Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Class politics, once the unquestioned centre of the socialist project, has
became the object of intense controversy. There have been many reasons
for this startling developmentthe appearance of the so-called new social
movements and the continued failure of traditional Left parties to effect
fundamental social change are just two. But at the heart of most critiques
has been the notion that the working class is no longer a viable basis for
socialism. Pointing to the contraction of the manual working class and the
proliferation of ostensibly different strata, a number of socialists have argued
that it is time to bid farewell to a social group that is anyway primarily turned
to material preoccupations. For the advance of socialism, it appears, an
alternative agency or agencies will have to be found.1 What is striking,
though perhaps not surprising, is that this abandonment of the first principle
of Marxist political practice has not been rooted in a solid theorization of
contemporary capitalist society. In fact, most recent contributions to the
debate on class structure have rejected the older orthodoxy (as expressed in
101
See, for example, Andr Gorz, Farewell to the Working Class, London and Boston 1982, and E. Laclau,
Ch. Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, Verso, London 1985.
2 For more extended rebuttals of the challenge to class politics, see Ben Fine et al., Class Politics: An
Answer to Its Critics, London 1984; P. Meiksins, E. Wood, Beyond Class: A Reply to Chantal Mouffe,
Studies in Political Economy (fourthcoming); and E. Wood, The Retreat from Class, Verso, London 1986.
3 G. MacKenzie, Class Boundaries and the Labour Process, in Social Class and The Division of Labour,
eds. A. Giddens and G. MacKenzie, Cambridge 1982.
4 E. O. Wright, Class, Crisis and the State, NLB, London 1978 retains a two-class model (plus a residual
petty bourgeoisie). However, he defines a substantial number of individuals as occupying contradictory
class locations between the two major classes or between then and the petty bourgeoisie. Wright
estimates that almost half of the population occupies these middle positions. Wright et al., The
American Class Structure, American Sociological Review 47:6, December 1982, pp. 70926.
5 Classes in Contemporary Capitalism, NLB, London 1974.
6 In Between Labour and Capital, ed. P. Walker, Montreal 1978. The Ehrenreichs argument is mirrored
by a number of non-Marxist analyses, including A. Gouldner, The Future of the Intellectuals and the Rise
of the New Class, New York 1979.
102
103
Ibid., p. 143.
Ibid., chapter 7.
13 Oppenheimer hedges his bets on this issue somewhat. Although he never clearly identifies a new
middle class, and although his discussion tends to lead him away from such a notion, he does include
it in his graphic representation of contemporary American class structure. Op. cit., p.18.
14 See E.O. Wright, Classes, Verso, London 1985, pp. 7071, for a discussion of the concept of skill
exploitation, which he draws from the work of John Roemer. Wright notes (p. 185) that the type
of exploitation, unlike others, does not correspond to a clear relation between exploiter and exploited.
15 See S. Wood, ed., The Degradation of Work?, London 1982, for a selection from recent debates on
the nature of skill.
12
104
R. Crompton, G. Jones, White Collar Proletariat: De-skilling and Gender in Clerical Work, London
1984, p. 224.
17
See also Oppenheimers discussion of the case of pharmacists (p. 142).
18 D. Johnson, Class and Social Development: A New Theory of the Middle Class, Beverley Hills 1982,
esp. part three.
19 The Nature of Work: An Introduction to Debates on the Labour Process, London 1983, p. 119.
105
some seek to preserve lost skills, or to re-define new ones, while others
capitulatebut the labour process continues to include a great diversity
of types of work. Even de-skilled jobs require different abilities
(compare a typist with an assembly-line worker) and command different
material rewards (this, after all, is what the movement for comparable
worth is trying to change). And while the situation of portions of the
highly skilled middle classes may have deteriorated in recent years, as
Johnson suggests, the historical record should teach us that such trends
are generally temporary, or overstated. The middle class has been
pronounced dead on many occasions. The reality is that skilled jobs
persist: some, such as engineers, successfully resist de-skilling while
other skilled jobs are created as the labour process evolves.20 All in all,
Marxists who hope that de-skilling will homogenize the labour force
leave themselves open to the kind of criticism mounted by Andr Gorz
when he denies that capitalism universalizes general abstract labour.21
Skill, then, is not the same as class. If anything, de-skilling is more
usefully understood as a symptom of class: that is, de-skillingor what
Marx referred to as the real subordination of labour to capitalcan
only occur once a worker has become a wage-labourer.
Similar criticisms can be made of the contention that material privilege
alone creates classes. As with skill, one must ask how much material
privilege one needs to have to be considered outside the working class;
clear breaks do not occur in the distribution of material rewards.
Besides, is it the case that the interests of privileged employees and
those below them are irreconcilably in conflict? At one level, the
engineer being paid $50,000 a year may be said to have an interest in
perpetuating the lower pay of an automobile worker, since it leaves
more for him and enhances his prestige. But one could also argue that
they have a shared interest in the abolition of capitalism. This would
allow both to enjoy material comfort, while removing the threat that
is always present under capitalism that the more privileged workers
position would be reduced as employers sought to reduce costs and
gain greater control over the labour process. Such privileged workers
are not capitalists, and their interests, unlike those of capitalists, can be
satisfied under socialism. At the same time, unlike the traditional
petty bourgeoisie, they share with less privileged workers a common
relationship to the dominant class. Their privileges are real and may
have important effects on their attitudes and behaviour, but there is no
theoretical reason to see these alone as placing them in a different class.
Functionalist Arguments
Finally, we should look at the argument that function can serve as the
basis for drawing class distinctionsone which has attracted a number
of Marxist adherents, including the Ehrenreichs, especially since the
20
Tessa Morris-Suzuki, Robots and Capitalism, NLR 147 (SeptemberOctober 1984) notes that
although many new computer occupations are being de-skilled, trends seem to be leading towards a
hierarchy of knowledge-producing occupations, Thus some of the new skilled jobs will survive.
21
Gorz, op. cit., chapter one. For lengthier discussions of the de-skilling controversy, see S. Wood,
op. cit., and P. Thomson, op. cit., chapter four. P. Attewell, The De-skilling Controversy, SUNYStony Brook Sociology Working Paper No. 850302 provides a strong, perhaps too strong, statement
of objections to the de-skilling thesis.
106
107
working class. But they are also exploited by their employers and have
formed unions and affiliated to the broader labour movement even in
the United States. It is precisely in this group that white-collar unionization has been concentrated. Although one can exaggerate the degree
to which this involves working-class solidarity, it seems clear that many
while-collar workers have begun to respond in rather familiar ways to
the experience of wage-labour that they share with the manual working
class.26
As to those who control and reproduce labour within the capitalist
enterprise, the situation is made more complex by their hierarchical
superiority over the direct producers, so that it is very easy for them
to consider themselves as separate or better than their subordinates.
But although the structure of the workplace itself often sets up a
conflictual relationship, the interests of this portion of the PMC are not
served by a full-scale drive to appropriate the skills and knowledge of
the traditional working class. That is in capitals interest: it is what
capital tells the PMC to do, but it in no way prevents the same thing
from happening to the PMC itself. Nor is this lost on PMC members.
Engineers, for example, long ago gave up the collective effort to pursue
technocratic strategies such as scientific management, which sought to
concentrate power in the hands of these professionals.27 Instead, engineers have focused their own self-defence either on chances of promotion
into top management or on the quest for higher salaries, job security,
autonomy, and so on.28 The former, if achieved, clearly does complicate
matters, as will be argued below. However, the latter course is similar
to what subordinate workers do and is caused by their situation as wagelabourers. One should not be so naive as to expect engineers or other
such privileged members of corporate hierarchies to ally themselves
easily with the labour movement. But there is no reason to see the many
obstacles as class barriers, and good reason to regard the middle layers
of corporate employment as the special kind of wage labour to which
Marx referred.29
An Alternative Approach to Class
108
31
109
It is striking that Wrights empirical test of his theory treats income as the best available indicator
of exploitation. Classes, chapters 56, esp. p. 193.
33
A. Cottrell, Social Classes in Marxist Theory, London 1984, suggests that Marx makes use of this
concept of class in the Communist Manifesto, modifying it later in the Eighteenth Brumaire. While one
might wish that he had made allowance for the polemical character of the Manifesto, Cottrell is surely
right that there is a danger in crude Marxist analyses of class.
110
of wage-labourers. It should not surprise us, then, that the polar relations
of production characteristic of capitalism are translated by actual human
beings into far more complex and varying patterns of social conflict.
The evident disunity of the category of wage-labour, the fact that some
see themselves as different from others, is thus explicable without resort
to non-Marxist concepts. All wage-labourers, even the most privileged,
respond to their experience of the relations of production, almost
invariably through some form of individual or collective conflict with
their employers. But different types of wage-labour may quite easily
react in different ways, or the same types may exhibit varied responses
from one time, place or country to another.
The second adjustment that needs to be made is a recognition that the
production process in capitalist enterprises has become increasingly
collective. A single product or service depends upon a wide range
of employees, from specialized production workers, through clerical
workers who keep track of the paperwork involved in ordering
materials, coordinating production, marketing goods, etc., to technical
specialists who design products and the production process, and even
managers who coordinate the work. This is true not simply of material
production but of virtually all sectors of the economy. The crucial
question is what becomes of exploitation under these circumstances. If
we avoid Carchedis problematic focus on the function of labour,
then the alternative is to argue that all non-capitalistsi.e., the entire
collective labourer, irrespective of functionare exploited. All sell their
labour-power and participate in production, and all, even the most
privileged, experience the conflicts inherent in capitalist relations of
productionbeing treated as a cost, being exposed to de-skilling tendencies, unemployment and so on. Degrees of privilege and authority,
while muting the experience of conflict, do not eliminate it.34 However,
the question still remains: who is part of the collective labourer?
The Managerial Revolution
This point is missed in Wrights and Roemers discussion of exploitation. As Marx once put it:
The size of ones purse is a purely qualitative distinction whereby two individuals of the same class
may be incited against one another at will. Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality, Marx-Engels,
Collected Works, vol. 6 p. 330.
35 Cutler et al., Marxs Capital and Capitalism Today, London 1977; Cottrell, op. cit., chapter three.
Even Abercrombie and Urry (p. 124) come close to this argument when they suggest that the
managerial revolution has created a situation in which the service class increasingly works for
capital, not capitalists.
111
See Th. Nichols, Ownership, Control and Ideology, London 1969, and J. Scott, Corporations, Classes and
Capitalism, New York 1979.
37 A statement of this and opposing views, together with an empirical test, is provided in M. Ornstein,
Interlocking Directorates in Canada, Administrative Science Quarterly 29:2, 1984, pp. 21031.
38
M. Useem, The Inner Circle, Oxford 1984.
39
Wrights early discussion of contradictory class locations does not distinguish very clearly between
these different types of control. As a result, he tends to exaggerate the degree of control possessed by
middle managers. Similarly, his more recent discussion of organizational asset exploitation ascribes
control over such assets to a surprisingly large, diverse group: perhaps as much as 14.2 per cent of
the US labour force have real control, while another 17.4 per cent are ambiguous. Classes, p. 195.
112
American engineers constitute a good example, having traditionally had good chances of reaching
the top of corporate hierarchies, particularly in certain industries (petroleum, public utilities). The
leaders of the profession have often been precisely these engineer-executivesa fact which has coloured
the ideology of the professional associations, helping to make engineering what has been called the
business profession.
41 For example, see Gough, op. cit.; Carchedi, op. cit.
42 Gough (op. cit.) argues that such workers are indirectly productive in that their exploitation
reduces the cost of their necessary services to capital.
113
The key point in our analysis of the contemporary collective labourer has
been that the exploitative character of capitalist relations of production is
the root of class structure. Although this is a conventional Marxist
proposition, many (including some Marxists) would argue that it artificially emphasizes exploitation and the polarizing tendency to which it
gives rise. Thus the objection is often raised that it fails to explain the
behaviour of real people, who do not group themselves into two classes;
and, in particular, that many people belonging to the collective labourer
do not see themselves as having a collective identity. Indeed, the
collective worker is deeply segmentedto cite just one example, engineers certainly do not see themselves as equal to blue-collar or subordinate
white-collar workers. The various parts of the collective worker seem
preoccupied with their internal differences, as this or that part claims
entitlement to more rewards, and so on. It appears, then, that status
rather than exploitation is the key to the actual pattern of stratification
in capitalist societies.
Now, this argument misunderstands the role of status preoccupations,
which can best be explained precisely as a result of exploitation. If
workers are concerned to protect and enhance their status, this is
because exploitative production relations constantly threaten them with
a loss of economic well-being and social respect. In struggling over
status, specific groups of workers are not trying, ultimately, to take
something away from those below them in a kind of zero-sum game.
They are trying to get more from their employers. The fact that they
sometimes enter into competition with other employees is a result of
the way in which employers structure the conflict, not of any necessary
conflict of interests among themselves. There is a real sense in which
status consciousness is a reaction to the experience of class exploitation.
In stressing the centrality of exploitation in contemporary social structure, we do not at all wish to devalue other factors to which Carchedi
and Wright have correctly pointed. Rather, the task is to understand
how the dynamics of exploitative production relations interact with these
other factors in shaping peoples responses to their situations and how
class solidarity may emerge from this. The labour force continues to be
deeply segmented by economic sector, skill level, and thus by market
position. As dual labour market theorists have noted, such inequalities
form an obvious basis for different forms of organization and consciousness (i.e., for different types of reaction to the experience of wage
labour).43 Different reactions are not inevitable, and solidarity among
various types of workers can and does occur. But the real possibility
remains that they will respond to their situation by seeking to preserve
43
This type of argument is summarized in D. Gordon, R. Edwards, M. Reich, Segmented Work, Divided
Workers, Cambridge 1982.
114
For the latter, see R. Walton, The Impact of the Professional Engineering Union, Boston 1961.
M.S. Larson, The Rise Of Professionalism, Berkeley 1977.
46
For comparative data on women and trade unions, see Alice Cook et al., Women and Trade Unions
in Eleven Industrialized Countries, Philadelphia 1984.
45
115
Davies, op. cit., like Braverman, emphasizes efforts to apply scientific management in the office.
Nevertheless, the office division of labour is clearly less extensive than that characteristic of many
industries, especially of assembly-line systems. The low cost of female labour may help to explain why
the potentially expensive skilled private secretary has not been the target of workplace rationalization,
at least until recently. See Davies, ch. 7, and Kanter, op. cit., chapter 4.
48 Crompton and Jones, chapter three.
49 Cynthia Cockburn, Brothers, London 1983.
50 Oppenheimer, p. 89.
116
G. Therborn, The Prospects of Labour and the Transformation of Advanced Capitalism, NLR
145, MayJune 1984.
52 Classes, pp. 28889.
117
118
Fine et al., op. cit., p. 3; R. Williams, Towards 2000, London 1983, pp. 1723.
William, p. 160.
120