Has Marx's concept of class any relevance to the analysis of modern societies today?

We therefore see two suggestions as to the reasons for the existence of class, on the one hand, natural occurrence in the progress of history, and on the other, as a product of an individual’s fortune in life.  Rousseau clearly highlighted the two different distinctions of inequality, in stating:

“I conceive that there are two kinds of inequality among the human species; one, which I call natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or of the soul; and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorized, by the consent of men.  This latter consists of the different privileges, which some men enjoy to the prejudice of others; such as that of being more rich, more honoured, more powerful, or even in a position to exact obedience”

        Marx’s notion of class fitted neatly into a wider framework for the theory of social change, and he used it to analyse the development of modern capitalism.  He believed the existence of classes to be bound up in particular historical phases in the development of production, and that what he saw to be the inevitable conflict of classes in modern capitalist societies resulting in the victory of the working class and the inauguration of a classless, socialist society.  England in the mid-nineteenth century was regarded as the clearest demonstration of the typical class structure of a new capitalist society, and Marx used England as a model.  With its “blend of crude plutocratic reality with the sentimental aroma of an aristocratic legend”, the English class system presented peculiar and fascinating features to sociological theorists such as Marx, the circumstances of which created the “religion of inequality” and snobbery amongst the middle classes, maintaining strict social distinctions, as seen in institutions such as the ‘gentleman ideal’ and public schools.

        Much criticism exists concerning Marx’s views on class, supported on many occasions by empirical evidence available in different societies.  He is maligned for taking little account of any other social relationships which might mould societal structure and generate societal conflicts.  Not least did he underestimate the influence of nationalism, seeming to ignore a growing sense of national community in European nations which developed fully during the First World War, in which the social bond of nationality undoubtedly proved more effective in creating a community than did that of class.  Dahrendorf was one of those arguing the existence of other conflict groups in society beside social classes, and that in fact, new forms of sectionalism were replacing the earlier supposed solidaristic class struggles.  Whilst Marx’s theories fit reasonably well with the phenomena of class relations in modern society it neglected any other types of social stratification.  Marx believed that the gap between the so-called bourgeoisie and proletariat would merely expand, and yet this theory is again contested, with empirical evidence that the gap has, in fact, not widened.  Instead the productivity of modern industry, especially in the last few decades, has increased, thus increasing the standards of living.  The growth of the ‘new middle classes’ do not entirely falsify his argument, but it does somewhat contradict his idea that the ‘intermediate strata’ would disappear, leaving but a mere simplification of class structure, and witnessing the emergence of two major classes.  Still more examples of why Marx’s nineteenth century conception of social class has lost applicability in the modern world arise in examining how social structure is governed by the decisions of political authorities, rather than, as he enforced, by relations to means of production, and the market.  Political authorities can in fact overtly change the class structure, and the privileges deemed most essential for certain class statuses.    

        “The working-class has ceased to live apart.  Its level of living and its aspirations for material comfort have led it out of the ghetto in which it was confined at the beginning of industrialization. The worker ceases to regard himself as a worker when he leaves the factory.”  And so the change in conditions of the working class emerged, damaging Marx’s theory still further.  He expected the working class to become more homogenous after a decrease in skills as a result of the introduction of machinery, to become numerically stronger as some of those in the ‘middle class’ category became wage-earners, to become more united and class conscious as a result of their similarities in conditions of life and work, and to become a revolutionary force after an increase in the disparity between their own material conditions and those of the bourgeoisie.  And yet, on the contrary, the modern working class remained highly differentiated, with a more complex status system as a result in the increased specialization of occupations.  Greater social mobility undermined the solidarity of the working class, and general improvement in the standards of living led to the general embourgeoisement of the working-class.  Furthermore, the improvement in the conditions of life for the working-class in post-war Britain owed much to the maintenance of full employment and the development of the health and education services, otherwise known as social services.  The institution of domestic servants was abolished, the “greatest gain of working-class…escaping from one onerous form of subjection to another class”.  These general advances in material conditions of Britain’s working-class, and the consequential rapid growth in National Income, made the expansion of the social services possible, rather than as a consequence of any radical redistribution of wealth and income between classes.  These paved the way for a degree of equality in the vital conditions of life for all citizens.  Whereas previously poverty had been the fate of a whole class, modern Britain experienced less extensive poverty, confined to the elderly or workers unsuccessful regions.

        Over the last century the changes in the distribution of property and income have engendered a general improvement in the levels of living.  The imposition of Estate Duty in 1949 ensured that taxation would reduce, to some degree, large fortunes:

“The aristocracy are, in general, much richer than they seem.  With democracy has come discretion.  Their London palaces an outward show have disappeared, but the countryside is still full of millionaire peers: many of them, with the boom in property, are richer now than they have ever been”

And yet, due to inadequate date, it is impossible to arrive at a precise statement of the changes in income distribution over the entire period.  The post-war patterns of consumption have served to integrate workers into capitalism as individuals.  Individualism and privatism have intensified, there is “a growing division of workers into sections and groups, each pursuing its own economic interest irrespective of the rest”, a division heightened by the uneven participation of women in paid labour, and the expansion of non-manual employment.  As structural shifts occur, changing values become evident in the decline of class-based politics in the United Kingdom.  The concept of class is becoming obsolete, the bourgeoisie and proletariat are at an end.

        Previous solidaristic political consciousness has given way to “the values of consumer society individualism and the search for private and personal satisfactions above all else.”  An example of the phenomenon is in the growth of home-ownership, a category to which, by 1981, more than half of all households pertained to.  The decline in relative importance of manufacturing sectors in the most advanced Western economies, including Britain, made way for a ‘new middle class’ Britain.  Rapid de-industrialization paved the way for commensurate growth in public sector and service employment, such as managers, office workers, supervisors.  This ‘industry shift effect’ comes as part of an overall change in class structure due to shifts in labour force from Industrial sectors to sectors with a different distribution of classes.  The bourgeoisie is no longer a closed, cohesive and enduring group, but one in which the structure, composition and stability has been profoundly modified by several influences: the wider diffusion of property ownership, the break up of large fortunes, and the increasing social mobility.  Such increase in social mobility has increased with the economic development of industrial societies, bringing social levels closer together.  The most notable effect is the impression that this mobility has upon public consciousness, especially with regards to Britain’s ancient, and previously dubbed ‘exclusive’, institutions such as the aristocracy, public schools, Oxbridge and ‘old boy’ network.  The slight extension of educational opportunities has further increased the scope for social mobility in post-war Britain, after passing the Education Act of 1944, such educational reforms provide an opportunity for upward movement, or escape.  

        In conclusion, it is clear that Marx’s conception of class is long outdated, and might even be referred to as completely obsolete, in its obvious omission of other social relationships as influential in society, and its mere simplification of society into two class strands: bourgeoisie and proletariat.  Class analysis is consequently proving to be increasingly futile in the explanation of social inequalities and schisms.  Indeed, “the rise of the working class in modern societies has been a more protracted affair than Marx supposed, and it has only rarely approached that state of decisive struggle with the bourgeoisie which he expected.”  Whilst we are still far from obtaining equality of opportunity in all areas, notably that of education, the gap between the so-called two classes has dwindled, and may even, at some stage achieve what Marx saw to be the ideal, of a ‘classless’ society.  The question remaining would then be which inequalities would endure even in the absence of social classes.  

 

Bibliography:

Bottomore, T.B; Classes in Modern Society

Crompton, Rosemary; Class and Stratification

Marshall, Gordon; Social Class in Modern Britain

Wright, E.O; Classes

---