What do you think?
Rate this book
Classes
Class analysis and class struggle are central concepts in Marx’s social theory yet, notoriously, Marx never wrote a systematic exposition of these terms during his lifetime, and succeeding generations have had to piece together interpretations from his many scattered references and discussions. The problem of trying to develop a Marxist class analysis on this basis has been made all the more acute by changes in the class structure of advanced capitalism, for these have thrown up a bewildering range of new social strata which seem to be difficult to reconcile with the many traditional understandings of class.
In Classes , Erik Olin Wright, one of the foremost Marxist sociologists and class theorists, rises to the twofold challenge of both clarifying the abstract, structural account of class implicit in Marx, and of applying and refining the account in the light of contemporary developments in advanced capitalist societies. Recentering the concept of class on the process of exploitation, Wright discusses his famous notion of “contradictory class locations” in relation to the empirical complexities of the middle class, and he provides an analysis of class structure in “post-capitalist” societies. Wright then goes on to draw out the implications of his approach and to submit it to detailed empirical testing with the use of a trans-national survey of class structure and consciousness.
In Classes , Erik Olin Wright, one of the foremost Marxist sociologists and class theorists, rises to the twofold challenge of both clarifying the abstract, structural account of class implicit in Marx, and of applying and refining the account in the light of contemporary developments in advanced capitalist societies. Recentering the concept of class on the process of exploitation, Wright discusses his famous notion of “contradictory class locations” in relation to the empirical complexities of the middle class, and he provides an analysis of class structure in “post-capitalist” societies. Wright then goes on to draw out the implications of his approach and to submit it to detailed empirical testing with the use of a trans-national survey of class structure and consciousness.
344 pages, Paperback
First published October 17, 1985
6 people are currently reading
230 people want to read
About the author
Erik Olin Wright
55 books164 followersErik Olin Wright was an American analytical Marxist sociologist, specializing in social stratification, and in egalitarian alternative futures to capitalism. He was the (2012) President of the American Sociological Association.
Erik Olin Wright received two BAs (from Harvard College in 1968, and from Balliol College in 1970), and the PhD from University of California, Berkeley, in 1976. Since that time, he has been a professor of sociology at University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Wright has been described as an "influential new left theorist." His work is concerned mainly with the study of social classes, and in particular with the task of providing an update to and elaboration of the Marxist concept of class, in order to enable Marxist and non-Marxist researchers alike to use 'class' to explain and predict people's material interests, lived experiences, living conditions, incomes, organizational capacities and willingness to engage in collective action, political leanings, etc. In addition, he has attempted to develop class categories that would allow researchers to compare and contrast the class structures and dynamics of different advanced capitalist and 'post-capitalist' societies.
Erik Olin Wright received two BAs (from Harvard College in 1968, and from Balliol College in 1970), and the PhD from University of California, Berkeley, in 1976. Since that time, he has been a professor of sociology at University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Wright has been described as an "influential new left theorist." His work is concerned mainly with the study of social classes, and in particular with the task of providing an update to and elaboration of the Marxist concept of class, in order to enable Marxist and non-Marxist researchers alike to use 'class' to explain and predict people's material interests, lived experiences, living conditions, incomes, organizational capacities and willingness to engage in collective action, political leanings, etc. In addition, he has attempted to develop class categories that would allow researchers to compare and contrast the class structures and dynamics of different advanced capitalist and 'post-capitalist' societies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 22, 2011
Wright is a member of the 'critical Marxism' school which includes Gerry Cohen and John Roemer. An important part of their approach to their work and interest in Marxist studies is their interest in deriving hypotheses from theory which have the possibility of being vailidate or refuted by empiral testing. This book provides a good example of this methodology.
The proposition here is that, whilst there are good intuitive reasons for believing that class is a concrete and real aspect of the social and economic structures of modern society, the concept as developed from within the Marxist canon is challenged by observable facts which appear to seriously reduce its explanatory potential. The most important of these is the phenomenon of the middle classes.
Traditional Marxist theory appears to predict the existence of two main classes based on their relationship to the means of production. These are strictly demarcated camps which do not permit their members to straddle the line. On being identified as 'proletarian' or 'bourgeois' an individual's class interests are from that point determined by the overall interests of her class as it stands in realtion to the other.
The existence of the salaried middle class challenges this proposition. Though their labour is exploited to created surplus capital for the bourgeoisie, they also exploit workers. Does a Marxist class perspective help us established whether their class interests lie with capitalism or socialism?
Wright is debating this issue out with another Marxist theoretician, Nicos Poulantzas For them the question resolves itself to what it actually is that makes the working class the working class. For Poulantzas the answer is its role in producing new surplus value; for Wright its status as a class exploited by capital..
The differences are more than theoretical. Poulantzas version produces a much smaller working class, effectively limited to proletarians performing physical labour to create new value in commodities. This appears to exclude all those wage earners employed in administrative, technical or supervisory functions. It also raises an acute additional problem for Marxist theory, which is whether a class defined on this basis can account for the existence of the level of class consciousness which brings workers into conflict with capitalism with the potential of prefiguring socialism.
Wright’s preference for a definition based on the concept of exploitation leads to different predictions. The first of these is that the class which Poulantzas sees as ‘the new petty bourgeoisie’ and therefore unambiguously on the side of capital, actually occupies a contradictory class location. The moment of exploitation in its social existence holds out the prospect of it being aligned with the proletariat, but its function in managing the interests of capital brings it in line with the bourgeoisie proper.
Standard scientific methodology would require this dispute to be resolved by deducing a set of hypotheses consist with the theoretic standpoint and framing these in a way which could be tested by empirical means. This is what Wright does. A large part of its middle section provides a commentary on the outcome of a survey conducted with subjects in the US and Sweden which attempts to predict their class location on the grounds of either their place in the production of surplus or the experience of exploitation. On settling these points, the study then goes on to consider where the subjects stand in relation to class formation (whether they are members of groups which are aligned with the interest if capital or labour) and also their subjective view of their own status.
In refining positions for this work he considers the attributes of the middle strata and their relationship to the forces of production. When they exploit, what are the exploiting? In some instances they functioning a ‘uncredentialed’ supervisors of labour – foremen, middle managers, etc; in others as technically qualified staff who can use their qualifications to extract additional privileges from capital. Wright’s theory predicts that a preponderance of the former over the latter will lead to a stronger identification of the middle strata with capital, and vice versa.
As he expounds the technical detail of his survey Wright argues that exploitation plays the role of strongly indicating the character of the polarisation of classes in the two national societies he is looking at. In Sweden, where a high proportion of ‘experts’ and credentialed non-supervisors, class formation favours the proletariat, with many more managers being members of trade unions and identifying with social democratic political currents. In the USA, where 25% of salaried workers are involving in supervision, working class organisation is much weaker, as is class consciousness..
The political implications of this work appear to be that an emphasis on the common experience of exploitation by capital will provide the left with the framework its needs to bring intermediary groups into an alignment with the forces of labour. In this way, although the objective component of class membership, for Wright, definitely exists in terms of exploitation by capital, it is also brought to a point where it can act consistently with its interest by the existence of class formations, like trade unions and political parties. This is the real difference between the US and Sweden. Perhaps there is therefore a theoretical underpinning to Obama’s Democrats and their harking to the cause of the ‘squeezed middle’.
The proposition here is that, whilst there are good intuitive reasons for believing that class is a concrete and real aspect of the social and economic structures of modern society, the concept as developed from within the Marxist canon is challenged by observable facts which appear to seriously reduce its explanatory potential. The most important of these is the phenomenon of the middle classes.
Traditional Marxist theory appears to predict the existence of two main classes based on their relationship to the means of production. These are strictly demarcated camps which do not permit their members to straddle the line. On being identified as 'proletarian' or 'bourgeois' an individual's class interests are from that point determined by the overall interests of her class as it stands in realtion to the other.
The existence of the salaried middle class challenges this proposition. Though their labour is exploited to created surplus capital for the bourgeoisie, they also exploit workers. Does a Marxist class perspective help us established whether their class interests lie with capitalism or socialism?
Wright is debating this issue out with another Marxist theoretician, Nicos Poulantzas For them the question resolves itself to what it actually is that makes the working class the working class. For Poulantzas the answer is its role in producing new surplus value; for Wright its status as a class exploited by capital..
The differences are more than theoretical. Poulantzas version produces a much smaller working class, effectively limited to proletarians performing physical labour to create new value in commodities. This appears to exclude all those wage earners employed in administrative, technical or supervisory functions. It also raises an acute additional problem for Marxist theory, which is whether a class defined on this basis can account for the existence of the level of class consciousness which brings workers into conflict with capitalism with the potential of prefiguring socialism.
Wright’s preference for a definition based on the concept of exploitation leads to different predictions. The first of these is that the class which Poulantzas sees as ‘the new petty bourgeoisie’ and therefore unambiguously on the side of capital, actually occupies a contradictory class location. The moment of exploitation in its social existence holds out the prospect of it being aligned with the proletariat, but its function in managing the interests of capital brings it in line with the bourgeoisie proper.
Standard scientific methodology would require this dispute to be resolved by deducing a set of hypotheses consist with the theoretic standpoint and framing these in a way which could be tested by empirical means. This is what Wright does. A large part of its middle section provides a commentary on the outcome of a survey conducted with subjects in the US and Sweden which attempts to predict their class location on the grounds of either their place in the production of surplus or the experience of exploitation. On settling these points, the study then goes on to consider where the subjects stand in relation to class formation (whether they are members of groups which are aligned with the interest if capital or labour) and also their subjective view of their own status.
In refining positions for this work he considers the attributes of the middle strata and their relationship to the forces of production. When they exploit, what are the exploiting? In some instances they functioning a ‘uncredentialed’ supervisors of labour – foremen, middle managers, etc; in others as technically qualified staff who can use their qualifications to extract additional privileges from capital. Wright’s theory predicts that a preponderance of the former over the latter will lead to a stronger identification of the middle strata with capital, and vice versa.
As he expounds the technical detail of his survey Wright argues that exploitation plays the role of strongly indicating the character of the polarisation of classes in the two national societies he is looking at. In Sweden, where a high proportion of ‘experts’ and credentialed non-supervisors, class formation favours the proletariat, with many more managers being members of trade unions and identifying with social democratic political currents. In the USA, where 25% of salaried workers are involving in supervision, working class organisation is much weaker, as is class consciousness..
The political implications of this work appear to be that an emphasis on the common experience of exploitation by capital will provide the left with the framework its needs to bring intermediary groups into an alignment with the forces of labour. In this way, although the objective component of class membership, for Wright, definitely exists in terms of exploitation by capital, it is also brought to a point where it can act consistently with its interest by the existence of class formations, like trade unions and political parties. This is the real difference between the US and Sweden. Perhaps there is therefore a theoretical underpinning to Obama’s Democrats and their harking to the cause of the ‘squeezed middle’.
July 17, 2020
“Most Americans are middle class”, “class doesn’t exist in the US”, and other dumb myths are destroyed by this statistical sociological whirlwind. Wright also uses hard data to corroborate the Marxist definition of class as relations of exploitation, categorizes different contradictory class positions within the class structure, and analyzes the relationship between class structure and class formation (consciousness, collective organizations, etc.) This book is dry as hell, though. I hope you like long passages of methodological descriptions.
December 28, 2019
Sanıyorum ki, Marxizm'den ancak bu kadar olur. Diğer bir deyişle, modern ve modern sonrası toplumlara Marxizm, "toplumsal gerçekliğin tamamını kapsama ve açıklama iddiası"nı sürdürebilmek için ancak böyle bir yeniden-yapılanmaya sahip olmalıydı, ki Wright da bunu sağlıyor. Bununla birlikte kitabın, aynı zamanda Wright'ın önemli kavramlarından biri olan 'çoklu sömürüler'in dayandığı John Roemer'ın oyun kuramı, ne yalan söyleyeyim mantıklı bir şey gibi gelmedi bana. Yine de dört yıldız.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews