Page 56 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Unit 4: Theories of Social Stratification-II

The distinction drawn by Marx between a “class in itself” and a “class for itself” is also significant Notes
to know the basis of class formation and class consciousness. In his well-known work, The Poverty
of Philosophy, Marx observes : “Economic conditions had in the first place transformed the mass of
the people into workers. The domination of capital created the common situation and common
interests of this class. Thus, this mass is already a class in relation to capital, but not yet a class for
itself. In the struggle, of which we have only indicated a few phases, this mass unites and forms
itself into a class for itself. The interests which it defends become class interests.” Thus, Marx makes
a distinction between “class in itself” and “class for itself”.
The Marxist Theory of Class and Stratification

Now, let us have a critical view of the Marxist theory of class and stratification. Many of the class
conflicts mentioned in the Communist Manifesto by Marx are in fact conflicts between status groups.
Both Marx and Engels were quite aware that everywhere a complicated arrangement of society
into various orders, or a manifold gradation of social ranks, existed. Later Marxists realized the
“complications” of social ranking or stratification in relation to the basic classes. Both Marx and
Engels felt that in England intermediate and transitional strata obscured the class boundaries. In
the Theories of Surplus Value, Marx refers explicitly to the growth of the middle class as a phenomenon
of the development of capitalism. A continual increase in the members of the middle classes was
felt due to growth of capitalism. The middle classes have taken a significant political space in the
wake of modern economic development.
Later Marxists, including Nicos Poulantzas and Georg Lukacs, have rejected some of the orthodox
Marxist ideas. Poulantzas rejects the distinction between “class in itself” and “class for itself”.
Because classes have sprung up into existence fully equipped with class consciousness and a
political organization. Lukacs, on the contrary, attributes crucial importance to the development
of class consciousness among the proletariat from outside by a revolutionary party. In a divided
world, what would be the nature of consciousness – ”socialist” or “revolutionary” or “capitalist”
– is not clear.
With the disintegration of the USSR and the East European countries class consciousness has
acquired a new form and contents. “Globalization” has also created a sort of uniform class
consciousness. With a decline in a distinctive class interest and class consciousness, Marxist theory
of class and class conflict has become less enchanting and appealing. Radical political movements,
including women’s movement and diverse ethnic and national movements, have not been class-
based. Coalitions and alliances in social life have blurred class consciousness in terms of the
Marxist theory. The place of the peasantry in the class structure and its political role in different
types of society were not given due significance in the Marxist theory. The peasants in France, for
example, were not regarded as a class in the full sense, still less a revolutionary class. In many
Third World countries, peasants have played important part in revolutionary movements.
In the erstwhile socialist countries, there were hardly class conflicts, as there were distinct social
forces at work. A new class structure emerged, for example, in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and
Poland. National movements in these countries involved not only classes, but also national, ethnic
or religious groups, and protagonists of feminist, ecological, anti-nuclear movement. Today,
confrontation is not simply restricted to bourgeoisie and proletariat, but alliances between various
social groups have also emerged. On one side there are groups which dominate and direct economic
and social life, on the other side, there are subordinated groups.
Marx and the Study of Indian Society
The Indian academia have been actively debating on Marxism as an ideology and as a practice
since 1940s. In fact, Marx was quite sensitive to the nature of India’s caste system and traditional
ethos of village community. In 1853, he wrote two articles in the New York Daily Tribune on India.
Marx described India as an example of “Asiatic Despotism”, or “Asiatic Mode of Production”.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 51