Lecture
In this text, as always, we relied above all on the dialectical method of research. It is precisely this method that makes it possible to uncover the nature not only of inter-class but also of intra-class contradictions, and to show the dynamics of class contradictions, including the undermining of the very foundations of these contradictions. The latter requires a critical use of the classical Marxist legacy. This thesis must be emphasized: the modification of class contradictions, their self-negation, and at the same time their deepening and increasing complexity — both within the capitalist system and under the influence of larger-scale shifts (the "sunset" of the "realm of necessity") — is a process that confirms, rather than refutes, the validity of Marxist methodology. Conversely, clinging to the old thesis that capitalism is characterized exclusively by the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie contradicts both the methodology and the theory of Marxism as applied to the present stage. Now let us turn to the substance of the problem. To characterize the classes of late-capitalist society, we need to draw on the rich picture of the socio-economic formation found in the full body of work by Marx, Engels, Lenin and their followers, including the contributions of other authors, rather than simply relying on Lenin's definition of classes. Marx's formulas concerning capital and wage labor, and Lenin's formulas, which are somewhat richer, are of fundamental importance but insufficient. Defining a class requires a set of features forming a single system, genetically interrelated with one another, in which some grow out of others (although there may also be certain mismatches), so that the class structure becomes complex yet integral. Only in this case do we obtain a development of the classical characteristics adequate to the realities of contemporary capitalism. For these reasons, the social stratification set out below will be based on criteria that develop traditional Marxist views and proceed from the structure of the economic social formation. At the same time, the correction will be driven, above all, by the unfolding of the processes that undermine the very foundations of both capitalism and the "realm of economic necessity" as a whole. Accordingly, the most important grounds for distinguishing classes (taking intra-class stratification into account) in contemporary global late capitalism will be the position of these groups in the following spheres of social existence. First, the place of the individual in social production (including spheres lying "beyond" material production proper), viewed at this level of analysis as the process of the functioning of the productive forces. The most important aspect here is the individual's place in the system of the social division of labor.
The latter presupposes, in particular, taking into account the division into reproductive (pre-industrial, industrial) and creative labor, the connection of social groups with managerial labor, and so on — that is, taking into account such a parameter as the content of labor. Second, the individual's position within the system of production relations. This has a determining influence on the content and structure of classes. Here, however, it must be borne in mind that the system of production relations of any social system cannot be reduced merely to property relations and the method of income distribution. The actual structure of the system of production relations is much richer. It follows that, for the class structure in its dynamics, it is important to take into account all the main blocks of this system. Its first block is the historically specific type of economic management (the method of resource allocation). Historically, the first such type in class society was the natural (subsistence) economy and violence as a means of exchanging activity in all its diverse forms: feudal plunder, the Crusades and other "religious" wars, and so on. The best-known type is the market, in its various modifications. Over the last century the market has been supplemented by a set of relations of conscious social regulation of the economy. A given type of economic management (and this is significant) influences the formation of a type of personality and, consequently, the social structure of society, the interests of social groups, their self-awareness, and so on. In particular, the economic and social values and motives, and the self-awareness, of a person engaged in a subsistence economy will differ from those of a person predominantly engaged in market-based economic activity. The market is a system of production relations that sets a particular type of economic behavior and consciousness, particular political intentions, and even an ideology. This, in particular, underlies the Marxist framing of the question of the petty bourgeoisie as a distinct social stratum or (under certain conditions) a class. The second block of production relations that determines the social structure is the property relations specific to a given social system. What matters here is not so much the form of property as its content — the relationship between the owner of the means of production and the worker.
We will refine this thoroughly classical Marxist thesis somewhat by placing emphasis on the character of the alienation/liberation of labor (from the exploitation and subordination of the wage worker, or even the personally dependent worker, to formally/really free labor) and on the appropriation of surplus labor and surplus product. This relationship, however, exerts an indirect influence on the class structure. This is connected with a rather complex system of property rights. Accordingly, in order to understand the economic foundations of social stratification (especially intra-class stratification), it is important to take into account such a criterion as the specific character and scope of the property rights concentrated in the hands of a given stratum — ranging from the position of the actual owner, through control over the function of disposing of property, to alienation from property. Because of this, in conditions where the relations between owner and worker become multifaceted (which is typical of the stage of "sunset" of a socioeconomic system as a whole, and of late capitalism in particular), a complex set of forms arises that make the intra-class structure more complicated. This applies both to the structure of the bourgeois class (here we may refer to the well-known problems of the "managerial revolution" and the expansion of "insider" power, to which we will return below) and to the class of wage workers. In the latter case, on the one hand, there are processes such as the diffusion of the boundary between the class of wage workers and the class of owners of the means of production (under late capitalism there are quite a few forms allowing a worker to acquire certain property rights: participation in shares, profits, and management). On the other hand, the reverse trajectory is also possible: an involution of capitalist hiring, in which the exploitation of the wage worker is supplemented by forms of extra-economic coercion (as with many Russian migrant workers). All of this affects the class structure and the definiteness of classes within a given social organism, making its social-class structure more complex.
Therefore, in analyzing classes, it is necessary to consider the entire set of actually existing property relations, as expressed in various institutions, rights, and forms of property, rather than reducing everything to the dilemma of private versus state ownership. The third block determining the social structure is the manner in which income is formed and obtained, including income redistribution. Say, a 50% income tax on the wealthy substantially reforms class parameters under the social-democratic model of contemporary capitalism, even though it does not change their foundations. The fourth block is the reproduction of production relations and of the social structure they determine. In this connection, in particular, let us note that under conditions of the "sunset" of a given economic system (in our case, under late capitalism) the phenomenon of self-negation of the very relations that reproduce the social-class structure inevitably develops, which leads to the diffusion and blurring of the boundaries of classes and of smaller social groups, and to the increasing complexity of the entire social structure. This is the law of the "sunset" of a mode of production. Let us move on to the level of the superstructure. Here the problem of the political representation of a given social force (class) emerges. Such representation, let us stress, may also be absent. The political existence of a class becomes complete when there is a class ideology (we abstract here from questions of [class] culture, referring readers to a number of works on this subject by our colleagues1), which makes possible the transformation of a class-in-itself into a class-for-itself2. This requires that the social mass become self-aware as a distinct class, and that it define itself, in both activity and the realm of ideas, in terms of its class nature and fundamental class interests, and so on. Under late capitalism, one of the most important criteria will also be the place of a class (stratum) within the system of relations of the global hegemony of corporate capital. This adds a socio-spatial dimension to the social-class structure. The socio-temporal dimension of this structure requires taking into account that, under conditions of qualitative socioeconomic and political transformation, the parameters forming the class structure may become mismatched. The nonlinearity and unevenness of the evolution of the social structure, typical of transformational states, means that some social parameters move in one direction while others move in another. These are some of the theses showing how one can combine, into a relatively coherent system, a set of features already well known to Marxists in principle, demonstrating how they condition one another, and constructing a system of class-forming parameters in which they are genetically interconnected by relations of direct (basic economic) and reverse determination. All this allows us to assert, with considerable justification, that every society has a definite class structure. It is another matter that this assertion is true only if we do not understand it to mean that, in the contemporary era, there exist only two classes — the proletariat and the bourgeoisie — and that everything beyond that is spurious. We can assert that a focus on studying the class structure has not become outdated, but only on the condition that (1) we use a complex system of class-forming features, and (2) we consider all of this in dynamics, emphasizing the active formation of (3) inter-class and (4) intra-class transitional forms. Only in this case will the thesis that classes exist — both as a dialectical abstraction and as a real economic-sociopsychic phenomenon — prove relevant and, moreover, of fundamental significance for understanding the nature of contemporary capitalism. In this connection a caveat is needed: there are essential class-forming features that lie at the basis of this structure, and there are derivative ones. The classical Marxist thesis that the relation between worker and owner is the fundamental class-forming feature remains valid today as well.
From it, indeed, all the rest ultimately follow. It is complex, dialectical, "tied" to the foundations of class formation rooted in the productive forces, and no less intricately interconnected with derivative features: the manner in which income is formed, its size, and so on. If we observe an erosion of the essential class-forming feature, then the nature and state of the social structure change as well. The diffusion of the class structure is evidence of a modification of the socioeconomic system, of its "sunset," of a transformation connected with the germination, within its depths, of a new system. The unambiguous dominance of classical class features, in turn, is evidence of the classical state of the system.
And if the last century is the epoch of the "sunset" of the capitalist system, then the diffusion of the class structure is an entirely lawful manifestation of this. To attempt to claim that no such diffusion exists is to claim that there is no "sunset" of capitalism either, and this amounts to a denial of contemporary Marxism. If, on the other hand, it turns out that somewhere in practice a rigid class model arises, with an industrial wage worker and a private capitalist in the simplest form of a joint-stock company, this means that, in that particular social enclave, capitalism has either not yet reached its "late" state or has rolled backward, from the stage of "sunset" to the "classical" stage. This methodological approach allows us to draw the following conclusion: while gravitating toward the two "traditional" classes (the industrial wage worker and the private owner of capital), the present-day social structure of capitalism gives rise to a broad yet blurred picture of social strata, as is always the case at the descending stage in the evolution of any mode of production. At this stage, the development of diverse transitional production relations, called into being by the process of undermining the fundamental relations of the mode of production (and it is precisely the latter, together with the principal poles of the social division of labor, that basically determine the class structure), leads to the formation of a wide variety of inter-class and intra-class strata and layers. The latter, unlike classes, become a consequence of the "diffusion" of the fundamental production relations. Moreover, as we shall show below, this class-group division, generally based on the structure of relations of the "realm of necessity," is necessary but not sufficient for understanding the social structure of late capitalism. The genesis of the "realm of freedom" introduces yet another important basis: the role of various social groups in the process of the birth of the creatosphere, as well as the identification of particular social forces — the subjects of an emerging associated social creativity. For all the seeming diversity of the criteria and parameters singled out above, in fact only their integral, systemic use makes it possible to construct a unified model of the real social stratification of late-capitalist society. We shall examine this model below, integrating the aforementioned grounds for distinguishing social groups.
8.1. Which blocks of a society's economic system determine its social structure, and how?
8.2. What is the role of superstructural and ideological factors in class formation?
8.3. How do the relations of the global hegemony of capital affect the class structure?
8.4. Is the class structure fixed and unchanging? What influences its evolution?
Comments