mobilize resources. In
passing, it should be noted that the emergence of class organization is already a
historical product of class struggle. Most likely, the masses have already trav-
elled a tortuous path of class struggle with the dominant class and the state
before they earn the political rights of organization. With this organizational
weapon, the masses have developed better capacity than before to defend their
class interests and intervene in historical development.
However, class struggle can also be hindered by this nascent class organiza-
tion. Once a new class organization is formed, it has its own dynamics, tends to
develop a life of its own, and be transformed into leadership oligarchy and mass
apathy. First, there is the tendency of leadership to become corrupt. After gaining

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
50 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 34, Number 1, 1991

control over the vast resources in the organization, leaders develop a different
set of interests (like power, prestige, and salary) from those of the rank and file
(Friedman 1983).
Second, there is the problem of bureaucratization. As class organization gets
larger, as its membership becomes more heterogeneous, and as its tasks get
increasingly complicated, there is bound to be a tendency toward having more
rules, regulations, standardized procedures, and organizational hierarchies. The
leader's energies come to be absorbed in running the day-to-day affairs of the
organization, leaving little or no opportunity to get in touch with the rank and
file. The rank and file, too, feel alienated because they are intimidated by the
impersonal bureaucratic rules. This leads to the familiar problem of bureaucracy
versus democracy inside class organization.
Third, with leadership oligarchy and mass apathy reinforcing each other, the
leaders find it increasingly difficult to mobilize the rank and file. If this happens,
the leaders know that they need to find new supporters to maintain their organi-
zation. According to Offe (1985), the difficulty of mass mobilization explains the
prevailing opportunism of union leaders. For the sake of organizational survival,
union leaders "rationally" accept management assumptions, obey state rules,
and become junior partners of the dominant class.
Formulated in this way, organizational form can be seen as a product of class
struggle around the issues of mass enthusiasm and grass-roots democracy on
the one hand, and bureaucratization, leadership oligarchy, and opportunism on
the other hand. As such, to what extent is the "iron law of oligarchy" a built-in
tendency of organization dynamics, and to what extent is it a product of class
culture and class struggle? In other words, if a working-class community has a
long tradition of egalitarian culture, is it possible for this community to check the
tendency toward oligarchy?

Struggle Over the Goals

In class struggle analysis, the setting up of goals should not be taken for
granted. This is because goal-setting is a dynamic process, shaped largely by the
struggle between the contending classes.
For the subordinate class, the primary aim is to achieve victory and the con-
stant escalation of goals. After winning one battle and attaining one goal, the class
members raise their level of expectation. They want to win more and more
battles, thus setting up higher and higher goals. Friedman (1983:387) calls it "the
theory of rising expectations," referring to the accumulation of strengths and
resources after each victory and the snowballing tendency of expanding the
appetites of the subordinate class. For example, in the summer of 1980, the
Polish workers

. . . struck sporadically ... to get price increases rolled back or wages raised
enough to compensate for higher prices . .. By August, however, their aspi-

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS 51

rations had soared to recognition of free trade unions, freedom of speech,

child care, and many other goals that were agreed to in the 21 point Gdansk
Agreements. By Fall, 1981, they were seeking worker control of the economy
and the State (Friedman 1983:387).

On the other hand, the dominant class' aim is to wage a counterattack to

defeat the subordinate class and to narrow its goals. First, the dominant class and
the state will try to defeat even the lowest level of proximate struggles by the
subordinate class. If this attempt fails, the dominant class and the state will try to
institutionalize the struggling process, i.e., to establish a formal channel and
procedure so that the two classes can get together to discuss their differences. In
this light, the new channels and procedures can be seen as the historical prod-
ucts of the previous round of class struggles. Second, these new institutions,
once created, will have a life of their own and will serve to narrow the goals of
struggle. Usually, only certain agreed-upon issues (like wage increases) are put
onto the agenda, while other demands (like pension and medical insurance)
have to wait for the next round of negotiations. Furthermore, in order to have
successful negotiations, the subordinate class organization may want to exercise
self-constraint and bargain those issue areas in which it thinks the other side will
yield. Hence, negotiations tend to center upon highly specific, concrete de-
mands like the percentage of wage increase. Third, as a result, there will be a
depoliticization of class struggle. The new channels and procedures will have
narrowed the class demands to such a tiny domain that institutionalized class
struggle will be unlikely to spread from one industry to another, from one region
to another, and from the economy to the state. If this happens, industrial conflict
will be separated from political conflict, and the state will be insulated from the
political ramifications of subordinate class struggle (Dahrendorf 1959).
The changing goals of class struggle are thus a product of changing power
relations between the contending classes. As such, under what conditions can
the subordinate class escalate its goals, and under what conditions can the
dominant class successfully institutionalize and narrow the goals of its oppo-
nents?

Struggle Over Strategy

Institutionalization generally coincides with the adoption of the strategy of

legal struggles, which refers to struggles that comply with rules and procedures in
the existing political framework. Hence, adopting the strategy of legal struggle
has the following advantages: the struggle will be tolerated by the state; the
subordinate class can recruit its members openly; and more members may be
attracted to join the struggle because there are fewer political costs (like arrest
and incarceration) in such a movement.
However, legal struggles also serve to stabilize the status quo. In legal strug-
gle, victory depends more on shrewd attorneys winning court battles than on

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 52 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 34, Number 1, 1991

the collective support of the rank and file. Consequently, legal struggle tends to
be technical, elitist, and professional, leading to the routinization of class strug-
gle. When the timing and the procedure of struggle is predetermined (e.g.,
occurs every two years after a contract expires) and when the outcome of strug-
gle is more or less predictable, class struggle will lose its appeal to the rank and
file. Since the masses need to do no more than vote and ratify the contract, they
tend to turn away from class politics to other apolitical concerns such as home-
centered recreation. The result is the decline of mass enthusiasm and militancy.
While the dominant class prefers legal struggles, the subordinate class some-
times may be able to break out of this structural constraint by engaging in extra-
legal struggles. If there is mass dissatisfaction about the existing production con-
ditions, there can be an outburst of extralegal struggles in the form of wildcat
strikes, urban riots, or guerrilla warfare. When this happens, class struggle
enters a new phase of mass spontaneity and mass mobilization. The militant
segment has regained control, becomes highly committed to its cause, and more
willing to engage in violent struggles to voice its grievances. The struggle is
extralegal because its goal is to deinstitutionalize the existing rules and pro-
cedures: the present political forms and regulations now become the target of
struggle; the strategy of legal struggle and oligarchical leadership are challenged;
the rank and file want to set up an alternative class organization to replace the
one advocating legal struggle; and they begin to escalate their goals of class
struggle. In short, the process returns to the phase of mass spontaneity and
organizational weapons.
Investigating the strategy of class struggle, researchers may want to find out
whether the subordinate class has a choice to adopt either legal or extralegal
means, why certain extralegal strategies work while others do not, what ex-
plains any change in strategy over time, and in what way the struggle over legal
strategy is related to the struggles over class, consciousness, organization, and
goals.

Struggle Over Boundary

In class structure analysis, there is a heated debate over the boundary prob-
lem, i.e., how to draw a neat class typology to distinguish the boundaries be-
tween classes. In class struggle analysis, however, the problem of class bound-
ary cannot be resolved once and for all by constructing typologies because class
boundaries, as a historical product of class struggle, are constantly chang-
ing.
For the subordinate class, the struggle to define class boundary begins with
the attempt to minimize internal divisions created in production (e.g., labor
market, industrial sector) and reproduction (e.g., ethnicity, gender, environ-
ment). The new emphasis is both on intraclass unity (such as the sharing of a
similar objective interest in the class structure) and on interclass conflict (such as
sharing a common class enemy). The key slogans are "solidarity," "community,"

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS 53

and "collectivity." This call for class unity is necessary because the subordinate
class has few resources (e.g., money, political network, and media) except num-
bers. Since the subordinate class far outnumbers its opponent, its main weapon
is collective struggle.
However, the class boundary has to be redrawn once interclass struggle has
started. In order to intensify the struggle, the subordinate class cultivates a
polarization model where the society is split up into two large camps-the domi-
nant class versus the rest of society. In this polarization model, nondominant
class members are welcome to join the subordinate class, both as a means to
swell the number of the subordinate class and a way to isolate the support of the
dominant class. For example, the antimonopoly bloc is aimed at uniting the
working class, the new and old middle classes, and the small capitalists together
to form a power bloc against the monopoly capitalists.
Instead of cultivating a polarization model, the dominant class pursues a
fragmentation model by creating new structural divisions in the society. The new
divisions can be instituted through technological innovations, separating the
"skilled," the "semi-skilled," and the "unskilled." They can also be a result of
emergent market divisions, creating artificial job ladders and dual labor markets,
or distinguishing the unionized from the nonunionized. Moreover, they can be
created through cultivating existing social divisions-such as promoting the sex-
typing of jobs, importing new immigrants into the working class, or inserting
semi-indentured laborers into Third World plantations. The aim of the above
technological, market, and social policies is to magnify the heterogeneity within
the subordinate class, and to divide its various segments in order to prevent the
subordinate class from becoming unified.
Seen in this light, the class boundary is dynamic because it frequently con-
tracts, expands, solidifies, or fragments as a result of the struggles among the
contending classes. Researchers, therefore, should shift attention from typology-
drawing to investigating how the participants in the struggle actually tackle the
boundary problem. In other words, how does the subordinate class strategically
expand the boundary in order to enlist other classes as its supporters, and how
does the dominant class purposively create structural fragmentations so as to
weaken class struggles from below?
Having stressed the above, it is worth reemphasizing the enduring signifi-
cance of structural divisions in class struggle. At the height of class struggle,
divisions in the class structure may be momentarily ignored in order to promote
an antidominant class bloc. But these structural divisions will not go away easily;
instead, they are bound to return to haunt the outcome of class struggle. As
such, it is important to study the intricate relationship between the subjective
class boundary as perceived by participants in struggle and the objective class
boundary rooted in the class structure. Under what conditions can the subjective
class boundary overcome the limitations imposed by the objective class bound-
ary? And through what mechanisms can the objective class boundary be trans-
formed by participants in class struggle?

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
54 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 34, Number 1, 1991

THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLASS STRUGGLE

Empowerment versus Alienation

At the micro level, class struggle transforms the character of the participants'
experience. Before joining a class struggle, a member in the subordinate class
may feel fear, intimidation, isolation, and/or helplessness. However, after en-
gaging in a class struggle, the same person may experience empowerment-the
feeling of confidence, courage, community, and determination. In this respect,
class struggle is a vital process for its participants to achieve self-transformation,
self-objectification, and self-making.
Furthermore, the extraordinary experience, the excitement, and the energy
released through participating in a class struggle have stimulated the emergence
of what Durkheim (1972) calls collective consciousness. When class members are
assembled together, when they share the same sentiments, and when their
emotions are heightened, class members have entered Durkheim's "sacred" do-
main: class members feel moral unison with their comrades; they are gradually
transformed and fused with the emergent class collectivity; they see the enor-
mous power of this new class collectivity making history through their own
participation in the struggle. In a subjective sense, this is how "class" emerged
as a collective actor, transcending the sum of individual behavior in the pro-
toclass.
The above formulation helps to clarify the debate on the free rider problem in
social movements (McNall 1987). Before class struggle happens, the individual
logic of rational choice prevails. Class members are unwilling to be the first
group to participate in a class struggle because socioeconomic costs (e.g., being
fired or incarcerated) are high. As a result, class members opt to be free riders. It
is better to let other class members do the job for them; they need not participate
in the class struggle to enjoy the fruits of the struggle.
The situation changes, however, once the class struggle has started. Activists
now feel that they have a moral commitment to the class struggle. They are no
longer activated by self-interests, but by the noble calling to improve the inter-
ests of the entire collectivity. They are, therefore, willing to sacrifice, to fight,
and to die for this cause. Their willingness to put class interest above individual
interest may have sparked the emergence of collective consciousness, for their
noble acts can quickly transmit enthusiasm to other class members like an elec-
tric relay, arousing their commitment and devotion. And if this occurs, individu-
al logic will gradually give way to collective logic. Class members, even those not
completely convinced by the cause of class struggle, will have to reluctantly
follow the tide of collective consciousness. Otherwise, they risk being labeled as
traitors and face the social punishment for nonconformity.
Although empowerment and collective consciousness emerge in a struggle at
short notice, they can also disappear with equal speed. Too often, class struggle
has led, not to empowerment, but to alienation.
If the class struggle is defeated, political repressions generally follow. Facing

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS 55

such coercion and intimidation, class members may exercise self-restraint by not
joining in the class struggle or by quitting the movement if they have already
joined. During political repression, individual logic of rational choice re-emerges
as the prevailing mode of action, and "class" as a political collectivity dissolves
into a mere aggregate of individuals situated in a protoclass.
But even if the initial phase of class struggle is victorious, class members may
still be alienated from the movement because of the demobilization tendencies in
the class organizations. When a class organization is getting larger, more hetero-
geneous, and more bureaucratic, there is a gradual divorce of leadership from
the rank and file. The masses will participate less and less in organizational
affairs and will not identify with their collectivity. Consequently, they will no
longer be willing to sacrifice their self-interests in favor of the collective interests.
If this happens, the masses will have returned from the "sacred" world of class
mobilization to the "profane" world of day-to-day life; and the collective experi-
ence in the struggle will have evaporated.
In examining the subjective experience of struggle, the key research questions
that need to be asked are: under what conditions does collective consciousness
emerge; under what conditions does individual logic of rational choice give way
to moral commitment; and what mechanisms promote or destroy the experience
of empowerment and collective consciousness?

Primacy versus Dilution of "Class"

The utility of class analysis is a dynamic process-either class analysis is

becoming more important to be able to interpret the world, or it is in the process
of turning into an outdated tool. The rise and fall of the utility of "class," there-
fore, is also a consequence of class struggle. The victory of class struggle gener-
ally leads to the primacy of class, while the defeat of class struggle results in its
dilution.
What explains the primacy of class? When class struggle is at its height, the
growing passion, the contagious emotion, and the militancy of the participants
tend to produce the class world view. The world is now seen through the prism
of class, and class has become the "primary" social relation upon which other
reproduction relationships (like gender and ethnicity) are dependent. Through
this class prism, race is class; gender is class; family is class; urban is class;
movement organization is class; class is everywhere; and all social relations are
politicized in class terms.
Only when this stage is reached (i.e., in the aftermath of a class revolution) are
participants in struggle ready to mold the society in their class image. Social
institutions are then transformed in class terms, e.g., university education for
the workers and health care services for the peasantry. History also can be
rewritten from the present perspective of class struggle. For example, after the
Communist Revolution, the Chinese dynastic cycle was rewritten as a product of
peasant rebellions rather than as a result of corrupted emperors.
If the primacy of class emerges with the victory of class struggle, the dilution

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
56 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 34, Number 1, 1991

of class appears with the defeat of the subordinate class. The dominant class
always develops a "de-class" analysis, cultivates the image of a "classless" so-
ciety, and declares the absence of class struggle in history. The ideal society for
the dominant class is one free of any political struggle, in which its power and
privileges will never be challenged. In this ideal society, there is neither class nor
movement organization; there are only aggregates of individuals. Since individ-
uals are rational actors in a market economy, they are as competitive among
themselves as they are united in conflict situations. In this ideal society, there-
fore, individualism prevails and displaces political group formation. The situa-
tion then returns to the previous "condition" of protoclass, the phase at which
we began the schematic presentation of class struggle analysis.
However, after going through the struggles over class, consciousness, organi-
zation, goals, strategy, and boundary, the present protoclass has inherited the
cultural treasures of all the advances and defeats in the struggling processes. As
such, old memories and experiences in the struggle will not "die" easily, and are
bound to show up to haunt future struggles.

The Dialectics of Struggle and Structure

In this last section, we review some of the key issues discussed in this paper.
We started with a critique of class structure analysis. To avoid misunderstand-
ing, it should be pointed out that the utility of the study of class structure is not
denied. In fact, the concept of class structure is highly relevant for the study of
class struggle. What is stressed is that class structure, instead of being seen as a
static, supra-theoretical category, should be taken as a set of dynamic relation-
ships rooted in capital accumulation and embedded in a historically-specific
context of reproduction relations; that class structure both promotes and ex-
ercises constraints on class struggle; and that class structure is created, modified,
and transformed through the course of class struggle.
Given this background, it is useful to recall some of the key features in the
schematic presentation of class struggle analysis (Figure 1). First, in class strug-
gle analysis, class structure is always relevant to the examination of the condi-
tions of class struggle. It is the interplay between structural (class and reproduc-
tion) contradictions and structural constraints (political, technical, social, and
cultural) that explains the transformation from protoclass and movement organi-
zation to the birth of class.
Second, when class struggle finally happens, it is usually a struggle against
structure. The existing ideological, legal, economic, and political structural con-
straints are the object of class struggles over consciousness, organization, goals,
strategy, and boundary.
Third, participants, through the tortuous processes of class struggle, have
created new structures-like bureaucratic organizations, legal procedures, class
boundaries, and cultures-that may further promote or obstruct the struggling
process.

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS 57

Finally, the consequences of class struggle often take the form of changes in
the existing structures. Such transformation can occur at the micro level of
subjective experience or at the macro level in the primacy of class. The outcome
of this round of class struggle generally forms the "conditions" and the struc-
tural confines for the next round of struggle. In class struggle analysis, therefore,
class structure is seen as having historical origins, historical specificity, and
historical transformations.
Although this paper emphasizes the dynamics of class struggle, we eschew
any prediction as to whether there is any natural path (or final destination) of
class struggle. No prediction is made on the future of class struggle because this
process is seen largely as open-ended, protracted, undetermined, and as having
to work itself out in history. In this conceptual framework, class struggle can be
stopped at any moment, forced to retreat to its protoclass phase, or can escalate
its goals with amazing speed. Class struggle also tends to take a variety of forms
and to follow different paths of development.
Hence, class struggle is an "untidy" process that does not fit nicely into the
cells of a typology of class structure. Two decades ago, this lack of fit would
simply have been overlooked on grounds that class analysts should focus first
on the conceptual level of class structure. However, if class analysts want to
break the impasse of the class structure analysis, they must examine this prob-
lematic linkage between class structure and class struggle because it will open up
new research frontiers, such as the pertinent issues relating to the primacy of
class, to the empowerment experience, to the interplay between objective and
subjective class boundary, etc. If class analysts are ever to resolve these research
issues, they should bring class struggle back into consideration to enrich class
analysis.

Acknowledgments: A version of this per. The detailed and insightful crit-

paper was presented at the annual
meeting of the American Sociological
Association, Washington DC, Au-
gust, 1990. The author wishes to
thank Macrina Abenoja, Herb Bar-
ringer, Rose Brewer, Val Burris,
Farideh Farhi, Wally Goldfrank,
Muhammad Hikam, Ben Kerkvliet,
Hagen Koo, Joe Leon, Echo Luo, Pe-
ter Manicas, Jim O'Connor, Ravi Pal-
at, Joe Selden, and Morton Wenger
for their constructive criticism. The
editorial remarks of John C. Pock and
and an anonymous reviewer were
also very helpful in revising the pa-
icism of Erik 0. Wright helped me to
avoid many simplistic statements in
an earlier draft of this paper.
REFERENCES
Becker, Uwe. 1989. "Class Theory and the
Social Sciences: Erik Olin Wright on
Classes." Politics and Society 17:67-88.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A So-
cial Critique of the Judgement. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
. 1989. "Social Space and Symbolic
Power." Sociological Theory 7:14-25.
Burawoy, Michael. 1987. "The Limits of
Wright's Analytical Marxism and Alter-

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
58 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 34, Number 1, 1991
native." Berkeley Journal of Sociology
32:51-72.
Burris, Val. 1987. "The Neo-Marxist Syn-
thesis of Marx and Weber on Class."
Pp. 67-90 in The Marx-Weber Debate, ed-
ited by Norbert Wiley. Newbury Park:
Sage Publication.
Carchedi, Guglielmo. 1975. "Reproduc-
tion of Social Classes at the Level of
Production Relationships." Economy
and Society 4:361-417.
. 1986. "Two Models of Class Anal-
ysis." Capital and Class 29:194-215.
Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class
Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Dawson, Michael. 1990. "Revamping the
Sociology of Class." Sociological Perspec-
tives 33:419-422.
De Ste. Croix, Geoffrey. 1984. "Class in
Marx's Conception of History, Ancient
and Modern." New Left Review 146:94-
111.
Durkheim, Emile. 1972. Emile Durkheim:
Selected Writings, edited, translated,
and with an introduction by Anthony
Giddens. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Friedman, Samuel R. 1983. "Game Theo-
ry and Labor Conflict." Sociological Per-
spectives 26:375-397.
Giddens, Anthony. 1982. "Class Struc-
turation and Class Consciousness." Pp.
157-174 in Classes, Power, and Conflict,
edited by Anthony Giddens and David
Held. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
. 1985. "In Place of Emptiness."
New Society 74:383-384.
Kamolnick, Paul. 1988. Classes: A Marxist
Critique. New York: General Hall.
Mann, Michael. 1986. "Classes, Swedes
and Yanks." Contemporary Sociology
15:837-839.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1936.
The German Ideology. New York: Inter-
national Publishers.
This content downloaded from
144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Meiksins, Peter. 1987. "New Classes and
Old Theories: The Impasse of Contem-
porary Class Analysis." Pp. 64-95 in
Recapturing Marxism, edited by Rhonda
Levine and Jerry Lembcke. New York:
Praeger.
.1988. "A Critique of Wright's The-
ory of Contradictory Class Locations."
Critical Sociology 15:73-82.
McNall, Scott G. 1987. "Thinking about
Social Class: Structure, Organization,
and Consciousness." Pp. 223-246 in Re-
capturing Marxism, edited by Rhonda
Levine and Jerry Lembcke. New York:
Praeger.
O'Connor, James. 1988. "Capitalism, Na-
ture, Socialism: A Theoretical Introduc-
tion." Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 1:11-
38.
. 1990. "The Second Contradiction
of Capitalism: Causes and Conse-
quences." Paper presented to the con-
ference on "New Economic Analysis,"
Iniciativa per Catalunya, Barcelona,
Spain, December.
Offe, Claus. 1985. Disorganized Capitalism.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Poulantzas, Nicholas. 1973. "On Social
Class." New Left Review 78:27-54.
Przeworski, Adam. 1977. "From Pro-
letarian into Class: The Process of Class
Formation from Karl Kautsky's The
Class Struggle to Recent Debates." Poli-
tics and Society 7:343-401.
Scott, Joan. 1988. "Women in The Making
of the Working Class." Pp. 68-90 in Gen-
der and the Politics of History, edited by
Joan Scott. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
So, Alvin Y. and Muhammad Hikam.
1989. "Class in the Writings of Wallers-
tein and Thompson: Toward a Class
Struggle Analysis." Sociological Perspec-
tives 32:453-468.
Stolzman, James and Herbert Gamberg.
1973. "Marxist Class Analysis versus
Stratification Analysis as an General
 CLASS STRUGGLE ANALYSIS 59

Approach to Social Inequality." Berkeley Century English Society: Class Struggle

Journal of Sociology 78:105-125.
Syzmanski, Albert. 1972. "Trends in the
American Class Structure." Socialist
Revolution 10:101-122.
Takaki, Ronald. 1983. Pau Hana: Plantation
Life and Labor in Hawaii. Honolulu: Uni-
versity of Hawaii Press.
Therborn, Goran. 1986. "Class Analysis:
History and Defense." Pp. 96-132 in
The Sociology of Structure and Action, ed-
ited by Ulf Himmelstrand. Newbury
Park: Sage Publications.
Thompson, E. P. 1978. "Eighteenth-
Without Class?" Social History 4:133-
165.
. 1983. "Class Consciousness." Pp.
114-142 in History and Class, edited by
R. S. Neale. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wright, Erik. 0. 1976. "Class Boundary in
Advanced Capitalist Societies." New
Left Review 98:3-41.
. 1985. Classes. London: Verso.
. 1989. "Rethinking, Once Again,
the Concept of Class Structure." Pp.
269-348 in The Debate on Classes, edited
by Erik 0. Wright. London: Verso.

This content downloaded from

144.214.246.43 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms