Lecture
For an analysis of the hegemony of capital, the class of wage workers is the most significant. The reasons for this are obvious: this stratum has been and remains the most numerous under contemporary global capitalism, and it is the labor of wage workers that underlies the entire pyramid of corporate capital's power. As in some other sections of our book, we must begin by recalling certain classical Marxist propositions which, unfortunately, have nowadays been all but completely forgotten. To begin with, let us emphasize: this class is internally contradictory, which is due to the system of capitalist relations of production. Marxist literature has not generally paid attention to this, although the internal contradictions of this class are reflected in Capital and were developed in great detail by Lenin.¹
1 K. Marx notes in Capital that the wage worker is the owner of the commodity labor power. As such, he cannot help but be a bearer of the petty-bourgeois-in-essence striving, inherent in any commodity owner, to win in competition and sell his labor power as dearly as possible. V. I. Lenin associated economism in the labor movement precisely with this. On the other hand, the class of wage workers—and this is the ABC of Marxism—is a collective force, created by socialization, called upon to abolish the capitalist system as a whole, the "gravedigger" of capitalism.
At the same time, let us be frank: a complete and finished characterization of the internal contradictions of the class of wage workers is absent in the classics. So let us recall the ABC of Marxism. The internal contradictions of the classical industrial wage worker stem from the fact that, on the one hand, he is a subject interested in abolishing the appropriation of surplus value by the capitalist class and in the socialization of the means of production. On the other hand, he is a private owner of the commodity "labor power," interested in maximizing the income from the sale of his commodity. And as the private owner of this commodity, he is a "normal" subject, adequate to the market and to capitalism, who has no other interest than to sell dear and buy cheap. Moreover, significant contradictions within the class of wage workers stem from substantial differences in the content of labor (here one must at minimum distinguish manual reproductive labor, the industrial labor of the partial worker, and creative activity; the fact that the working class can be based on manual or machine reproductive activity is likewise described in Capital; we have tried to answer the question of the nature of the exploitation of creative activity above). Finally, important intra-class contradictions of the proletariat are connected with the socio-spatial division of global capitalism and the contradictions of globalization. Given the predominantly collective character of the labor of representatives of this class, a very interesting question also arises about the nature and degree of its cohesion and collectivism. As owners of the commodity "labor power," wage workers have an abstractly common interest—to sell their labor power as dearly as possible (its objectification being trade unions). Why abstractly? Because if an opportunity arises to sell one's labor power dearly at the expense of others, this interest will undermine the abstractly common interest—for everyone together to sell labor power more dearly (strikebreaking). Hence the possible opposition between the interests of the individual worker and the union.
But this collectivism has another side—the concretely universal unity of the interests of wage workers as an exploited class interested in abolishing its subordination to capital and liberating labor. Hence the side of the substantive contradiction of the class of wage workers that is opposite to the petty-bourgeois character of the owners of the commodity labor power—the reproduction, conditioned by socialization, of the working class as an association interested in the liberation of labor. The latter also gives rise to the intention, formulated already by Marx, of self-abolition as a class, an intention inherent specifically and exclusively to the class of wage workers: being a class interested in abolishing the alienation of labor and, consequently, class division, the proletariat strives also for the destruction of itself (and not only of the bourgeoisie) as a class.¹ Such are some of the classical Marxist formulations of the question, unfortunately often "forgotten" both by supporters and by critics of Marxism. Let us now turn to the problems most significant for our study concerning the specificity of the class of wage workers under global capitalism. Among the most pressing problems in studying this specificity, perhaps the question most often put to us is: to what extent is the industrial working class a thing of the past? This question has been reproduced in hundreds of publications over the past half-century.²
1 "The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the destruction of all classes" (Marx K., The Poverty of Philosophy // Marx K. and Engels F. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 4, p. 184).
2 The genesis of post-industrial tendencies and the shrinking numbers of industrial workers in the developed countries allowed H. Marcuse, as early as the late 1960s (and A. Gorz a decade later), to draw conclusions about the diminishing role of this class, the development of a non-class of post-industrial proletarians (A. Gorz), and so on. On this score, the authors have already noted that (1) analyzing developed countries alone is an illegitimately narrow abstraction, and (2) even if one regards the developed countries as a model for the future (an approach that is at least questionable, since, in our view, the "First" world is implementing a dead-end, perverse form of post-industrial tendencies), even here the system of criteria for social stratification—and, more deeply, class division—proposed in this text allows for substantial progress compared to Marcuse's conclusions about the declining role of the industrial proletariat and the rising role of lumpen elements and intellectuals, or Gorz's theses that only the non-class of non-producers is capable of becoming the basis for the birth of the "realm of freedom" (see: Marcuse H., One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, 2nd edition, London: Routledge, 1991; Gorz A., Farewell to the Working Class, London, 1982).
In what respect are Gorz and his colleagues right? In that, indeed, a new type of worker is developing, connected with intellectual (to a certain extent creative) activity, and that this is a consequence of the genesis of the post-industrial technological base. But Gorz is far from right in everything, and this too has already been written about many times; still, for what follows it is important to fix this error, since it will help us understand the specific nature of the contradictions of the modern working class. First, Gorz is wrong that the service-sector worker is not an industrial wage worker, since a significant part of the modern service sector is industrial labor. It is specific (often connected with the creation of simulacra and other products of the perverse sector, and typically characterized by a low level of collectivism and socialization), but in essence it remains wage industrial labor, formally and really subordinated to capital. For those who work in a mechanized laundry, a dry cleaner's, or in road transport, their labor is, in content, obviously industrial. And this is fundamental: it is no accident that we emphasized above the content of labor as an important class-forming criterion. Moreover, in the service sector a reverse tendency arises—the mass-scale development of manual labor, which is pre-industrial rather than post-industrial. This is a wage worker reminiscent of his counterpart from the era of manufactory capitalism. A classic example of such "dispersed manufacture" is the organization of trading processes in many developing and developed countries. Even more important is the fact that in the third world there is a renaissance of the classical industrial working class, and the share of the world's industrial workers in total employment in the twenty-first century is greater than in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. At the same time, however, it is also important that the defining tendency of the present day is nonetheless the development of creative activity rather than industrial labor, even if the latter's share is growing quantitatively.
After these preliminary remarks we can take a careful look at the internal structure of the world class of wage workers. It includes at least the following strata. First, the masses of "classical" wage workers, engaged, as a rule, in reproductive industrial (or even pre-industrial) labor (it is precisely these whom we can, following K. Marx and his associates, call the class of wage workers, or the proletariat, being fully aware of the ambiguity of the latter term). They are subordinated to capital both formally and really, and in some cases (immigrants) are also objects of pre-bourgeois exploitation. The overwhelming majority of them are alienated not only from the means of production and the products of their labor, but also from management and from opportunities to improve their qualifications. Their wages provide only the minimum means necessary to reproduce the given quality of labor power; the system of social protection is, as a rule, at a level characteristic of the developed countries at the beginning of the twentieth century. For the most part, these are workers in the countries of the periphery and semi-periphery (including those employed at subsidiaries of transnational corporations).
V. Lenin's and Rosa Luxemburg's old thesis, along with that of their colleagues, about the double exploitation of workers of the "Third" world holds fully true for them. Moreover, they are now also objects of informational, cultural, and similar forms of hegemony. At the same time, in a number of newly industrializing countries (Brazil and others) they may represent a socially and politically organized class with a rather strong self-awareness as "classical" wage proletarians. Numerically, this is the most massive stratum of wage workers in the contemporary world capitalist economy. It is they who, for the most part (to repeat the thesis of the previous chapter), now produce the surplus value that is sufficient to support the entire perverse sector and the over-consumption of privileged strata in the developed countries. Close to them in social position are workers in developed countries engaged in low-skilled labor (and not only in industry, but also in services, all of whose workers are sometimes mistakenly assigned to a stratum more "advanced" than industrial workers; let us also note that a considerable proportion of them are immigrant workers). Second, wage workers engaged in skilled industrial (but predominantly reproductive) labor in developed countries. They too are objects of all the contemporary mechanisms of the formal and real subordination of labor, but certain transitional forms apply to them (ranging from labor protection and social security to participation in management and ownership), as well as mechanisms for redistributing to their benefit part of the world's social wealth, which reduce the direct burden of exploitation but ultimately reinforce their subordination to capital. It is especially important to emphasize their subordination to the standards of the consumer society, to commodity and monetary fetishism, and to the fetishism of simulacra. Economically and socially they are, as a rule (above all in Western Europe), fairly well organized, but politically opportunistic owing to the transitional forms mentioned above, their belonging to the "golden billion," and other reasons. Third, wage workers in mass creative professions, engaged in potentially publicly accessible creative activity—teachers, educators, doctors at public hospitals and clinics, social workers, lower-level civil servants, workers of cultural institutions (libraries, museums), and the like.
They are, as a rule, subordinated to the hegemony of corporate capital to the extent that (1) that hegemony is universal, and (2) the state and public organizations are themselves agents of this hegemony. These strata of wage workers stand somewhat apart from the first two. At the same time, as the middle class erodes, the "rank-and-file" intelligentsia (workers of mass creative professions), together with skilled corporate workers, even in developed countries, are increasingly, as we have already noted above, excluded from the ranks of the middle-income strata that were the mainstay of the "welfare state," passing into the "lower" group of the "society of one third" now forming before our eyes, which is actively replacing the former "society of two thirds" in the countries of the "center." A quite special social position is occupied, fourth, by "professionals" working at corporate headquarters (especially those employed in the perverse sector—corporate management, finance, marketing, and much else). They combine features of the wage worker (the latter predominate among lower-level employees) with features of members of the corporate hierarchy (more typical of mid- and upper-level employees), as well as certain features of capital-as-function. Owing to this, the latter turn into a kind of "priesthood of the hegemony of capital." Despite the presence of certain creative functions in their activity, the "professionals" employed in corporations are, among workers, subordinated to the hegemony of capital to the greatest degree and are fused with it (privileged material position, integration into the bureaucratic hierarchy, and other mechanisms described above). Accordingly, they are least capable of independently realizing their interests as representatives of the class of wage workers. It is precisely they, together with the "summit"—personified corporate capital—who, alongside the middle bourgeoisie and the "elite" of the liberal professions, form the basis of the upper "one third" of the population of the developed countries and of the less-than-ten-percent "summit" of the Earth's population. In the contemporary global world, which in some places has for decades already been living by the rules of late capitalism, while in others it still preserves vestiges of feudalism, one must single out such a social stratum as the peasantry and other strata of Third World countries engaged in pre-industrial and early industrial labor and constituting the object of pre-bourgeois and early bourgeois exploitation. Formally outside the framework of the hegemony of corporate capitalist structures are also the workers of cooperative and collective enterprises. This group is extremely heterogeneous (here one should distinguish at least small peasant cooperatives, cooperatives based on industrial technologies, and voluntary scientific and other creative associations). Yet, despite its small size (about 1% of those employed), the group of "cooperators" is quite interesting as an example of the birth of a form of associated labor that is free (albeit in a limited way, owing to the dominance of the general capitalist atmosphere) and not directly subordinated to the hegemony of capital. A partly similar position is occupied by people in creative professions who work within relatively free public and state structures (universities, NGOs) or independently. The fairly numerous stratum of workers who are simultaneously small private owners (including, among others, a certain portion of "intellectuals" who cultivate their own private intellectual plot)¹ is, under contemporary global capitalism, as a rule, directly drawn into the orbit of the hegemony of capital.
1 Let us note: strictly speaking, only those who do not employ wage labor in their firms belong to this stratum. Otherwise they fall into the category of the small and medium bourgeoisie. From this
point of view, the so-called "small and medium business" in the overwhelming majority of cases represents nothing other than subtypes of the bourgeois class that predominated under European capitalism
of the nineteenth century.
2 The term "nomenklatura" is not accidental here. M. S. Voslensky does not offer his own definition of the nomenklatura, borrowing it instead from a textbook: "The nomenklatura is a list of the most
important posts, candidates for which are preliminarily reviewed, recommended, and confirmed by the given party committee (district committee, city committee, regional committee of the party, etc.). Persons included in the nomenklatura of a party committee are relieved of their post only with its consent as well. The nomenklatura includes workers occupying key positions." (Party Building. Textbook,
6th ed., Moscow, 1981. See: Voslensky M. S., Nomenklatura: The Ruling Class of the Soviet Union, Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya jointly with the "Oktyabr" publishing cooperative, 1991.) Following M. S. Voslensky and domestic "architects of perestroika," the authors understand the nomenklatura as a closed, privileged, self-reproducing stratum of the masters of corporate structures (in the USSR, a relatively unified bureaucratic pyramid; under global capitalism, a variety of capital-pyramids). "Specialties, offices, and personal cars change easily; what remains immutable is membership in the nomenklatura. This immutability is guaranteed by the very order in which the nomenklatura is formed. One is relieved of a nomenklatura post by the same body that confirmed one in it. But the rule is that one is relieved of one post while being appointed immediately to another (or in connection with retirement). This means that a nomenklatura worker who has been relieved of his post is appointed to a new post by the same body, and it can appoint him only to nomenklatura posts. Thus the very structure of power ensures the immutability of one's remaining within the nomenklatura" (Voslensky M. S., Nomenklatura, Moscow, 1991; electronic version accessible at: http://lib.ru/POLITOLOG/woslenskij.txt). Under the conditions of the global hegemony of capital, within the capitalist class there has formed precisely a "corporate nomenklatura"—a stably reproduced, relatively closed stratum that is the personification not simply of capital but of global corporate systems—these miniature administrative-command systems (hence, incidentally, precisely the nomenklatura model for the reproduction of this stratum—a stratum of both masters and functionaries of corporate structures at once). The theme of bureaucracy and its subject is developed in more detail, in particular, in our work The Anatomy of Bureaucratism (Moscow: Znanie, 1988).
To the extent that they are subordinated to the "field of dependency" created by corporate capital (which we described at the beginning of this part), these actors act as an appendage of corporate capital. They are subordinated to it technologically, are employed predominantly in the perverse sector, and—this is especially true of such professions as lawyers and the like, which are mass professions in the developed countries—by the very content of their activity are engaged in strengthening the mechanisms of corporate capital's hegemony. As for the bourgeois class, under present-day conditions one should above all single out within it, positioned at the top of the contemporary social pyramid, a rather amorphous stratum of subjects of the hegemony of corporate capital, whom we may call the nomenklatura of global capital² (ranging from top managers, holders of large blocks of shares, and the state nomenklatura, to persons controlling the principal ownership rights within corporate groups—we have written a great deal about them above). Subgroups of the bourgeois class today, naturally, also include the ruling strata in the countries of the Second and Third world, which are in many respects dependent on the corporate nomenklatura (ranging from semi-feudal chieftains to Russian oligarchs), as well as strata of private owners of relatively independent non-corporate capital (the middle bourgeoisie), rentiers, and the like.
A very interesting product of the contradictions of late capitalism is the stratum of the "excluded" (the precariat). It is quite contradictory in its position and internal structure. First, the "excluded" quite consistently divide into two substantially different groups. The first consists of educated professionals possessing a certain amount of "human capital," inclined toward self-employment and occupying a position that, though precarious, is on the whole fairly close in its parameters to that of the "middle class." The second consists of representatives of the "social lower depths," especially numerous in the countries of the "Third" world. These are people who for years have been unable to find work, landless peasants, the homeless, lumpen elements, undocumented migrants, and various kinds of minorities.¹ Second, the precariat possesses a certain set of qualities that distinguish it from other strata of society. The "excluded" are indeed excluded from the direct reproduction of corporate capital: they have no stable (and in some cases, no employment at all), no stably reproduced social status (over a short period of time they become now wage workers, now "freelancers," now small entrepreneurs, now unemployed or even lumpen elements), no stable, definite income, and so on.
1 As we have already noted, the precariat is not only "members of the liberal professions," but also the lumpenized strata of "Third World" countries lacking stable (or indeed any) sources of income, who make up the greater part of this proto-class. It is significant, however, that this proto-class also possesses considerable potential for self-organization and the creation of new forms of economic activity (this has been shown, in particular, by the British researcher J. Lester; see: Lester J., "The Outcasts as a New Revolutionary Class" // Alternatives, 2009, no. 1, pp. 85-90). One of the most striking examples of such socially creative activity is the movement of landless peasants and the unemployed in Latin America, who carried out mass actions occupying uncultivated land and created on it a system of diverse forms of family and collective farms.
Speaking figuratively, the precariat is, on the one hand, an exit outside global capital, and hence a negation of global capital, but on the other hand, in most cases this is an exit "into nowhere," and hence, figuratively speaking, it is the "waste" of global capital's vital activity. Speaking strictly, this stratum is formed as a result of global capital's inability to subordinate to itself all aspects of the reproduction of the human being in general, and of the aggregate worker in particular, under conditions of profound technological and socio-economic transformations. As a result, under present-day conditions not only does the traditional capitalist reserve army of labor persist, and unemployment (including the stagnant unemployment known since the time of K. Marx and earlier) continue among "ordinary" wage workers who are [potential] subjects of reproductive labor, but also a "reserve army of professionals" is forming—[potential] creative workers. This is a special type of unemployment in its content, to whose analysis we shall return below. Moreover, members of the precariat are no less subordinated to global capital than all other members of society, and are objects of manipulation. This latter purpose is served by a complex system of methods—ranging from the television now accessible even to the hungry unemployed, which draws them into the virtual world of MTV, SPORTTV, soap operas, and the like, for the "lower depths" of the precariat, to the artificially ("as it were") excluded "exceptional" ("elite") subculture, set apart from the general flow of the world, for the "elite" "excluded." And for both groups alike, the world of such inevitable satellites of contemporary corporate capital as drugs, "virtual reality"¹ and other forms of escape from reality is widely opened up. Only for some—postmodernist intellectuals—does this turn into playing at life for a jaded deterritorializer of all manner of values. For others—residents of favelas who have nothing to feed their children with and no means to treat them when they are sick—it becomes a struggle for physical survival. And to the credit of the latter, it must be said that they are finding new, non-capitalist alternatives to crime and drugs, about which the aforementioned Professor J. Lester has written intelligently and eloquently.
1 So-called internet addiction appeared already at the dawn of the Internet and was first described in detail in the article: Young K., "Internet Addiction: The Emergence Of A New Clinical Disorder" // CyberPsychology and Behavior, Vol. 1, 1998, No. 3, pp. 237-244. Its cause is the desire to escape from various forms of social discomfort, tension, and problems in real life. "71% of office workers abuse the internet during working hours, visiting social-networking sites, online stores, reading personal e-mail, or viewing pornography, playing gambling or role-playing games. People suffering from depression, anxiety and anxiety disorders, social phobia, and other obsessive states develop internet addiction more often than others"—states the website of the Psychological Center.
However, returning to the lowest stratum of the precariat—the lumpen elements—we must emphasize that the specific nature of this stratum's position today consists in the fact that the global hegemony of capital:
• makes this stratum extremely massive and "locks" it into numerous "ghettos of backwardness," scattered like enclave-swamps across the megacities of the developed countries and turning into entire "Sargasso Seas" in the third world; • turns these ghettos into ever more closed formations, from which it is extremely difficult to escape;
• at the same time (as the alter ego of this forced confinement of the poor in "ghettos of backwardness") gives rise to mass migration, turning it into a global problem;
• under conditions of the development of high technology and education, aggravates educational-qualificational social polarization, creating a powerful, viscous boundary that hinders escape from this almost self-sufficient, closed, swamp-like, sucking-in ghetto of social and educational-qualificational backwardness, while remaining open for "entry" into it.²
2 The formation of such a mass social stratum as a phenomenon of global capitalism was analyzed by A. Gorz, as well as in the works of D. Bell, J. Galbraith, J. Habermas, and others.
Such are the brief conclusions concerning the economic foundations of the social structure of late capitalism that we can draw on the basis of our preceding analysis of the system of relations of production of this system. However, the social stratification presented above, based on distinguishing classes and intra-class divisions, is now insufficient. Most specialists who emphasize this insufficiency turn, in seeking ways to overcome it, to the new educational-professional division generated by contemporary post-industrial tendencies (the emergence of a stratum of "professionals," meritocracy, and the like). We have already shown above that such a division is real and reflects the perverse forms (generated by the hegemony of corporate capital) of the growth in the role and scale of creative activity. At the same time, we have also already noted that this division only supplements one of the class-forming principles (place in the system of social production) and leads to social differences only as a result of special relations, whereby capital reproduces "professionals" as a semi-closed stratum (a "priesthood of hegemony") that serves and recreates the power of corporate capital; while, at the same time, this same hegemony locks poorly educated strata into "ghettos of backwardness," making access to education extremely difficult for them (in this connection we cannot fail to emphasize once again: universal equal access to quality education is one of the most important objects and means of the struggle against the global hegemony of capital amid the genesis of post-industrial society). A critical attitude toward the tendencies mentioned above to supplement "classical" social structuring indicates that the search for new social divisions, supplementary to class division, must now proceed along a different path. But before we go further, the authors must at least briefly address the problem of class struggle. We shall confine ourselves to just a few remarks, which will serve as a kind of prolegomena to the conclusions that follow.
First, the authors would like to emphasize a very important thesis, one that in principle belongs to the classics of Marxism but was formulated explicitly, in a striking way, for perhaps the first time, by our friend and colleague Professor M. I. Voeikov: capitalism is typically characterized by class struggle not only of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, but also of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.¹ Therefore, in a case (as, for example, in contemporary Russia) where and when the wages of wage workers decline absolutely or relatively in comparison with the profits of capital, the formal and real subordination of labor intensifies, social transfers are reduced, and so on and so forth, there and then we are witnessing the victory of the bourgeois class in the economic struggle with the class of wage workers.
1 M. I. Voeikov rightly writes: "It is illogical to suppose that only workers take part in class struggle. A struggle is never one-sided. As early as 1931, N. A. Berdyaev made a very profound observation in this connection: 'In reality the bourgeoisie also wages class struggle, and the ruling classes have always waged it. But when a struggle is waged to preserve one's dominant position, it makes less of an impression of being a struggle than when it is waged to change the existing social order. This is the usual illusion of perception. The preservation of the existing order does not appear to be a violent struggle. This is precisely the advantage of workers and socialists—that they wage class struggle openly, whereas the bourgeois ruling classes wage it in disguise' (Berdyaev N. A., Christianity and Class Struggle, Paris, 1931, p. 181). Today we see a fairly sluggish struggle on the part of the working class. That is true. But for some reason we fail to notice the very active struggle on the part of the owners, the 'employers.' All these years have been characterized by a very active and acute struggle precisely on the part of the entrepreneurial class in relation to wage labor. This includes non-payment of wages, artificial bankruptcy of enterprises, unlawful dismissals, wage cuts, and so on" (Voeikov M. I., "Social Reforms and the Social-Class Problem in Contemporary Russia" // Social Reforms: Illusions and Reality. Proceedings of a scholarly conference. Moscow: URSS, 2006, pp. 222-223).
Moreover, where and when opportunities for forming trade unions, holding strikes (including those with political demands), and the activity of left-wing parties and public organizations are curtailed, while other forms of social alienation and the hegemony of capital increase, there and then we may speak of a political, strategic offensive of capital in its class struggle with labor. The highest and most brutal form of this class struggle of capital against labor is, as we know well from history, fascist dictatorship. Second, under late capitalism the diffusion of the social structure, and the growth of intra-class as well as inter-class differences and contradictions, substantially complicates the overall picture of class struggle. It cannot be reduced solely to the confrontation of two "pure" classes—industrial wage workers and private owners of capital. This contradiction remains an effective abstraction, which can and must lie at the starting point of the analysis of class conflicts, but cannot substitute for the entire study, which must ascend from the abstract (the confrontation of the two named classes) to the concrete—the briefly characterized system of inter- and intra-class contradictions described above. Hence the practical relevance of the diverse and flexible forms and methods of class struggle and alliances, each time tied to the specifics of historically concrete conditions and to particular spheres of social space. A characterization of the main "reference points" of these complex confrontations is not the subject of the present work. It should be emphasized, however, that there exists a fairly clear dividing line, separating onto different sides of the barricades the forces of progress (social liberation) and regress (social alienation), the definition of which is the subject of other works by the authors. Third, class struggle under late capitalism is inevitably fused with a social confrontation broader and deeper than that characteristic of the capitalist mode of production as such—one connected with the struggle for the birth of the "realm of freedom."
P.9.1. What is the contradictory nature of the class interests of the wage worker under capitalism?
P.9.2. What are the main groups within the class of wage workers?
P.9.3. What intermediate groups exist between the class of wage workers and the bourgeoisie?
P.9.4. What intra-class groups can be distinguished within the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class)?
P.9.5. What is the role of class struggle in the evolution of the class structure of society?
Comments