S&S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press
Productive Labor, Class Determination and Class Position
Author(s): Scott M. Lash
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring, 1978), pp. 62-81
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40402073 .
Accessed: 05/03/2011 17:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilford. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science & Society.
http://www.jstor.org
PRODUCTIVE
LABOR,
CLASS
DETERMINATION AND CLASS POSITION
SCOTT M. LASH
ARE TWO
QUESTIONS
that dominate
virtually
all of the literature on social
class,
whether Marxist or
non-Marxist.
They
are:
1)
what are the social
classes,
and
2)
once the social classes have been
determined,
how are these
determinations to account for the different
behavior,
and
espe-
cially political
behavior,
of the various classes? For the sake of
convenience we
shall,
following
Charles
Bettelheim,1
call the first
item
(what
the social classes
are)
class
determination,
and the second
item
(political behavior)
class
position.
Clearly,
from one social formation to the
next,
classes
having
the same class determination do not have the same class
position
(for
example, compare
the
working
class of
Italy
with that of
West
Germany). Evidently,
there are
mediating
forces,
be
they
political parties,
trade unions or other carriers of class
struggle.
For
Marxists,
this
question
is
important politically
as well as
theoretically.
For
working
class
hegemony,
or for the
possibility
of transition to
socialism,
a
large
section of the middle class
(as-
suming
a
progressive working
class)
must take a
proletarian
class
position.
In crisis situations the
acceptance
of
reactionary
solu-
tions
by
sections of the middle class
(from
Weimar
Germany
to
Chile in
1973)
has been
catastrophic.
On the other
hand,
large
sections of
non-working
class
categories
have
historically
been
known to take
proletarian
class
positions;
for
example,
Chinese
peasants,
the
peasantry
in the Russian
Revolution,
and the
petite
1 C.
Bettelheim,
"Dictatorship
of the
Proletariat,
Social Classes and Proletarian Ideol-
ogy," Monthly
Review,
Nov.
1971,
pp.
55-76. Also see: C. Baudelot and
others,
Les
Petites
Bourgeoisies
en France
(Paris, 1974).
62
PRODUCTIVE LABOR AND SOCIAL CLASS 63
bourgeoisie
in the south of France for the
past
30
years
or
more.2 Yet these
groups,
which have on occasion taken
proletar-
ian class
positions,
have not been
organized
or influenced
by
forces identical to those which have influenced the
working
class.
This
essay
will deal with the three
major
classes dominated
by
the
capitalist
mode of
production (CMP):
the
working
class,
the middle class
(or
petite bourgeoisie),
and the
capitalist
class,
in
terms of their class
determination,
and will then discuss the con-
clusions which can be drawn from this class determination in
terms of their class
position.
Some
major
currents of
opinion
will be examined with re-
spect
to:
1)
how
they correspond
with the basic
concepts
in
Marx's
Capital,
and
2)
how well each of these theories has been
able to
explain (and
even
predict)
social outcomes in class
posi-
tion,
both in the
light
of crucial
political developments
and in
relation to data from the social sciences. No matter how
rigorous
Marxism is as a network of
tightly
woven
concepts,
criteria of
internality (cf. Althusser3)
are not sufficient
-
that is to
say,
Marx-
ism must also be able to account for social outcomes. In our view
the orthodox Marxism of
Capital predicts
social outcomes better
than
any
other theories.
Before we
get
to the
body
of the
paper
we must
glance
briefly
at the
question
of
productive
vs.
unproductive
labor. We
should ask:
1)
what
concept
of class determination follows from a
writer's treatment of
productive
vs.
unproductive
labor?
2)
how
is this class determination related to the class
positions
which
various classes
may
take? and
3) what,
if
any,
mediators exist
between class determination and class
position?
There
appear
to be two main tendencies
among
Marxist
writers. First there are those whose concentration is
economic,
and who attribute
proletarian
class determination to all laborers
in the
sphere
of
production.
This would
put engineers
and even
some
managers
into the
working
class as
potential revolutionary
forces. Two
principal exponents
of this thesis are E. Mandel and
2
See,
for
example,
A.
Kriegel,
Les Communistes Francais
(Paris, n.d.),
p.
1103, and C.
Baudelot and
others,
op.
cit.
3 L. Althusser and E.
Balibar,
Lire le
Capital (Paris, 1968),
Vol.
1,
p.
82. Also B.
Hindess,
The Use
of Official
Statistics in
Sociology (New York, 1973).
64 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
Ian
Gough.4
For these
theorists, furthermore,
circulation work-
ers
(clerks, etc.)
and others who do
unproductive
labor would
not be
potential revolutionary
forces. The second
tendency
con-
siders that the
reproduction process
has
logical
and theoretical
primacy
over the
production process.
Circulation workers are
thus
regarded
as
productive
workers
(although "indirectly pro-
ductive"),
and therefore as members of the
working
class. In this
view circulation workers would be
just
as
likely
to take a
proletar-
ian class
position
as
directly productive
workers,
and
would,
pre-
sumably,
be
identically
influenced
by
the same
political
socializ-
ing
forces. These
writers,
whom we will
designate
as
reproduc-
tionists,
include two tendencies:
a)
the "realizationist"
tendency
of
James
O'Connor and
Harry
Braverman,5
and
b)
the more
Hegel-
ian
tendency
of Arnaud
Berthoud,6
who has written the most
thorough
and exhaustive work on
productive
vs.
unproductive
labor.
The
primary
focus of this
essay
is Nicos Poulantzas' Classes in
Contemporary Capitalism,7
the first
study,
to our
knowledge,
to
combine the two
important
criteria of class determination
-
the
question
of
productive
vs.
unproductive
labor,
and the
recogni-
tion of the
importance
of
power,
of domination and subordina-
tion in the
enterprise
and in the
larger
social formation.
(This
latter
concept, present
in
Capital,8
has
passed virtually unrecog-
4 E.
Mandel,
Late
Capitalism (London, 1975), pp.
253-54,
589. 1.
Gough,
"Marx's
Theory
of Productive and
Unproductive
Labour,"
New
Left
Review
(76),
Nov.-Dec.
1972,
pp.
47-72.
5
J.
O'Connor,
"Productive and
Unproductive
Labor,"
Politics and
Society,
1975,
pp.
297-336. H.
Braverman,
Labor and
Monopoly Capital (New York, 1974), p.
378.
6 A.
Berthoud,
Travail
Productif
et Productivit du Travail chez Marx
(Paris, 1974).
7 N.
Poulantzas,
Classes in
Contemporary Capitalism (New York, 1975).
All citations from
this work will be from the French
edition,
N.
Poulantzas,
Les Classes Sociales dans le
Capitalisme Aujourd'hui (Paris, 1974).
T. Dos Santos,
in "The
Concept
of Social Classes"
(Science
fc?
Society
,
Summer
1970,
pp.
166-193),
does demonstrate
cognizance
of the two criteria. But I feel that he
does not
pay
sufficient attention to the
productive
vs.
unproductive
labor
parameter.
The value of the Dos Santos article lies in his
recognition, rarely specified by
Marxist
political
economists or academic
sociologists (p. 178),
that the
possibilities
of the
working
class
becoming
a
"dass-for-itself,"
or
taking
a
proletarian
class
position,
is a
function of
contesting ideologies.
Also Dos Santos'
analysis
of crises
leading
to
changes
in the social
psychology
of the
working
class is
quite
valuable
and,
in
many
ways,
not far removed from Poulantzas'
position.
8 K.
Marx,
Capital (New York, 1967),
Vol.
I,
pp.
508-9.
PRODUCTIVE LABOR AND SOCIAL CLASS 65
nized
by
other
Marxists).
From these two
premises
Poulantzas
arrives at his
understanding
of class determinations:
a)
that the
"productive" managers
and
top engineers
are in the
capitalist
class; b)
that the circulation
workers,
as well as foremen and
technicians in the
sphere
of
production,
are in the
petite
bourgeoisie;
and
c)
that
only
those who labor in the CMP
-
in the
sphere
of
production
-
are in the
working
class.
Though
this writer is not in
agreement
with Poulantzas on
such matters as the class determination of service
workers,
and
his criteria for
differentiating
the various fractions of the
capitalist
class,
he is in accord with the broad lines of the above
argument.
Most
important
to Poulantzas'
position
is his
emphasis
on the
specificity
of class
determinations,
especially
with
respect
to
differing class-position
outcomes in terms of the
political
and
social forces
operating
at a
particular conjuncture.9
It is
impor-
tant that the Left
recognize
the
singularity
of
non-proletarian
class determinations and work to
get
the
non-proletarian
categories (especially
the
petite bourgeoisie)
to take a
proletarian
class
position.
Poulantzas' book cannot be seen
apart
from
attempts
of
French Marxists
(of
the Althusserian
variety)
to formalize Marx-
ism into a
science,
to
give
a
rigorous
framework to the
concepts
of Marx and Lenin
(and
to a lesser
degree,
Gramsci and
Mao);
i.e.,
to formulate an
axiomatic,
and then to
apply
it to
past
and
present history.
Poulantzas' first
book,
Pouvoir
Politique
et Classes
Sociales,
was
part
of the
attempt
to construct such an axiomatic.
Fascisme et Dictature and Classes in
Contemporary Capitalism
are
mainly
extensions and
applications
of the axiomatic.
Let us
briefly
examine the
concept
of
structure,
before we
discuss how Poulantzas has
applied
his
conceptual grill.
Marx
often
spoke
of the economic
structure,
upon
which
legal-political
and
ideological superstructures
are built. But these
political
and
ideological superstructures
are not the same as the structures of
Althusser and
Poulantzas;
Marx's are rather the
political
and
ideological practices
of the dominant class of the social formation
under consideration.
Engels,
followed
by
Lenin and
Mao,
spoke
of
economic,
9 This
point
is also made in Poulantzas' Fascisme et Dictature
(Paris, 1974),
p.
271.
66 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
political
and
ideological
class
struggle.
In this use the term ideol-
ogy
no
longer
had the
specific meaning given
to it in The German
Ideology
(i.e.,
the
ideology
of the dominant
class).
It now
ap-
peared
that the subordinated classes also had
economic,
political
and
ideological practices.
If the
working
class also had
political
and
ideological prac-
tices,
then the
superstructures qua
structures had to be more
than
just
the reflection of the dominant class in the
economy;
they
had to be
places (spaces)
in which the
practices
of the
oppos-
ing
classes or class forces
struggled.
Hence there was a certain
neutralization,
by
the French
Marxists,
of the term
superstruc-
tures
(a
change
from Marx's
original concept). They
were now
viewed as
places
in which class
practices
come
up against
one
another. But this could not be a
complete
neutralization since the
dominant mode of
production
had an effect on these structures
(as
terrains of
combat).
The dominant mode of
production
de-
termined that the
planes,
or
terrains,
where the
practices
of the
two classes came face to
face,
should be
heavily weighted
in favor
of the dominant
class; i.e.,
they
were not
neutral,
but neither
were
they
a
pure
reflection of the
practices
of the dominant class
(as
in Marx's
original
formulation).
In Poulantzas' use of structures in Classes in
Contemporary
Capitalism
and Fascisme et
Dictature,
they
(the structures)
are more
than terrains of battle for the
opposing
class
forces;
they
affect
the class determinations of the various
groups
in a social forma-
tion. For
Poulantzas,
as for Marx in
Capital,
class determination
in the economic domain is of
primary importance.
But the
larger
political
and
ideological
structures
-
as distinct from
practices
in
the structures
-
also affect class
determinations,
especially
for
doctors,
greengrocers,
small
farmers, etc.,
who do not labor in
the
CMP,
but work in subordinate modes of
production
in social
formations dominated
by
the CMP. Within these societal struc-
tures the class determiners are
essentially
relations of domination
and subordination.
Now,
a closer discussion of the
major
social classes.
/. The
Working
Class
We start with the
assumption
that
spheres
of
production
and
PRODUCTIVE LABOR AND SOCIAL CLASS 67
spheres
of circulation are
mutually
exclusive,
that
producers
of
surplus
value are
paid
out of the
capitalists'
variable
capital,
whereas realizers of
surplus
value
(i.e.,
the circulation
workers)
are
paid
out of the
capitalists' surplus
value.10
Thus to be in the
working
class one must labor in the
sphere
of
production,
and
exchange
this labor
power
for variable
capi-
tal.
Working-class membership
also necessitates that the laborer
be in a subordinate
position.
Production
managers, engineers,
technicians and foremen who work in the
sphere
of
production
are not in the
working
class because of their
superior
or inter-
mediate
position
in terms of
power
in the
enterprise.11
No one will
deny
that direct
production
workers
-
the
assembly-line
workers in
auto,
the machine-tenders in
textile,
the
process operators
in the chemical
industry
-
are in the
working
class. And
very
few would
deny
that mechanics and warehouse
men are also in the
working
class. All of these
groups
are in
subordinate
positions
in the
sphere
of
production.
But to better
understand the
directly productive
nature of the labor of all
service
workers,
for which I shall
argue
below,
let us recall the
precise
nature of the work of the mechanics and warehouse men.
The mechanic
preserves
value
(or
prevents devalorization)
of the
capitalist's
fixed
capital,
and the warehouse man
preserves
the
value of the
already produced
commodities.
It is
my
contention that all service workers
-
including
school-teachers,
transport
workers
(whether
transporting people
or
commodities),
hospital
workers,
hotel and restaurant workers
(whether
their service is a
necessity
or a
luxury), advertising
men
and
women,
and research and
development personnel
-
do
pro-
ductive labor. This is so because of their role in the
production
and
reproduction
of individual
capitals,
and because of their role
10
Although
there are
passages
in
Capital open
to other
interpretations,
the
only logically
consistent
position
that Marx takes is
basically
this one
(Capital,
Vol.
II,
p.
104 and
p.
127). Mandel,
Gough,
Poulantzas,
and most Marxist
political
economists seem to be in
agreement
with it.
J.
O'Connor
(op. cit.)
disagrees,
but
glosses
over the
point.
Berth-
oud
(in
Travail
Productif.
.
.) is the better DroDonent of the O'Connor nosition.
1 1 Later on we shall see that some
high-level production managers
and
engineers
are
not
only
to be
placed
in the middle class because of their lack of
being
in a subordi-
nate
position,
but are
actually
in the
capitalist
class
(i.e.,
occupy
the economic
position
of
capital,
because in addition to the variable
capital
which
they
are
paid, they
receive
a
part
of the
surplus
value
(in
the form of
high wages,
bonuses, etc).
See
Capital,
Vol.
Ill,
p.
380-381.
68 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
in the creation of
surplus
value. But it must be
emphasized
that
only
those in subordinate
positions
have
proletarian
class deter-
minations.
Berthoud,
in the introduction to Travail
Productif
et Prod-
uctivit du Travail chez
Marx,
summarizes the usual Marxist treat-
ment of the
working
class:
The
directly productive
workers form the
vanguard
of the anti-
capitalist struggle,
because
capital
finds in the
type
of labor that
they
perform
the direct source of its own
growth. By
this
work,
capital
accumulates.
By
the resistance of those who
perform
it,
capital
finds its
principal adversary.
On the other
hand,
indirectly productive
labor,
unproductive
labor,
or labor outside of the
CMP,
results in the lesser
importance
of the
political position
of those who
perform
it.12
Many
Marxists,
including
Poulantzas,
have taken this to
mean that in order to be a
productive
laborer the worker must
come face to face with
capital,
and be
engaged
in labor that leads
to the material
production
of
commodities, i.e.,
the
production
of
tangible goods.
Berthoud himself considers service labor to be
productive
labor,
although
his definition of service is
vague.
O'Connor13 also considers service labor to be
productive
labor,
but,
like
Berthoud,
his
reproductionist
bias
prevents
him from
focusing
on the central
problem.
Neither Berthoud nor O'Connor concentrates on the criter-
ion
necessary
for
characterizing
service labor: the
fact
that the
service worker
performs
his labor
for
a
capitalist
who sells services as
commodities. All circulation
labor,
repair
labor
(on
fixed
capital),
or other labor which
preserves
value for the
capitalist engaged
in
manufacturing
material
commodities,
is not service labor.
Neither is work for bank
capital
service labor. Those
working
in
the
sphere
of circulation for the
service-selling capitalist
should
not be
designated
as service
labor,
but circulation labor.
They
exchange
their labor
power
for the
surplus
value of the service-
selling capitalist,
and are thus
engaged
in either the realization of
surplus
value,
or in the
purchase
of the forces of
production
(the
12 A.
Berthoud,
op.
dt.y
p.
9.
13
J.
O'Connor,
op.
cit.,
p.
333.
PRODUCTIVE LABOR AND SOCIAL CLASS 69
constant and variable
capital)
in the
reproduction cycle
of the
individual
capital.
Now let us look at our service worker a bit more
closely.
Let
us
take,
say,
a truck-drivers' hotel and an
upper-class private
school as
examples
of
enterprises
in the service sector. We
can,
at
once,
specify
two
types
of workers who work in the service sec-
tor:
a)
those who work in the
production
of the
commodity (i.e.*,
the
service),
and
b)
those who work in the
sphere
of circulation.
The latter
-
those who work in circulation
-
consist of those in-
volved in the
purchase
of factors of
production, e.g.,
the
buying
of
hotels,
the
hiring
of labor
power;
and those involved in the
realization of the value of the
service-commodity,
for
example,
those in
charge
of
advertising
the hotel. These would be
unpro-
ductive circulation workers and fall into the same
petit-bourgeois
category
as industrial circulation
workers,
or
wage-laborers
for
commercial
capital.
The others in the hotel work in the
production
of the com-
modity (service),
be
they
maids,
desk clerks or
bellhops. They
work in the
sphere
of
production
and thus
directly
add value to
capital.
This fact
(if
they
are in a
non-supervisory capacity) puts
them
objectively
into the
working
class.
"But,"
someone
taking
the material
production position
would
argue, "they
do not add
concretely
to the accumulation of
capital"; "they
do not
directly
increase the material wealth." Indeed it is difficult to see how
service labor adds to material wealth if one takes the
point
of
view of the
reproduction
of the individual
capital.
On the other
hand,
if we look from the
point
of view of the
reproduction
of the
aggregate
social
capital,
it is
immediately
clear how service labor adds to the material social
wealth,
even if
we look at the accumulation of
capital strictly
in terms of the
total constant
capital
in social
reproduction.
For this we look to
Marx's classification of
commodity production.
Marx identifies
two
departments
of
commodities,
Department
I
-
commodities
that are
productively
consumed
(i.e.,
production
of the means of
production);
and
Department
I
-
commodities that are indi-
vidually
consumed
(or
unproductive consumption).
Under De-
partment
II we have IIA
-
consumption
of
necessities,
and
IIB
-
consumption
of luxuries. Now let us look at the maid in the
truckers' hotel. The
capitalist
of this
Department
IIA
enterprise
14 K.
Marx,
Capital,
Vol
II,
p.
449.
70 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
exchanges
his
commodity
(the service)
against
the revenues of
the truck driver. How does this service differ as a
commodity
from the
750
detective
story
that the truck driver consumed in
his hotel room and then threw out? Both
appear
as
Department
IIA necessities for individual
consumption,
and both contribute
to the accumulation of
capital. Certainly
no one would
say
that
the
printer
of the
750
novel was an
unproductive
worker;
so
why
the hotel maid?
Nor does the
Department
IIB
commodity
of the
expensive
private
school owner differ
from,
say,
a
high-priced
electric
toy
for the
luxury school-boy
consumer,
whose
parents exchange
their revenues for both commodities.
But the
objection may
still be
raised,
this time a little dif-
ferently. Precisely
how does the sale of services add to the social
constant
capital?
Let us look here at Marx's schema for the
aggregate
social
reproduction
for
Departments
I and II.14
CVS
Department
I
4,000c
+
1,000*;
+
1,000s
=
6,000
1
Department
II
2,000c
+ 500u + 5005
=
3,000
J
'
The c is constant
capital
(as
just
described),
the v is variable
capital
advanced to labor
power
and the s is
surplus
value. Now
the value of the commodities
(in
the
aggregate
social
reproduc-
tion)
of
Department
I,
means of
production,
is
6,000
-
2,000
of
which
go
to the
replacement
of constant
capital
(means
of
pro-
duction)
in
Department
II,
and
4,000
of which
go
to
replace
the
constant
capital
of
Department
I
(assuming simple reproduction
here).
The
3,000
value-units of commodities
produced
in
Depart-
ment II for individual
consumption go
to the individual
produc-
tive workers and to the consumers of
surplus
value in both De-
partments
I and II. While the accumulation
of
constant
capital
in both
departments
is
completely dependent
on the
production of
means
of pro-
duction in
Department
/,
it matters little what
proportion of Department
II commodities are services.
Thus,
from the
point
of view of
PRODUCTIVE LABOR AND SOCIAL CLASS 71
capitalist reproduction,
service commodities contribute
just
as
much to social
consumption
(and
hence to the
reproduction
of
the labor
power necessary
for all
production,
and,
in
particular,
for the
growth
of social constant
capital),
as those commodities in
the form of manufactured
goods.
Although
the above demonstration assumed the
simple
re-
production
of total social
capital,
it
applies equally
to conditions
of
expanded reproduction.
Before
proceeding
further,
let us look a little more
closely
at
Poulantzas' use of structural
(class)
determinations outside the
enterprise.
This is a crucial
concept
in that it
helps
us to under-
stand
grosso
modo the class determinations of
categories
in social
formations which are dominated
by
the
CMP,
but which are
1)
outside the
reproduction process
of the total social
capital,
and
2)
outside the
occupational categories
that
play
a direct
subsidiary
role to the
reproduction process (e.g.,
state
bureaucrats,
police,
etc.,
as well as bank
employees).
These
groups
do not labor in
the CMP at
all,
but in other modes of
production
in the social
formations dominated
by
the CMP.
Most of these individuals are in some field of handicraft
production
-
the
neighborhood
baker,
butcher or
doctor,
or else
work in
"circulation,"
in what Berthoud
(op. cit.)
calls the sector
of the economie marchande that coexists with the CMP in the social
formation.
Poulantzas' societal structural effects
(as
distinct from those
appropriate
to the
enterprise)
succeed in
completely interpreting
the class determinations of these latter
groups,
as well as
partially
interpreting
the class determinations of the laborers who work in
the CMP. Since Poulantzas
gives only
brief attention to this sub-
ject
in Fascisme et Dictature and in Classes in
Contemporary
Capitalism,
we shall
try
to elaborate on some of the
implications
of his
conception.
First,
these societal structural effects
(of
the
economic,
politi-
cal,
and
ideological
levels,
outside of the
enterprise)
have some-
thing
in
common,
but are
certainly
not
identical,
with the Weber-
ian criterion of status as "mode of
consumption."
Even a narrow
view of societal structural effects differs
significantly
from the
Weberian
position
-
essentially
in that these societal structural
effects
72 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
are determined
by
the mode
of production
dominant in the
society.
lh
These handicraft and
quasi-handicraft
modes of
production
coexisted with the slave and feudal modes of
production {Capital,
Vol.
Ill,
p.
787),
alongside
of the
guild
mode of
production
in
these formations. But it would be
ridiculous,
in these
epochs,
to
label a baker a
petit-bourgeois,
or a doctor a
bourgeois.
That is
to
say,
it is
only
the structural effects
specific
to the CMP which
give
these laborers in
subsidiary
modes of
production
their class
determinations.
Let us take the case of
teachers, whom,
for
example,
Mandel
(pp.
cit.
y
p.
270)
considers as
working infaux frais,
and thus
doing
unproductive
labor.
Marx,
in a well-known
passage
in
Capital
(Vol. I,
p.
509),
treats the teacher who works for the school-
owning capitalist
as a
productive
laborer. The school owner sells
education as a service
commodity,
whether as a
Dept.
II A com-
modity
in the
neighborhood public
school or as a
Dept.
IIB
commodity
in the
posh private
school. In either case it is
paid
for
by
the
money
of
consumers,
which in the first case comes from
variable
capital
and in the second from
surplus
value. But does
that
help
us in
1978,
when the
greatest portion
of education is
furnished
by
the state? I would
say yes, following
the
general
lead of Paul Boceara in his Etudes sur le
Capitalisme Monopoliste
d'Etat.
Boceara,
arguing
in terms of a future advanced democ-
racy
for
France,
and in terms of the transitio'n to
socialism,
em-
phasizes
that economic crises can be counteracted
by greatly
ex-
panding
the sectors of education and social services. He focuses
on
teaching
as a
key point,
and
especially
on the
retraining
of
manual
labor,
in relation to the
constantly changing
forces of
15 Poulantzas does not
precisely specify
how to characterize these societal structural
effects on class determination. There is a clue to
this,
though,
in his treatment of the
structural
effects, i.e.,
the effects of
ideological, political
and economic structures on
class determination within the economic
sphere,
that is to
say,
within the
enterprise
(Les
Classes
Sociales,
p.
242).
For
example,
when
specifying
the criteria of subordina-
tion of the
working
class within the
sphere
of
production,
or even of the lower-level
circulation workers,
Poulantzas
speaks
of subordination in the
political
structure
(of
the
enterprise)
in terms of the direct
power relationship
between,
say,
foreman and
operative;
and subordination on the
ideological
level of the economic in terms of the
monopoly
on technical
knowledge
and "secrets of
production"
that are
possessed by
high-level engineers
at the
expense
of the
production
worker
(also
see H. Braver-
man's
thorough
characterization of this latter in Labor and
Monopoly Capital, pp.
113-
114).
PRODUCTIVE LABOR AND SOCIAL CLASS 73
production.
Boccara's
position
is that activities like
teaching,
in
view of their
high degree
of
labor-intensity
and thus
very
low
organic composition
of
capital,
if
carefully planned
and coordi-
nated with the rest of the
economy,
can make
up
for the increase
in
organic composition
in other
sectors,
and thus counteract the
crises that stem from the
resulting
overaccumulation.16
Following
this line of
thought,
it is more
useful,
and theoret-
ically
consistent,
to consider state-financed education as a De-
partment
II
commodity,
and not as a.
faux frais
of
reproduction,
which would be the case for state
administration,
police,
etc.17
The role of education is
directly
in the total social
reproduction
process.
That is to
say,
the schools as
Department
II
enterprises
sell a service which
directly reproduces
the labor
power
of both
productive
and
unproductive
workers. In other
words,
state
schools sell education services as a
Department
II
consumption
commodity
to workers and non-workers who have
already
indi-
rectly exchanged
their revenues from variable
capital
and
surplus
value,
respectively, against
this
consumption commodity,
through
the mediation of the state.
Education,
like food and
clothing,
determines,
in two
senses,
16 P.
Boceara, Etudes sur le
Capitalisme Monopoliste
d'Etat,
pp.
303-309. Mandel's criticisms
of Boceara
(notwithstanding
his criticisms of Boccara's
concept
of the neutral
state)
are
largely
unfounded. On the
whole,
the areas of
agreement
of these two
important
Marxist economists are even more
surprising, given
their
differing political
tenden-
cies. For
example,
both attribute
prime importance
to the influence of "Kondratieff
'
long
waves in the
history
of
capitalism.
I would
argue
that both Mandel's and Bocca-
ra's
positions
have more
explanatory power
than Poulantzas' Les Classes Sociales . . .
,p.
49ff.,
which tries to
give specific
historic effectivities to the differential onsets of
imperialism,
finance
capital, monopoly capitalism,
etc., because
-
as Boceara
specifies
-
all of these
changes
came about at
approximately
the same
time,
and
espe-
cially
because it took a combination of the three to boost the rate of
profit,
and set
capitalism
off on its
long
wave of
expansion
that started about 1893.
17 We feel that the treatment that
Gramsci, Althusser,
and often Poulantzas
(Les
Classes
Sociales . . .
,
pp. 31-39),
give
to the
ideological apparatus
of the state
(or
in Gramsci's
case to the state/civil
society couple)
have the drawback of
being vague
and too
all-inclusive. Poulantzas' discussion of the class determinations of these
indirectly
reproductive
roles is
quite
fruitful. The
top spheres
of the state administration are in
the
capitalist
class
1)
because of their active and immediate facilitation of the
repro-
ductive circuits and accumulation
(p. 202),
and
2)
because of the location of these
agents
vis vis societal structural
effectivity.
The other levels of the
bureaucracy
are
middle class because
1)
the
power-hierarchization
effects of
within-the-enterprise
ideological
and
political
structures are
very
much like those of circulation
workers;
and
2) they
are
subject
to similar
otside-the-enterprise
structural effectivities.
74 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
the value of the
commodity
labor
power
in the total social
repro-
duction
process.
First,
value-units
going
to education
(or
health
or welfare
services)
contribute to
making up
what is the
socially
accepted
standard of
living
of the
working
class
(viz.,
the value of
labor
power). Secondly,
the education level of the work force
helps
to determine the level of
productivity
which can be ob-
tained from a
given
constant
capital.
These affect the rate of
accumulation,
the mass of
surplus
value,
and
reciprocally,
the
value of labor
power.
In
any
case,
the teachers are in the
sphere
of
production
of
this
service,
or what Marx called a "useful effect."18
They
are
thus
productive
workers,
but
they
are not in the
working
class;
rather
they
are in the middle class
1)
because of the
ambiguity
of
their subordinate
position
in the
enterprise
(school),
and
2)
be-
cause of their intermediate location outside the
enterprise.
//. -The Middle Class
Before
examining aspects
of middle-class
(or
petit-
bourgeois)
class
determination,
let us return to the
dynamic
of
our
argument
-
the
relationship
between class determination and
class
position
-
with some
empirical examples.
Let us recall that the O'Connor-Berthoud
position,
which
puts
circulation workers in the
working
class,
assigns
a similar
class
position
for
production
workers and for clerks when the
two
categories
are
exposed
to the same
political socializing
agents.
The
Mandel-Gough
thesis19 asserts that all those in the
sphere
of
production
in the
CMP,
whether
they
are machine
operatives,
technicians or
high-level engineers,
have a like out-
come in class
position
when
any
of the three
categories
are sub-
jected
to the same
political socializing agents.
(In
our
analysis,
of
course,
the three
categories
are
respectively working
class,
petit-
bourgeois
and
capitalist.)
An
interesting
article
by
R. M. Blackburn and his as-
18 School administrators would
be, then,
unproductive,
in the sense that
they
work in
the circulation of this
commodity.
19 I.
Gough's
1972 article
expresses
this
position accurately (although apparently Gough
has sinced moved closer to the
reproductionist viewpoint).
Also see
Mandei,
Late
Capitalism, (p.
260, 263)
for a similar
position.
PRODUCTIVE LABOR AND SOCIAL CLASS 75
sociates20
rejects
the first
hypothesis.
This
study analyzes
a
large
number of British blue collar workers and clerks who have been
differentially exposed
to trade
unions,
in order to look at varia-
tions in
"enterprise
unionateness" and "societal
unionateness,"
concepts
which we would
call,
respectively,
economic militance
and class
position.
The authors find that when blue and white
collar workers were both
exposed
to trade union
activity,
both
categories responded
with about the same
degree
of economic
militance. Yet in these same
enterprises
the blue collar workers
took
left-wing
class
positions
("societal unionateness")
and the
white collar workers retained conservative class
positions.
In other
words,
while both
working
class and middle class
groups responded
to trade union
activity by greatly
increased
economic
militance,
only
the
working
class members
responded
by
a
great
increase in
political
militance. On the other
hand,
middle class members who had been
exposed
to these
socializing
agents
remained
just
as conservative as middle class members
who had had no trade union
exposure
at all. This middle class
response
is
representative
of a certain
"corporativeness" (cf.
Gramsci)
that is
typical
of the
petite bourgeoisie,
when faced with
political socializing agents
which are like those of the
working
class. This same
phenomenon
can be seen in France
today,
where the
powerful
teachers union
(the FEN),
though very
strong economically,
is still reluctant to take
progressive political
positions.
These
examples support
Poulantzas' criticism of
working
class unions and
parties
for not
recognizing
the
specificity
of the
middle
class,
and the
necessity
of
exposure
to
qualitatively
dif-
ferent
political socializing agents
(than
those
traditionally
used
for the
working
class)
in order that
they
-
the middle class
-
can
be influenced to take a
proletarian
class
position. They
thus
pro-
vide evidence
against
the O'Connor-Berthoud
position.
We have
argued
above for the
importance
of the
dichotomy
production
worker/circulation
worker,
and for the usefulness of
this criterion in
distinguishing
the
working
class from the middle
class. Our
position
is that all who work in the
sphere
of circula-
20 K.
Prandy,
R.M. Blackburn and
others,
"Concepts
and Measures: The
Example
of
Unionateness,"
Sodology,
8, 1974,
pp.
427-446.
76 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
tion have middle-class class
determinations,
except
for those in
high supervisory positions.
Circulation workers are middle class
because
1)
they
don't work in the
sphere
of
production,
2) they
do not
occupy
a
superior
-
but an intermediate or a subordinate
-
position
in their
sphere
of the
enterprise,
and
3)
the societal
(outside
the
enterprise)
structural influences to which
they
are
subject
are
basically
of an intermediate nature. Even
though they
are in the middle class and do not
produce surplus
value,
but are
paid
out of
surplus
value,
they
are
exploited.
This is so because
their labor
power
subtracts more from the
capitalist's
costs of
realization than
they
are
paid (cf. Capital,
Vol.
Ill,
p.
294).
Foremen and technicians who work in the
sphere
of
produc-
tion and are
productive
workers, are,
as we have
argued
above,
not in the
working
class because of the non-subordinate
(inter-
mediate)
power position they occupy
in the
enterprise. They
create
surplus
value,
are
paid
out of variable
capital,
and are
exploited.
Because of
this,
and also because
they
do not
appro-
priate any surplus
value,
they
are not
part
of the
capitalist
class.
Finally, they
are middle class because the features of the out-of-
enterprise,
societal structures to which
they
are
subject,
are
typi-
cal of those which affect middle class members.
Finally,
the traditional
petit bourgeois
is outside the
CMP,
but labors in a
subsidiary
mode of
production
in social forma-
tions dominated
by
the CMP. Most labor in a form of handicraft
production,
or else in "circulation." Of those who labor in hand-
icraft
production
there are two
types
-
those who
produce
mate-
rial
goods
and those who
produce
services. An
example
of the
former is the
neighborhood
butcher or
baker;
an
example
of the
latter is the
neighborhood
shoe
repairman.
The
greengrocer,
on
the other
hand,
is a "circulation"
worker,
who does not
produce
at
all,
and is a sort of
mini-representative
of commercial
capital
in the conomie marchande.
How shall we characterize the mode of
production
to which
handicraft
producers
of
goods
or services
belong?
All modes of
production, following
Balibar and
Marx,
are characterized
by
three elements and two
relationships.21
The three elements are
21 Balibar in Althusser and
Balibar,
op.
cit.,
Vol.
2,
pp.
94-99. This
interpretation
is
supported by
Marx's
Capital,
Vol.
I,
pp.
178, 181, 308, 338-39, 361, 510;
Vol.
II,
p.
31;
Vol.
Ill,
pp.
246,
790.
PRODUCTIVE LABOR AND SOCIAL CLASS 77
the
laborer,
the non-laborer and the means of
production;
the
two
relationships
are formal
appropriation
and real
appropria-
tion. The CMP is characterized
by
the
separation
of the laborer
from the means of
production
in both
relationships.
Handicraft
production,
when it coexists with other dominant modes of
pro-
duction,
implies
that the handicraftsman
1)
is a direct
producer;
2)
is the formal
appropriator
(i.e.,
has economic
ownership)
of
his means of
production;
3)
is not
separated
from his means of
production
in the
appropriation relationship (essentially
techni-
cal control is still in his
hands);
and
4)
may
or
may
not have
legal
ownership
of his
capital.
These criteria
specify
the mode of
production
in which
handicraftsmen
operate.
Of course
they
are
non-productive
workers in the CMP because
they
do not labor in the
CMP;
they
do not
exchange
their labor
power against
the variable
capital
of
a
capitalist,
but
exchange
their
commodities,
whether these are
labor-services or material
goods, against
the revenues of the con-
sumer. The same is true of the "handicraft-like" circulation
worker,
the
green grocer.
The reason
why
the class determination of handicraftsmen
in societies dominated
by
the CMP is middle class is because of
the societal structural influences to which
they
are
subject
out-
side their
enterprises,
which are
very
much like those of the
middle class in the CMP
proper.
Why,
then,
go
to the trouble of
showing
the similarities in the
class determination of these middle class
categories
-
the circula-
tion
worker,
the
foreman,
the low-level
bureaucrat,
the handi-
craftsman? The answer is that
by showing
these similarities we
demonstrate
that,
broadly speaking,
the same
political
and social
pressures
are
necessary
to influence them into
taking
a
proleta-
rian class
position.
All of these
groups
are
exploited,
as is the
working
class. But
none
of
them are
exploited
in as clear-cut a
way
as the
working
class.
Only
the
working
class comes
face
to
face
with
capital.
Therefore the
mode of
organizing
the middle
class,
the manner of
waging
class
struggle
on their
behalf,
cannot be as
closely
tied to their mode
of economic
exploitation
at the
point
of
production,
as is the case
with the
working
class. That is to
say,
with the middle classes
there has to be a
higher
level
of ideological input.
One
revealing
78 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
example
is the
emergence
of a
proletarian
class
position
in the
traditional
petite bourgeoisie
of the south of France
(cf. Kriegel,
op.
cit.)
-
their
Radical,
then their
Socialist,
and now their Com-
munist
political
attachment. This
development
has to a
great
degree
been associated with an
ideological component
-
their
profound
anti-clericalism.
Of course
every
social formation has its
specific
features,
and I am not
saying
that anti-clerical
ideological positions by
the
Left will win the middle class in a
country
like the US or the
UK,
or even
Portugal
for that matter. The
particular type
of
ideologi-
cal issue needed to win the middle class to a
proletarian
class
position
in a
given country depends upon
the
pecularities
of the
individual social formation.
///. The
Capitalist
Class
Although
this
paper
deals
mainly
with the class
position
of
the
proletariat,
there are two reasons
why
we must
briefly
discuss
the
capitalist
class:
1)
a
good many political
economists and
sociologists
attribute a
proletarian
class determination to mem-
bers of the
capitalist
class,
and
2)
a section of the
capitalist
class,
albeit a much smaller section than of the middle
class, can,
when
exposed
to certain
experiences
in the class
struggle,
come to take
a
proletarian
class
position.
The
Left,
of
course,
should concen-
trate on the
popular
classes, i.e.,
the
working
class and the mid-
dle
class,
but it can be
helpful
if certain
capitalists
come to take a
proletarian
class
position,
or even become allies of the
working
class.
First,
though,
let us look at how theories which
place
a sec-
tion of the
capitalist
class in the
working
class differ from Marx's
theoretical framework in
Capital;
then let us look at some of the
results of such views. We have examined the views of two Marx-
ist
political
economists,
I.
Gough
and E.
Mandel,
who take this
position.
Their
argument
is
certainly
much more
sophisticated
than the usual
legal ownership
criterion, i.e.,
"anyone
who
doesn't own the means of
production
is in the
working
class."
The scientific definition is that
anyone
who labors in the
sphere
of
production
in the CMP is in the
working
class. This is based
on Marx's laborer/non-laborer
dichotomy
of
any
class
society.
It
PRODUCTIVE LABOR AND SOCIAL CLASS 79
assumes that in the CMP those who are in the
sphere
of
produc-
tion are
paid only
out of variable
capital,
and thus come face to
face with
capital
and its
accumulation,
and therefore are
part
of
its
potential negation. Only they
would survive as
productive
laborers in a
succeeding
mode of
production.
We remarked
above that this
position
not
only designates
foremen and techni-
cians as
potential revolutionary
forces,
but also includes
highly
paid engineers
and
production management,
while
poorly paid
clerks and
key-punch operators
who work in the
sphere
of circu-
lation,
and are
paid
out of
surplus
value,
are non-laborers in the
CMP. Thus their role is destined to extinction in a future
socialist mode of
production,
and
they
are therefore
incapable
of
taking proletarian
class
positions.
Empirical
studies have
generally
shown such
groups
as en-
gineers
and
production management
to be
quite
conservative,22
despite
the
political
and social forces to which
they
are
subjected.
I think that the theoretical framework of the
Gough-Mandel
position differs from
that of Marx on this
question.
I
agree,
rather,
with
Poulantzas,
who defines
capitalists
as those who
occupy
the
place
of
capital.
Now we can
specify
this more
precisely
for indus-
trial
capital.
The criterion for industrial
capital
is to
occupy
the
economic
position
of
capital
in an industrial
enterprise
in the
CMP. This
implies consumption
of a
portion
of
surplus
value.
Let us follow Marx and divide the consumed
surplus
value
minus the
surplus
value reinvested in constant and variable
capi-
tal for extended
reproduction
into four
categories: 1)
that which
goes
to
profits
of
enterprise (economic
ownership),
2)
that which
goes
to interest
(legal ownership),
3)
that which
goes
to
rent,
and
4)
that which
goes
to laborers in the
sphere
of circulation.
Now let us
begin
with the
high-paid engineers
and the
pro-
duction
managers. They
are
paid
out of variable
capital
for the
reproduction
of their labor
power,
a
wage
which reflects their
greater
contribution to the valorization of
capital
as a result of
their
higher degree
of
training.
In
principle,
this would be re-
flected in a certain increment above the
wage
of the
assembly
line
operative.
But the salaries of
engineers
and
managers
are
22 For
example J.
Huber and W.
Form,
Income and
Ideology (New York, 1973). Also,
G.
MacKenzie,
The
Aristocracy of
Labor
(Cambridge,
U.K., 1973).
80 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
far above this increment. That is because
they
also receive a
portion
of the
profits
of
enterprise
and are thus in the economic
position
of
capital.
Moreover,
they
are also in the
position
of
capital
in terms of their role in the
general
direction and control
of the means of
production.
These
"production capitalists"
are
basically
in the
capitalist
class
(the only
difference is that a
part
of their income comes
from variable
capital). They
are in a
position
of dominace vis
vis the worker
(as
well as the foreman and
technician).
In
short,
they
are much more
exploiters
than
exploited,
and it would be
ill-advised for the Left to devote too much of its attention to
these
categories
as
possible
revolutionary
forces.
There is not
enough space
here to discuss bank
capital,
commercial
capital,
and other
portions
of the
capitalist
class
which have a
relationship
to
capital
in the CMP. There are also
those,
like doctors and
lawyers,
who are not in the CMP but are
subject
to the same social forces as the
capitalist
class.
Although
they
are service
producers
in the handicraft mode of
production,
their class determination is
essentially
different from the tradi-
tional
petite bourgeoisie.
# # *
In this
paper
I have examined various Marxist writers in
terms of Marx's
conceptual
framework. Of the writers whom I
have considered,
Poulantzas
-
despite
shortcomings
-
comes
closest to Marx's
position
on social
class, and,
most
important,
his
viewpoint
is
by
far the most
helpful
in
considering
the relation-
ship
between class determination and class
position
today.
My
central
point
is that social classes other than the
working
class have
specific
social and economic features which must be
taken into account on a
strategic/organizing
level if
they
are to be
won over to a
proletarian
class
position,
or at least to be made
allies of the
working
class. The
working
class,
whose
exploitation
is the most
transparent,
has been
successfully organized by put-
ting primary emphasis
on economic
exploitation
(of
course,
ideological
and
political
issues are
important
in the
working
class
as
well).
Members of the middle class are
exploited,
but their
exploitation
is much less
visible;
hence different forms of
organi-
PRODUCTIVE LABOR AND SOCIAL CLASS 81
zation are
required
to lead them toward a
proletarian
class
posi-
tion;
and these forms should have a more
ideological
content,
i.e.,
there should be less stress on
exploitation
at the
point
of
production.
Those few in the
capitalist
class
(or
those who are
subject
to
similar
pressures
as the
capitalist
class),
the
minority
of
doctors,
lawyers, professors,
and
enlightened engineers,
who
may
take a
proletarian
class
position,
will do so
wholly
on
ideological
grounds,
since
they
are not
exploited
at all at the
point
of
pro-
duction.
London,
England