KARL MAREK® THEORY OF SOCIAL CLASSES
Ber Pafinhanred Af P a ft ,
by Reinhard Bendix and &.M. Lipset
oe
Karl Marx! theory of social classes vas of great importance in his
vork and at has hed @ profound influence on modern ectint thought. Yet the
writings of Merz, voluminous as they are, ao not contain e coherent exposition
of that theory. They contain, instead, many scattered fragments on this topic.
Ve have tried to assemble these fragments; and by writing a commentary on this
series of quotations ve attempt to give a view of the theory as a vhole. We
should edd that such @ procedure neglects Marx’ owm intellectual development,
for it treats as parts of one theery ideas which he expressed at various times
in his career. However, in the case of Marx® theory of sccial classes this
difficulty is not a sericus one in cur judgment.
According to Marx history may be divided roughly into several pericds,
for example, ancient civilization, feudalism, and capitalism. Esch of these
periods is characterized by a predominant mode of production and, based upon
‘4, @ class structure consisting of @ ruling and en oppressed class. The
struggie between these classes determines the social relations between men. In
particular, the ruling clasz, which oves its position to the ownership and
control of the means of production, 2 aiso, though often in subtle wars,
the whole morel and intellectual life of the people. According to Marx, law
end government, art and literature, science ani philosophy: al] serve more or
less directly the interests of the ruling class. |
In the period of its revolutionary ascendance each cless is "progressive®™
in two senses of that word. Its economic interests are identical with technical
progress and hence with increased human welfare. And its efforts to pursue
these interests align this class on the side of liberating ideas and institutions
mee
and ageinst all who retard technical progress end human welfare o But in tine
an ascending class may become a ruling class, such as the feudal lords or the
capitelists, and then it comes to play 2 different role. Its economic interests,
which originelly favored technical progress, call for opposition to it when
further change would endanger the economic dominance which it has won. Before
its emergence as a ruling class, it turne from a champion of progress inte a
champion of reaction. It resists increasingly the attempts to change the social
and cconomic organization of society, which would allow a full measure of the
progress that hes become technically possible. Such changes vould endanger
the entrenched position of the ruling class. Hence, tensions and conflicts
ere engendered that eventually lead to a revolutionary reorgenization ef society.
*. the means of profuction and of exchange, which served
es the foundation for the growth of the bourgeoisie, were
generated in feuds] socicty. At a certain stege in the develop-
ment of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions
under which feudel society produced and exchanged, the feudal
organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in a
word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible
with the already developed productive forces; they became so many
fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their plece stepped free competition, accompanied by
& sccial and political constitution adapted tc it, and by the
economic and political svay of the bourgeois ciass.
A similar movement is coing on before our own eyes. Modern
bourgeois scciety with its relations of production, of exchange,
and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigentic
means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who
is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom
he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the
history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt
of modern productive forces against modern conditions of preduction,
against the property relations that are the conditions for the |
existence of the bourgeoisie and its rule. It is enough to mention
the commercial crises thet by their pericdical return put the
existence of the entire bourgeois seciety on trial, each time more
threateningly. In these crises a great part not only of the
existing products, but also of the previously created productive
forces, sre periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks
out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an
absurdity--the epidemic of over-production. Sotiety suddenly
finds itself put beck inte a state of momentary barbarism; it
appears es if a famine, a universal var of deveetation hed cut off
« 3 =
the supply of every means of subsistence: industry and commerce
seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is neers much
civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry,
too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of
society ne longer tend to further the development of the conditions
of bourgeois property; on the contrary they have become too
powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and
mo sooner do they overcome these fetters than they bring disorder
into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of
bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois seciety are too
narrow to couprise the wealth created by them. And how does the
bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced
Geatruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the
- conguest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of
the old one. That is to say, by peving the way for more extensive
and uore destructive crises, and diminishing the means whereby
erises are prevented.
The weepons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudaliem to
the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that
bring death to itself; it has algo called into existence the men
who are to wield those weapons--the modern vorking class--the
proletarians.”
This conception of class conflict and historical change lent itself
to a dogmatic interpretation. In particular, the materialist conception of
history was cften used in a manner which implicd that only technical and
cconomic fectors were really important end that the whole social, political and
intellectual realm (what Marz called the “euperstructure”) was of secondary
significance. In two letters, uritten in 1890, Friedrich Engels, .:< life-long
collaborater of Marz, opposed this “vulger” interpretation:
"Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact
that the younger writers sometimes ley more stress on the
econdttic side than is due it. We had to emphasize this main
principle in opposition to our adversaries, who denied it, and
we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to
éllow the other elements involved in the interaction to come
into their own rightsee.."
*..ethe materialist conception of hietory also has a lot of
friends nowadays, to whom it serves as Sn excuse for not study-
ing nistory. eo
lxarl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (New
|York: International Publishers, 1932), 14-15.
— 2
in general the word materialistic serves many or the
RET EL
RPE Se ee eile acs. Ss ina de ‘. * ot. ae s.%
younger writers in Germany as & mere phrase with which enything
and everything is labelled without further study; they stick on
this label and they think the question disposed of. But our
conception of history is above all @ guide to study, not a
lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelians. All
history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of
the a@ifferent formations of society must be individually
examined before the attempt is made to deduce from them the
politichl, civil-legal, aesthetic philosophic, religious, etc.,
notions corresponding to them...”
tt 4s well to keep these reservetions in mind. They suggest that Merx and
Engels often felt compelled by the exigencies of the social and political
struggle, to cast their ideas in extremely pointed formulations. Had the
been stholars of the traditional type, they might have avoided at least some
of the dogmatic interpretations of their work, though they would have had far
less suecess in spreading their ideas and getting them accepted. Much of
the difficulty in obtaining a concise view of Marxian theory stems from the
facet that it vas meant to be a tool for political action. In reviewing
‘briefly Marx® theory of history and his theory of sccial clases, ve shall at
first disregard this political implication. We shall consider this implice-
tion more Girectly in the concluding paragraphs of this essay.
A social class in Merx® terms is any aggregate of persons who
perform the same function in the orgenigation of production. "Freeman and
slave, patrician aad plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman,
in @ word, oppressor and oppressed” (Communist Manifesto) are the names of
social elmeses in different historical periois. These classes are distin-
guished from each other by the difference of their respective positions in
the economy. Sinee a social elass is constituted by the function, which its
ae Ba n ~~ ar ee “4 = % oe a . % i a =] > ; ys"
moubers perform in the prceeess of production, the question arises why the
- 5
is contained in his early writings on philosophy, especiaily in his
theory of the division of labor.
Fundamental to thie theory is Marx’ belief? that work is'man’s besic
form of self-realization. Man cannot live without work: hence Bid tay in
whieh man vorks in society is a elue to human nature. Man provides for his
subsistence by the use of tools; these facilitate his labor and meke it more
productive. He has, therefore, an interest in, and he has also a cepacity
for, elaborating and refining these tools, and in so doing he expresses hin-
self, controls nature and makes history. If human labor makes history, then
an understanding of the conditions of production is essential for an under-
standing of history. There are four aspects of production, according to Marx,
whieh explain why man’s efforts to provide for his subsistence underlie all
¢hange in history.
a) ™“..-Life involves before everything else cating, and drinking, a
habitetion, clothing and meny other things. The first historical act is thus
the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of victesitnd
life itsel?."=
b) “The second fundamental point is thet as soon as e need is satisfied,
(which implies the eetion of satisfying, and the acquisition of an instrument),
new needs are made."* |
c) “fhe third circumstance whieh, from the very first, enters into
bistoricel development, is that men, who deily remake their mm life, begin to
_meke other men, to propagate their kind: the relation between man and wife,
parents and children, the FAMILY. The family which to begin with is the only
Ixarl Marx end Friedrich Engels, The Germany Ideology (New York: Inter-
national Publishers, 1939), 16.
“Ipid., 16-17.
6
social relationship, becomes later, when increased needs create new social
relations and the increased population (creates) new needs, a subordinate
one.s."*
ad) "The production of life, both of one’s own in labor and of fresh
life in procreation, nov appears as @ double relationship: on the one hand
as a natural, on the other es a seecial relationship. By social.we understand
the cooperation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in
what manner and to what end. It follows from this that 2 certain mode of
production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of
cooperation, or social stage, and this mode of cooperation is itself a
“productive force.” Further, that the multitude of productive forces accessi-
ble to men determines the nature of society, hence that the “history of
humanity” must always be studied end treated in relation to the history of
industry and exchange ."*
There is & Logical connection between these four aspects. . The
satisfaction of man’s basic needs makes work a fundamental fact of human
life, but it also creates new needs. The more needs are ereated the more
important is it that the “instruments” of production be improved. The more
needs ere created and the more the technique of production ia improved, he
more important is it that men cooperate, first within the fanily, then also
outside it. Cooperation implies the division of labor and the organization
of production (or in Marx® phrase “the mode of cooperation” as a "productive
force") over and above the technigues of production which are employed. It is,
therefore, the position which the individual ocecupies in the sceial organization
“~
nhaman’:
uncamental
aw bs oe Nec?
of production, that indicetes to which sceial class he belongs. The ;
ee and Engels, loc. cit.
*tpia., 18.
ae
determinant of cless is the way in which the individual cooperates with
others in the satisfaction of his basic needs of food, clothing and shelter.
Other indexes such as income, consumption patterns, educational attaimnent,
or occupation are so many clues to the distribution of material goods and
of prestige-symbols. This distribution is a more or less revealing conse-
guence of the organization of production, it is not identical with it. Hence,
the income or occupation of an individual is not, according to Marx, an indica-
tion of his class-position, i.e.,of his position in the production process.
For example, if two men are carpenters, they belong to the seme occupation,
but one may run a small shop of his own, while another works in @ pliant manu-
facturing pre-fabricated housing; the two men belong to the sis occupation,
but to different social classes. |
Marz believed thet a man’s position in the production process pro-
vided the crucial. life experience, which would determine, either row or
eventually, the beliefs end the actions of thet individual. The experience
geined in the effort of mking a living, but especially the experience of
economic conflict, would prompt the members of 2 social class to develop com-
mon beliefs end common ections. In anslyzing the emergence of these beliefs
and actions Marx specified e number of variabics whieh would facilitate this
process: |
1. Conflicts over the distribution of cconomic revards between the
classes;
2. Easy communication between the individuals in the seme class-
position so that ideas and action-programs are readily disseminated;
3. Growth of class-consciousness in the sense thet the menbers of
the class have a feeling of solidarity and understending of their historic
role;
a.
4, Profound dissatisfaction of the lower class over its inability
to control the economic structure of which it feels itecel? to be the
exploited victim.
5. Establishment of a political organization resulting from the
economic structure, the historical sltuetion end maturation of class-
consciousness.
Thus, the organization of production provides the necessary but
not a sufficient basis for the existence or social classes. Repeated
conflicts over economic revards, ready comsunication of ideas between members
of a class, the growth of glass-consciousness, and the growing dissatisfaction
with exploitation ghich causes suffering in psychological as much as in
materiai terms: these are the conditions whieh will help to overcome the
differences and conflicts Detweet individuals and groups within the cless
and which will encourege the formation of a eless-conscious political
organization.
Marx® discussions of the development of the bourgeoisie and of
the emergence of @ sotial class.
"In the Middle Ages the cltizens in each town were con-
pellied to unite against the landed nobility to save their skins.
The extension of trade, the establishment of comaunications, led
the separate towns to get to know other towns, which had asserted
‘the same interests in the struggle with the same antagonist.
Out of the many local corpovations of burghers there arose only
gredually the burgher class. The conditions of life of the
individual burghers became, on account of their antagonism to
the existing relationships end of the mode of labour determined
by these conditions which were common to them all and independent
of each individual. The burghers had ereated the conditions in
30 far as they had torn themselves free from feudal ties, and
were created by them in so far as they vere determined by their
antegonism to the feudal system which they found in existence.
When the individual towns began to enter into associations,
these common conditions developed into class conditions. The
same conditions, the same antagonism, the same interests
=a
necesserily called forth on the whole similar customs every-
where. The bourgeoisie itself, with its conditions, develops
only gradually, splits according to the division of labour into
various fractions and Pinally absorbs all earlier possessing
classes (while it develops the majority of the earlier non-
possessing, and a part of the earlier possessing, class into a
nev class, the proletariat) in the measure to which all earlier
property is transformed into industriel or commercial capital.
The separate individuals form e class only in so fer as
they have to tarry on @ common battle against another class;
otherWise they are on hostile terms with each other es competi-
tors. On the other hand, the class in its turn achieves an
independent existence over ag@inst the individusis, so that the
latter find their conditions of existence predestined, and hence
have their position in life and their personal development
assigned to them by their class, become subsumed under it.
This is the seme phenomenon as the subjection of the separate
individuals to the division of labour end can only be removed,
by the ebolition of private property and of lebour itself...”
This passage makes it apparent that Marx thought cf sccial class as a condi-
tion of group-life which vas constantly generated (rather thon simply given)
by the organization of production. Essential to this formation of a class
was the existence of a common “class enemy,” because without it competition
betveen individuals would prevail. Also, this is a gradual process, vhich
Gepends for its success upon the development of ‘common conditions’ and upon
the subsequent realization of common interests. But the existence of common
comditions and the realization of common interests are in turn only the
necessary, not the sufficient bases for the development of ae sccial ciass.
Only when the members of a2 "potential® class enter into an association for
the organized pursuit of their common eims, does a class in Marx® sense exist.
in aiscuesing the development of the proletariat unéer capitalisz
Marz described @ process which was essen ntielly similar to that which he hed
ceservibed for the development of the modern bourgeoisie.
sGersan Téeolosy, 48-49.
-
eo
"The first attempts of the vorkers to associate among
themselves always take plece in the form of combinations
(unions) .
large-scale industry concentrates in one place a crowd
of people unknown to one another. Competition divides their
interests. Eut the maincenance of wages, “his common intercst
which they have agsinst thele bo88, unites thon an & common
thought of resistance--combination. Thus combinction alvarys
has a double eim, that of stopping the compesit ete emong them-
selyea, in order to bring about a general competition with the
capitalist. If the first aim of the general resistance was
merely the meintenance of wages, combinations, at first iselated,
constitute themseives into groups as the capitelists in their
turn unite in the idea of repression, and in the face of always
united capital, the maintenance of the essociation becomes more
necessary to them than that of wages. This is so true that the
English economists are amazed to see the workers sacrifice a
gocd part of their wages in favor of esscciations, which in the
eyes of the economists, are established solely in Paver of vages.
In this steuggie~~a veritable civil var-~-are united and devel ope x2
all the elements necessary for the coming battle. Once it has
yveached this point association takes on a yolitical aenbees,
Economic conditions had first transformed ie mass of the
peopie of the country into workers. The domination of capital
has created for this mass @ comuon situation, common interests.
This mass is thus already a class as against capital, but not
yet for itsel?. in this struggle, of which ve have noted only
a few phases, this mass becomes united, and constitutes itself
es a ciass for itself. The interests it defends become class
interests. But the gtruggle of class egainst class ia a
political struggle.” |
Thus in the case of the proletariat, es in the case of the bourgecisie,
Maxx cited several conditions which were essential for the development of
@ sceial class: conflict over economic revards, physical concentration of
uasses of people and easy communication among them, the develogment of
solidarity and political organization (in place ef competition between
individuals and organization for purely economic ends.)
The entagonion of the workers to the capitalist class ané to the
prevailing economic system vas to Marz not sizely. a consequence of the
struggle for ecancmic advantage. In aédition to the conéitions mentioned
sar) Merz, The Poverty of Philesophy (New York: International Pub-
lishers, node),
a ae
he laid great stress on the humen consequences of machine production under
capitalism. The social relations which cepitelist industry imposed, deprived
the workers of all opportunities to chtain psychological satisfaction tree
their work. This complete want of satisfaction Marz called the elienation
of human labor. Ee attributed it to the division of labor in modern industry,
which turneé human beings inte appendages of the machine.
, “The knowledge, the judgment and the will, which though in
ever so small © degree, are practiced by the independent peasant
or handieraftsman, in the same way as the savege makes the whole
art of war consist in the exercise of his personal cunning--
these faculties (?) are now required only for the workshop as 2
whole. Intelligence in production expsnds in one direction, be-
cause it vanishes in many others. What ie lest by the detail
labourer, is concentrated in the capital that employs therm. It
is a result of the division of labor in manufactures, that the
jaborer is brought face to face with the intellectval potencies
of the material process cf production, as the property of another,
and as a ruling pover. This separation begins in simple coopers~
tion, where the capitalist represents to the single vorkman, the
oneness and the will of the asscciated labor. It is developed
in manufacture which cuts dow the laborer into a detail laborer.
It is completed in modern industry, which makes science e produc-
tive force distinct from lebor and presses it into the service
of capital.
"In manufacture, in order to make the collective leborer, and
through him ecapitel, rich in social productive power, esch laborer
must be made poor in individual productive powers. ‘Ignorance
is the mother of industry as well as of superstition. Reflection
and fancy are subject to err; but a habit of moving the hand or
the foot is independent of either. Manufactures, eccordingly,
‘prosper most where the mind is least aeegas eee oad where the
workshop may...be considered as art engine, the ports of which
ave men’, (A.L. Ferguson, De 289) "2
*.eewithin the capitalist system all methods for raising the
social preductiveness of labor are breught about at the cost of
the indivicual leborer; all means for the development of —
tion trensform theaseclves into means of domination over, anc
exploitation of the producers; they mutilete the laborer into
a fragment of & man, degrade him to the level of an erreniage
of a machine, Gestroy every remment of charm in his work and
turn it into a hated toil; ther estrange from him the intelicctual
eo Marz, Capital (New-York: Modern Library, 1936), 396-97.
- j2-
potentialities of the Isbor~process in the seme proportion as
science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they
distort the conditicns under which she vorks, subject him during
the lsbor-precess to a despotism the more hateful for its mean-
ness; they transform his life time into working-time end drag
his wife and child under the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital.
But all methods for the eccumulation of surplus value are at the
game time methods of accwmiation; and every extension of accurn-
letion becomes again a weans for the development of those methods.
It follovs therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates,
the lot of the Jaborer, be his nts high or low, must grow
WOPSE o | | fete Je
Marx believed that the Slienation of lebor ves inherent in eapitalisn
and that it wes mere psychological aeprivation . which would leed eventuall
to the proletarian revolution. This iitaiens of why, men under capitalism vould
revolt, was based on en essumption of what prompts men to be setisficd or Gis-
satisfied with their work. Marx contrasted che modern industriel worker with
the medieval creftsman, seid cade with many other writers of the period--
observed that under modern conditions a producti on the vorker had lost all
opportunity to exercise his "knowledge, judgnent and vill” in the teanufacture
of his product. To Merx this psychological deprivation seemed more significant
bond than the economic pauperisn to which cepitalism subjected the masses of
workers. At any rate, | two somewhat conflicting statements can be found in his
work. In one he declared that the physical misery of the working classes vould
inerease with the development of capitalism.
| "Accumulation of wealth st one pole is : therefore, at the
same time accumletion of misery, sgony of toil, slavery, igno-
Fance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite polc.. a”
But in the other he mainteined, that capitalicn could result in an absolute
inerease of the standard of living for the workers , but that it would result
‘ers. Ope cite, 7O&-709.
“mta., 709.
« 33 x
nevertheless in the experience of mounting personal deprivation.
"When capital is increasing fast, wages may rise, but the
profit of caplitel will rise mich faster. The meterial position
of the leborer has improved, but it is at the expense of his
sociel position. The social guif which separates him from the
capitalist has widened."+
And, as we have been, Marx sumeriged his analysis of the oppressive effects
of capitalism with a long list of striking phrases, only to conelude this
elequent recital with the sentence: "It follows therefore that in proportion
as capital accumulates, the lot of the lebourer, be his nayment high or low,
must grow worse.”
tt will be apparent from the ‘preceding @iscussion that Merx did not
simply identify a secial cless with the fact that a large group of people
occupied the same objective position in the economic structure of a socicty.
fnstead, he laid greet stress on the importente of — tive euareness as
& precondition of orgenizing the cl2.ss successfully for the economic and the
political struggle. Marx felt certain that the pressures engenderca by
capitalism would determine its development in the future. And he believed
it to be inevitable that the masses of industrial workers would come to a
conscious realization of their class-interests. Subjective averencss of
class interests was in his view an indispensable element in the developmen
of 2 sceial class, but he believed that this awareness would inevitably arise
along with the growing contradictions inherent in capitalism. In the preceeding
P,
discugsion we have cited two of the conditions which made Marx feel sure
this prediction: the concentration of workers in towne end the resulting ease
of commmication between them, and the psychological suffering engendered by
a Marx, “Nege, Leber and Capital,” in Sclected Yorks (Noccow: ~ Co-
operative hati case ome! of Foreign Workers in the U.8.S.R. » 1936),
1, 273.
oe Ds
the alienation ef labor. By wey of summarizing Marx® theory of class we
cite his vievs on the French peasants who occupy 2 gimilar position in the
economic structure but do not thereby provide the basis for the formation
of a social class.
“The small peasants form a vast mass, the members of which
live in similer coné@itions, but without entering into manifold
relations with one another. Their mode of production isolates
them from one another, instesd of bringing them into mutual
intercouree@ocscein so far as millions of families live under eco~
nomie conditions of existence that divide their mode of life,
their interests and their culture from those of other classes,
and put them into hostile ccntrast to the letter, they form a
class. In so far as there is merely a local interconnection
among these sm2ii peasants, and the identity of their interests
begets no unity, no national union, and neo political organization,
they Go not form a class." a
Theat is te say, the peasants occupy the same position in the economic struc-
ture of their society. But in their case this fact itself will nat creatc
Similar attitudes and common actions. The peasants do not form a soctal
class in Nerx’ sense, because they make their living on individuel farms in
isoletion from sone ENOTHE e There is no objective basis for — Communica -
tion betveen then.
In the case of the industrial vorkers, hovWever, such an objective
basis fer reedy commmication existed. They were concentrated in the lerge
industrial tcoims, and the conditions of factory production brought them Lato
close physical contact with one another. Yet, even then Marz did not belicrve
that the politicsl organization of the working class anc the décvelopment of
Class-coneciousness in thought end action would be the automatic result of
these objective conditions. In his view these cbjective conditions srovri:
”
a favorable setting for the development of political egitetion. And this
Apert Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (New York:
Internstional Publishers, nde}, 169.
45 «.
apitation was in good part the function of men, who were not themselves
workers, but who hed acquired 2 correct understanding of historical change,
ang who were willing to identify themselves with the movement of those wno
were destined to bring it about.
% ew eeit times vhen the class struggle nears the decisive
hour, the protess of dissolution going on within the ruling
class, in fact within the whole range of old sctiety, acsumes
such a violent, glaring character, that a smali section of the
ruling class cuts itself adrift and joins the revolutionary
class, the class that holds the future in its hands. dust as,
therefore, at en earlier period, a section of the nobility vent
over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie
gees over to the egg and in particular, 2 portion of
the bourgeois idcologists, who have raised themscives to the
icvel of a theoretically the historical movement
as @ whole.
There is little question that Mars conceived of his owm work as en example
of this process. The scientific analysis of the capitalist economy, es he
conceived cf it, was itself én taportent instrument by means of which the
cless consciousness and the political erganizetion of the workers could ba
furthered. And because Marx conceived of his owm work in these SerMs, he
declared that the detachment of other scholars was spurious, was merely a
sereen thrown up to disguise the class-interests which their vork served.
Hence he denied the possibility of a social science in the modern sense of
that vord. The “proof” of his theory wes contained in the actions of the
proletariat.
Tt is epparent thet Marx’ theory of social classes, along with
other parts of his doctrine, involved a basie ambiguity which has bedevilled
his interpreters ever since. For, on the onc hand, he felt quite certain that
wa fee “Sem
the contredictions engenéered by capiteliscn vould inevitebly lead to a cless-
L. Te: ° * ™~
Karl More and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Commmist Party (New
York: International Publishers, “6%, 19. TE es
conscious proletariat and hence to @ proletarian revolution. But on the
oe
€ assigned to class-consciousness, to political action, an:
nis scientific theory of history a major role in bringing about this result.
In his own eyes this difficulty was resolved because such subjective clements
es clees-consciousness or a scientific theory were themselves a by-product
of the contradictions inhereat in capitalism. The preteding discussion hes
sought to elucidate the meaning of this assertion by specifying the general
philesophicel assumptions and the specific environmental and psychological
conditions on the basis of which Marz felt able to predict the inevitable
development of class-consciousness. Toe the critics this claim to predict
an inevitable future on the basis of assumptions and canditions, which may
or may not be valid, hes always seemed the mjor flav in Marxian theory.
