erik olin wright, classes (1985)

Chapter One, Posing the Problem: The Agenda of Class Analysis 1. The Legacy of Marx (6-7)

(6): two problems

1. abstract structural maps (class relations
   
2. concrete conjunctural maps (concrete classes-as-actors, political alliances, etc.)
   

(8): the two are, he's arguing, clearly not linked by the contention that gradations will fade as capitalism advances--"this image of a pervasive tendency towards radical polarization... is incorrect..." [the growth of professional and technical occupations, the expansion of managed hieraarchies]

2. The Agenda of Contemporary Marxist Class Analysis (8-16)

(9): we can sidestep the issue, then, no longer

(10): important-- "class structure exists independently of the specific people who occupy specific positions... class formation, on the other hand, refers to the formation of organized collectivities within that class structure on the basis of the interests shaped by the class structure... A given type of class structure may be characterized by a range of possible types of class formation..."

(10-11): three levels of abstraction

1. mode of production (can have different forms, certainly)
   
2. social formation (specific combinations of distinct modes of production--e.g., pre-capitalist classes within capitalism)
   
3. conjuncture (analysis in terms of concrete historical detail, contingent historical factors--this is also where non-class factors are likely to be explored)

(12): for Poulantzas, the State's relation to class can be analyzed at the level of the mode of production; for Skocpol, only at the conjuctural level

(13): embarassment of the 'middle-class'

(13): embarassment of the peasantry

(14): other work suggesting that class formation cannot be deduced from class structure, but is conditioned by the presence or absence of autonomous, institutional factors

(14-15): a new marxist class analysis--(1) self-consciously precise; (2) committed to working at the middle-level of abstraction.

(15-16): outline

PART ONE: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES Chapter Two, The Biography of a Concept: Contradictory Class Locations

(19): not a commentary on epistemology or philosophical principles, but it is, it seems, in a sly way..

1. The Logic of Concept Formation (20-24)
(20): constraints on concept building

1. theoretical presuppositions
2. empirical constraints

(21-22): dangers of theoreticism on the one hand, and empiricism, on the other

(23): "conceptual adjudication" as a "double-process"--in terms of abstract conceptual requirements and empirical observations

(23): 'dogmatism' -- refusing to call theory into question; and 'eclecticism' -- refusing to worry about theoretical coherence

2. Steps in the Analysis of the Formation of the Concept of Contradictory Locations (24-25)

(24-25): five steps (see section headings, below)

3.The Empriical Setting (25-26)

(26): how to categorize people, according to class? "How should we deal with the numerou cases of people who did not seem to be either bourgeois or proletarian?"

4. Theoretical Constraints (26-37)

(27): of two sorts

1. imposed by the explanatory role of class, around issues (1) class formation, structure and consciousness (28-31)--primarily the notion that 'class' has to be intelligible outside these three processes, against EP Thompson; and (2) around class and revolution
2. "not only should class structures be viewed as setting the basic limits of possibility..., but they also constitute the most fundamental social determinant... and thus historical epochs can best be identified by their predominant class structures." [this, he's noting, doesn't require technological determinism (since we are agnostic on what produces class) or class functionalism (since we are not concerned with superstructure in its specificity, just primacy of 'class'). moreover, you can have a struggle on non-class basis, but within the limits set by class (maybe you can eliminate patriarchy, for example, he's saying)]
   

(29): important claim about the way in which other mechanisms (race, gender, etc.) might explain the non-correspondence of class structure to formation and/or consciousness [there is a problem in this formulation, of course, but we can leave it for later; actually he raises this later, see limiation #2]

(30): transformation/limitation/selection diagram, quite useful

(32): map of history as class structures, motor of history as class struggle.

(32-33): class struggle definition has been three-fold:

1. agents--must be class actors
   
2. objectives--must target distribution of resources
   
3. effects--anything with an effect on class relationships, counts
   

(32): "The first of these definitions seems to me to be the most fruitful theoretically."

(34): four basic structural properties of the concept of class, which are also constraints 3-6

1. classes are relational--"classes are always defined" in relation to other classes; not gradationally. (for three reasons, detailed on pg. 35--struggle/conflict, typologies in theory of history, explains essential features of gradiational-based distributions)
   
2. relations are antagonistic--opposing interests
   
3. antagonisms rooted in exploitation--not just simple inequality, causal relationship between affluence of one and poverty of the other
   
4. exploitation based on social relations of production--production-centered concept, even if there are distinctions between three positions: Poulantzas, Roemer, Wright
   

(36): key--"an exploitative relation necessarily implies either that some people must toil more so that others can toil less, or that they must consume less at a given level of toil so that others can consume more, or both." [let's think about this more, as we proceed]

5. Alternative Solutions (37-42)

(37): alternative solutions to the problem of the middle-class:

1. actually, society is simply polarized--that this is apperaence, not essence, based on fact that managers don't own means of production. BUT this fails constraint one--doesn't satisfactorily explain class struggle, etc.
2. 'the new petty bourgeoisie', as owners of skill or human capital (in ideological predispositions, and in intermediate position in class conflict). BUT same problem--too much diversity to be subsumed, here (in sum, first and sixth constraints)
   
3. "the new class," in relationship to reproduction (or cultural production) of capitalism [BUT again, too amorphous--fifth and sixth constraints]
4. "middle strata"--outside of basic class relation
   

6. Building a New Concept (42-51)

(43): key move--dropping assumption that have to be in only one class; possibility of being in "more than one class simultaneously." so you have contradictory positioning, which is generative of contradictory interests.

(45): key--Balibar's distinction between 'ownership' and 'possession'--used by Wright (former means 'real control', whereas latter means 'control over actual operation'). and this can be further divided--control over physical means of production, and control over labor. but this does not go far enough--later discussing control over money capital, physical capital, labor. and four degrees of control.

(47): question of how this ought to be specified, further

(48): class map, figure 2.2 (this is 1979, he's saying)

(51): shift to appropriation and domination relations--so semi-autonomous becomes appropriation of labour process, but not appropriation of product

7. Problems with Conceptualization (51-64)

1. contradiction? how are objective interests of petit bourgeois pole contradictory to objective interests of proletarian role? heterogenous, dual, instead.
   
2. overstating the autonomy of this class; structural underdetermination; empirical anomalies
   
3. classes in post-capitalism?
4. shift from exploitation to domination (most fundamental), which is what the concept really rested on (and not exploitation). this is troubling, because domination, unlike exploitation, doesn't necessarily generate opposed objective interests.
   

Chapter Three, A General Framework for the Analysis of Class

1. Roemer's Account of Class and Exploitation (64-73)

(65): concept of explotiation as a particular way of understanding inequalities, which makes a claim about a causal relationship between rich and poor.

(65) "in Roemer's analysis the rich are said to exploit the poor when it can be established that the welfare of the rich causally depends upon the deprivations of the poor--the rich are rich because the poor are poor, they are rich at the expense of others." The Traditional Marxian concept is a subset of this larger, general concept.

(65): two approaches

1. Labour Transfer--without LTV, "market-based exploitation can be formally derived simply from inequalities in the distribution of property rights in the means of production."
   
2. Game-Theory--(1) would S be better off upon withdrawal? (2) its complement, S', would be worse off. and (3) the background condition is that S' dominates S. this helps Roemer identify four kinds of exploitation: capitalist (with per-capita share of assets), feudal (leave with personal assets--in fact, neoclassical economists only see feudal exploitation, and therefore can't see exploitation in capitalism), socialist (per capita share of inalienable assets), status .
   

(72): agreeing, here, with Roemer that the "basis of the capital-labour relationship should be identified with the relations of effective control... over productive assets" [which is not necessarily Weberian]

2. Towards a General Framework of Class Analysis (73-92)

(73): three modifications, on Roemer

1. economic exploitation and economic oppression--appropriation of 'fruits of labour', such that wealth of exploiting class depends on work of exploited class
   
2. recasting concept of feudal exploitation, by definition of labor power as an asset (thus our definitions are now symmetrical)
3. organization asset exploitation--control over division of labor

(81): "in all exploitation relations... what exploitation generates is effective claims on the social surplus. This in turn gives exploiters at least some control over investments..."

(83): useful Table 3.2

(85): important--skill assets don't really open up to relational hierarchies, which is what is demanded by the concept of class. in this sense socialism can be seen as a society with exploitation, but without fully coherent classes.

(86): communism as the withering away of of skill-based exploitation (i.e., situation in which control over skills gives you preferential access to the social surplus)

(87): a 'heterogenous' exploitation definition of the middle class, now.

(88): KEY table that follows from the previous reflections.

(89): "one of the consequences... is that it is no longer axiomatic that the proletariat is the unique... rival to the capitalist class..." [hmm, this strikes me as a serious stretch--you need to speak about numbers, organization, etc.] The spectre of the 'third class' benefiting from revolutions--unapologetically ahistorical.

(90-91): the possibility of bureaucratic/mangerial alternatives, when capitalism is meeting with difficulty? ok, but again, not very useful...

(91): "...it does suggest that the process of class formation and class struggle is considerably more complex and indeterminate than the traditional Marxist story has allowed..." [ok, this is fair enough, and as far as it goes...]

(91-92): four benefits of these amendments

3. Once Again, Unresolved Problems (92-110)

1. status of organization, in organization assets--is it not just another skill? are these not just strategic jobs, that require loyalty payoffs? BUT we need a concept that maps onto our class structure question.
   
2. relationship between skill and class--can skill-based differences really ground a class relation? are we not just speaking about fractions, within a class?
   
3. interaction among forms of exploitation--managers partaking, indirectly, in capitalist exploitation? we are going to assume this away.
   
4. non-asset bases of exploitation--why not religious classes, military classes, sex classes, etc.? well, unique role of productive forces; or, at least, a 'distinct logic' that systematically implicates 'subsistence'

Chapter Four, Implications and Elabroations...

1. Alternative Class Theories (106)-- Weberian (via Parkin, Giddens), rooted in "social closure" due to unequal ownership of resources (but, again, the key difference is that the Weberian theory doesn't have an account of exploitation, just a notion of inequalities generated though market exchange with this ownership as background. In other words, it becomes a problem of level of abstraction--for Marx, at the level of mode of production, skill-based exploitation doesn't feature; only at the level of the social formation; for Weber, only one level of abstraction exists, and 'class' exists specific to it as well as to the social formation (so feudalism wouldn't have 'class', in this sense). "At the heart of the distinction... is the contrast between an essentially culturalist theory of society and history and a materialist theory," since it enlists meaning-based definitions)
2. Mode of Production and Social Formation (109) -- question of the relative weight of different exploitations, at various levels of abstraction; concept of "dynamic primacy"; question of 'internal-external' relations; the question of 'overlapping exploitations', which ties into the expectations re: class formation.
3. The Theory of History (114): development of forces of production conditions probability of achieving more progressive social formations (not, of course, 'necessity'). Revision of three theses: capitalism can lead to statism, as well as socialism (organization exploitation might not be eliminated); proletariat is no longer only bearer of revolutionary mission; socialism has a distinctive kind of exploitation, not simply transitional.
   
4. Legitimation and Motivation (118): ideologies of two types--(1) rights to defend privilege; (2) welfare to defend privilege [here Wright's point about the 'costs of revolution' comes in; as Vivek says, what about the 'costs of counter-revolution'?]
5. Class Structure and Form of the State (122)
6. Class Structure and Class Formation (123): from class-in-itself, to class for-itself, how? "relative indeterminacy"--the structure, Wright's arguing, constitutes "the material basis for a variety of potential class formations."
7. Class Alliances (124): alliances between 'classes, segments of classes, and between contradictory class locations' are plausible, depending on what strategies actors choose to pursue; concept of 'net exploiters'
   
8. Women in the Class Structure (126): gender as conditioning skill, as credential itself, or as a form of feudal exploitation; but are they a distinct class? depends, says, Wright, on the complex particular to a given household.
   

(130-131): Six advantages of exploitation-based conception of class

1. more coherent way of describing different types of class structures
2. more coherent way of understanding "contradictory nature of contradictory locations."
   
3. much better link to 'interests,' than domination-based concept
4. more systematically materialist
5. more historically coherent
6. critical character, opening up to emancipation
   

(113-114): 'Asiatic' mode of production as, actually, a 'social formation' involving feudal and organizational exploitation.