What are the basic assumptions of the concept of Class? Discuss Karl Marx’s perspective on class.

The notion of class achieved significance, with its Marxian conceptualization to expose various sorts of exploitation of the oppressor over the oppressed in economic, social and political realm of the society. However, we see a shift from the subject matter of the class in the post Marxian writings, exposing various kinds of domination in the realm of social, political and economic realm by various dominant groups.

The assignment will begin with a brief sketch on the concept of class and its implications in Sociological theories. The second section will deal with the concept of class through the writings of Marx. With reference to few post-Marxian writings, the third and final section of the assignment will reflect on the changing subject matter of class from exploitation to domination.

The concept of class in Sociology

The Sociological studies on social stratification viewed that, the membership to a class is open and fluid and can be changed according to the changing nature of status and privilege acquired by a person. Further the difference in the status and privilege which members of one class gets over others and how this lead to various practices of domination and discrimination in the society have been the major area of concern reflected in the social stratification analysis. The stratification theories found that, the combination of property, occupation and power or anyone these enjoyed by an individual or a group as the major elements which give them better status/privilege in society.

It was in 19th century, class as a category came to recognize as a relevant concept in explaining social theory. In Sociology, the concept of class has been using to explore various dimension related to ‘social stratification’. Several sociologists in this connection have proposed the theory of class structure, to explain the phenomena of mobility between the class positions. For Ossowski (1967) therefore, one class is differentiated itself from other classes according to the privilege and status enjoyed by its members in the society. On the basis of access to various resources, Anthony Giddens has considered three main sources of class power. The possession of property therefore according to him, put one in to the category of dominant/upper class. The qualification/credentials put one in intermediate/middle class and the labour power constitute one in the working/lower class. Alvin Gouldner through his concept of Cultural Bourgeoise explore various ways through which the privileged groups in the society accumulate and control cultural capitals to restrict other members in accessing various credentials and qualifications. Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of social, cultural and economic capitals are also found to be used in sociological writings to reflect on various dimensions of social stratification.

There are two prominent perspectives in social stratification, through which we can understand the concept of class and its application in social stratification theories. First among these is the ‘Nominalist’ perspective. This perspective emphasized on the social status of each and every member in a particular

class. In other words, according to this perspective, even if a class constitutes a collection of individual, the social status enjoyed by each and every individual in a particular class also may vary slightly. The second perspective is the realist perspective. This considers the class as sum total of the social status of the members of a class; therefore, no individual difference is highlighted.

Class in the writings of Karl Marx

Marx in his much celebrated work ‘the communist manifesto’ for the first time, introduces us about the possibility of using the concept of class as device to trace out the history of the evolution of the society. For him therefore, “The history of existing society is the history of class struggle”. Marxist discourse thus attributes class and class struggle as social mechanisms to move towards the proposed socialist society by thwarting the existing capitalist social system, as it did to the earlier stages of social evolutions. In this connection, the history of class struggle provides a detail account of the existence of different classes in various stages of the society. Thus, Freemen and slave, patrician and plebeian were the classes existed in the medieval course of the history. Lord and serf, guild-master and journeymen, in the feudal stage and the ploritariate and bourgeoisie are the features of the capitalist stage. Marx further accounted that, these classes in different stage of history constitute as the oppressor and oppressed. They stood in opposite to each other and the struggle between these group avail one production system in a particular stage of the progress of the society to move towards another production system.

For the better understanding of Marxist notion of class, we have to reflect on the role of ‘means of production, ‘mode of production’ and ‘relations of production’ in different stage of the society. For Marx, these three factors avail the oppressor to retain their power and exploit the oppressor in different time.

The conquering of different destination by the European countries through various voyages and colonialisation of various countries through wars resulted in shifting from the feudal production system to the capitalist system. The concurring and colonialisation of different countries were aimed to make more profit through expanding the trade to different areas. This further lead to the emergence of big industries to increase the production rate. As a result, big machineries started to use as a mode of production in these industries to speed up and to increase the production rate. The changing structure in the production system even changes the political structure of the world, leading to the colonialisation of different countries by a handful of countries. This further lead to the demolishen of the guild, the small industries and trade in the feudal stage and paved way for the big industries and big trades.

The changes in the mode of production from feudal to capital also lead to changes in the ‘relations of the production’ wit the employer and the employee. This further avail the bourgeoisie to exploit large number of the ploriteriates and a handful of members have the right to control the industries in the different parts of the country. Various countries now have to dependent on the other countries for their survival and the workers have to dependent their masters for their survive. The workers in the capitalist stage has no any say in deciding the wage, working time etc. the ploritariate became only a class of labors who live only so long as they find works. They are a commodity in the hands of the bourgeoisie like any articles of the industry. Owing to the extensive use of the machinery in the industrial sectors, the works of the ploritarians lost all its individual character. The prizes of the commodity has not drawn to his wage. This resulted in ‘surplus value’ and give big profit to the bourgoisea. Wwing to the high need of the commodity he has to work in high time in the industry.

With the history of exploitative practices of the oppressor over the oppressed, the writing of Marx also reflects the history of the resistance of the oppressed. The resistance of the ploriateriate against the bourgeoisie was therefore firstly carried by some individuals in the history of human beings. During the course of the progress of the production system an progress of the society, this was then carried by one factory workers, then of the operative of one trade in one locality against the individual bourgeoisie who exploit them. According to Marx, these resistance however lacked a direct attack of the bourgeoisie. In other words, in different stages of the history, the oppressed class retaliated by destroying products, by smashing machinery and destroying factory. This was to revive the vanished status through forces. There was no direct encounter with oppressor in any stage of the history. More importantly, worker’s resistance against the bourgeoisie are scattered throughout the universe and there is no united organization to co-ordinate these struggle. Marx in his work ‘the communist manifesto proposed for a workers union to bring all working class movements throughout the world under one organization. This is to club the workers together to keep up the wages and to found a permanent associations to make provision for occasional revolts. Marx foresees that, this united organizing of the workers will lead the world towards a socialistic stage. This stage would be peculiar with the withering away of bourgeoisie state, the dictatorship of the ploriteriates, abolishen of private property and the abolishen of nationality.

Thus, class in Marxist terms has been defined as a social group where the members of the group

are bound to have a common interest among them which is primarily economic. Class, thereby is

a group of individuals who ‘share similar relations with the means of production, owners of the

means of production, and users of the means of production’ (Rudra, 1989:141). As they share a

common relationship among them, the members of this particular class do not tend to have any

contradictions in their social and political interests, while they have definite contradictions with

members of other classes on the same society. On the basis of the economic position held by its

members, the notion of class in Marxist social analysis saw the society consisting of two social

groups, ‘the owning’ and ‘non-owning’ classes. However, it does not mean that the criteria for

class analysis are only confined to the economic parameters, but it does deal with the political

and social position of the classes placing their economic position at the center of it. Thus, as

Deshpande (2003) remarks, ‘class in Marxism is the theoretical principle, by which society may

be divided into distinct groups that are identified by their economic role or position, which

shapes the social world they inhabit and the culture they fashion, which in turn, moulds their

political consciousness and inspires their actions’ (Deshpande 2003:127). In other words, ‘what

you are at the economic level shapes what you experience at the social level and which

ultimately determines what you do at the political level’ (Deshpande 2003:127). Early Marxist

writings came up with the two-class based social arrangement, namely the oppressor and the

oppressed where social relations were premised upon economic positions alone.

Theoretically, the common political, and social interest among the members of the oppressed

class precipitated by their economic position in society unite and develop them; what Marx and

Engels would call ‘class solidarity’ within them. The ‘class solidarity’ ultimately would lead to

the ‘class consciousness’ among the members leading to the formation of ‘class antagonism’

between the two opposing classes. It is the ‘class solidarity’ and ‘class consciousness’, which is

able to set the stage for ‘class struggle’ between the oppressor and the oppressed, owing to the

transformation of existing social system. Classes and class struggle are thus believed to be

capable of changing the production system thereby changing the whole life pattern; social,

economic, and political.

Later Marxian scholars reconsider many views proposed by Marx regarding class. The

distinguished views attempted to incorporate the possible equal role of different dimensions like

social, cultural, and political positions in determining the social formation while emphasizing the

existing views on economic position. This attempt further also resulted in changing the subject

matter of the concept of class from ‘exploitation to the ‘domination’ in the post Marxian

writtings. Pierre Bourdieu in this connection reminded us of the equal importance of cultural,

economic, and social capitals to retain the social domination thereby maintain the class status-

quo in the society (Bourdieu 1986). Antonio Gramsci on the other hand, provoked us to think of

the production and dissemination of hegemonic ideas and practices to maintain the social status

of dominant groups (Mouffe 1979). Althusser’s views on ideology and ideological apparatuses

bring our attentions to the question of how the relationship between the power structure and the

prevailing ideas are interconnected to serve the social status of the dominant social groups of the

society (althuser 1979).

References

Althusser, Louise.1970. ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an

Investigation).’ Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays, edited by L. Althusser, 121-176

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. ‘The Forms of Capital’. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the

Sociology of Education, edited by J Richardson New York: Greenwood.

Deshpande, Satish. 2003. Contemporary India: A Sociological view, New Delhi: Penguin books

Marx, Karl Henrich and Frederick Engels. 1969. Manifesto of the Communist Party,

Marx/Engels selected work (1) Moscow: Progress Publishers

Mouffe, Chantal. 1979. Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Ossowski, S. (1967), ‘Different Conceptions of Social class’ in Class, Status and Power: Social

Stratification Comparitive Perspectives edited by Reinherdt Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset,

Routledge and Kegan Paul

Rudra, Ashok. 1989. ‘Emergence of the Intelligentsia as a Ruling Class in India’, Economic and

Political Weekly. 24(3):142-150