Class and Class Conflict in the Age of Globalization 9780739124291, 0739124293, 9780739124307, 0739124307, 073913163x, 2008029482

Citation preview

Class

Class Conflict in the z of Globalization

l» I li.l]l:

I

L

I

BERCH BERBEROGLU

WE LEXINGTON BOOKS A division of

.

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Lanham Boulder • New York Toronto • Plymouth, UK

LEXINGTON BOOKS A division of Row ran & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary ofThc Row ran & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200

Lanham, MD 20706 Estover Road Plymouth PL6 SPY United Kingdom Copyright © 2009 by Lexington Books All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-»Publication Data

Berberoglu, Bench. Class and class conflict in the age of globalization I Berch Berberoglu.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-7391-2429-1 (cloth : alk. paper)

ISBN-t0: 0-7391-2429-3 (cloth : alk, paper)

ISBN-l3: 978-0-7391-2430-7 (pack. : a l . paper) ISBN-IO: 0-7391-2430-7 (pack. 1 alk. paper) GISBN-13: 978-0-739 l ~3163-3 cISBN-IO: 0-7391-3163-x l . Social classes. 2. Social conflict. 3. Globalization--Social aspects. 1.

Title. HT609837 2009 305.501-»dc22

2008029482

Printed in the United States of America @MThe paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American

National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-I992.

Contents Figures Tables Preface

vii ix xi

Introduction

xiii

1.

Conventional Theories of Class, Power, and Inequality

1

2. The Marxist Theoly of Class Conflict and Class Struggle

17

3. Class and Class Conflict in Advanced Capitalist Societies

35

4. Class and Class Conflict in the Third World

51

5. Class, Class Conflict, and the State in the Age of Global Capitalism

69

6.

Class and Nation: Nationalism and Class Conflict on a Global Scale

85

7.

Class and Religion: Class Conflict and Religious Fundamentalism

99

8.

Class, Race, and Gender: Racism, Patriarchy, and Class Conflict

113

9.

Conclusion: Class Conflict, Class Struggle, and Social Transformation in the Age of Globalization

129

BibIiography

135

Index

157

About the Author

163

v

Figures Figure 1.1:

The Functionalist View of Society and Social St111ct11re

Figure 1,2:

The Bureaucratic/'Elite View of Society and Social Stnlcture

Figure 2.1:

2

10

The Historical Materialist View of Society and Social Structure

18

Figure 3.1:

The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalist Societies

36

Figure 3.2:

Class Relations, the State, and Political Power in Advanced Capitalist Society

37

Figure 4.1:

The Class Structure of Third World Societies

53

Figure 4.2:

Class Relations in Neocolonial Third World Societies

54

Figure 5.1:

The Origin and Development of Global Capitalism Through Its Various Stages

72

Class Relations and Class Conflict Under Global Capitalism

74

Figure 5,21

Figure 8-1:

Figure 8.2:

Class, Power, and Race in the United States: The Sources of Exploitation and Oppression of African Americans 115

Class, Power, and Gender: The Sources of Exploitation and Oppression of Women

vii

122

Tables Table 3.1:

Table 3.2:

Table 3.3:

Table 5.1:

Corporate Proiitsr Financial and Nonfinancial Industries, 1970-2005

42

Share of Aggregate Income Received, by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families, 198042004

43

Distribution of Wealth in the United States, by Type of Asset, 2001

43

U.S. Military Spending, Federal Deficit, and Interest Paid on Debt, 1970-2006

78

ix

Preface Ever since the formation of social classes and the ensuing class conflicts in society over the course of the past several thousand years, class and class conflicts have become the topics of discussion and debate-from ancient Greek philosophers, to modern-day academics and lay persons alike--to delineate its nature and dynamics in order to understand and change social relations that are based on exploitation and oppression. Whether one belongs to one class or another, is affiliated with this or that political party based on a particular class, or simply caught in a sniggle between two or more classes, class is unavoidably the central social phenomenon of societies divided along class lines based on property relations that are exploitative and oppressive. Class and class conflict are thus the product of the systematic exploitation and oppression ofpropertyless laboring people throughout recorded history-a process that began with the development of private property and the state, which, once captured by the emerging owning classes, came to legitimize class rule and guaranteed the rule of the dominant exploiting classes that reigned over society and the state, and has done so to this day- This domination and exploitation through the oppressive state of the dominant propertied classes did not, however, go unchallenged. Working people everywhere, living under different systems and under different forms of exploitation and oppression,

have risen up in struggle against their oppressors (whether masters, lords, or capitalists) to overthrow the rule of money and wealth to liberate labor from the

tyranny of class domination, with successes in some places and times, and defeats in others, but always relentless in their struggle to bring about a just and humane social order. It is such struggles and determination on the part of working people everywhere and throughout history that has inspired generations of social scientists to examine and expose the nature, contradictions, and conflicts of class society and explain the material bases of class struggles that have shaped, and will continue to shape, the nature of power relations in society. This study was conceived and

xi

xii

Preface

developed in the context of these continuing class struggles and is intended to shed light on their nature, dynamics, and ultimate resolution in the age of globalization. The study of class and class conflict is an ambitious undertaking, no less today in the age of neoliberal globalization than it has been historically since its original formation and evolution through time. Global in nature in the modem context, such undertaking requires the contributions of many people and many strands of thought. I have benefitted greedy from not only the classical social theorists of class and class conflict of past centuries, but from my contemporaries who have been colleagues or critics, and who have provided much insight into the study of

the nature, dynamics, and contradictions of class, class relations, class conflicts, and class struggles over the years. I would like to thank my mentors Albert Szyrnanski, James Petits, Larry Reynolds, and Blain Stevenson for providing ine with the tools of class analysis and the theoretical framework necessary to examine class and class conflict in societies divided along class lines. Others, including

Waldo Katz-Fishman, Alan Spector, Martha Girnenez, Marty Orr, Rhonda Levine, David L. Harvey, Johnson Makoba, and David Lott, have made important contra buttons to my thinking about class and class conflict in this most recent phase of global capitalism. My students in a variety of my classes-ranging from social stratification to political sociology, industrial sociology, class, race and gender, globalization, and social change-have made a similarly important contribution by raising questions regarding the nature of class and class conflict in society and how these conflicts generate the necessary consciousness and political will to bring about change. I am very grateful to them for becoming engaged in these and

related issues of social significance that will affect us all in the years ahead. This project was in part funded by the Scholarly and Creative Activities Grant Program of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Nevada, Reno. I would like to thank Dean Heather Hardy and the program committee for their generous support of this important work. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Suzann for her continued support and encouragement to undertake this important study, and my sons Stephen and

Michael for their appreciation of my work.

Introduction Social classes and class conflict have been the defining concepts of social relations ever since the division of society into hostile classes based on the exploitation and oppression of one class by another. This has become especially important in modern capitalist society through the globalization process, where class divisions have solidified with enormous inequalities in wealth and income that are the most glaring in the history of humanity. This book presents a macro-sociological analysis of class and class conflict through a comparative-historical perspective. Focusing on class as the motive force of social transformation, the book explores class relations and class conflict in a variety of social settings, stressing the centrality of this phenomenon in defining social relations across societies in the age of globalization. Going beyond the analysis of class and class conflict on a world scale, the book addresses the role of the state, nation/nationalisrn, and religion, as well as the impact of race and gender on class relations in the early twenty-first century. The book highlights some of the key aspects of class relations that are examined in great depth in the various chapters that follow. Chapter one provides a survey of conventional theories of class and class conflict, chapter two examines the Marxist theory of class and class struggle, chapter three focuses on class and

class conflict in the advanced capitalist societies, chapter four shifts the focus to class in the Third World, chapter five looks at the relationship between class and the state in global context, chapter six links class and state to the nation and the phenomenon of nationalism on a global scale, chapter seven addresses the impact of religion and fundamentalist religious movements on class and class conflict by focusing on the relationship between class and religion in the Iranian revolution, taken up as a case study, chapter eight focuses on race and gender and their articulation with class, and finally, chapter nine explores how class relations and class struggles may lead to revolution and social transformation in the age of globalization.

xiii

Introduction

xiv

The Continuing Relevance of Class Over the course of the past decade and a half, a number of social scientists, in their celebration of the collapse of the former Soviet Union and East European socialist states in the early 1990s, have declared the demise of Marxism and the death of social classes and class struggle, which constitute the heart of Marxist analysis. In a controveisial article titled "Are Social Classes Dying?" Terry N. Clark and Seymour Martin Lipset have argued that, due to some major changes that capitalism has undergone during the course of the twentieth century, social classes, as we have known them, are dying and will soon disappear from the landscape of advanced capitalist societies.' Claiming that due to these changes the class contradictions of capitalism no longer exist, Clark and Lipset imply that class conflict and class struggles are now, therefore, only a figment of a few remaining Mantists' collective imagination. Shifting this line of argument in a charged political direction, Ian Pakulski, in an article titled "The Dying of Class or ofMarxist Class Theory'?" has attempted to redirect our attention away from Mandsrn and of class in general to deprive us of the important role this approach has played in stressing the centrality of class in sociological analysis Class as a Central Concept In my book Class Structure and Social Transformation, I argued that social classes and class struggles are very much alive and form the very basis of capitalist society, and that despite changes in the nature and composition of the labor force over the course of this century, there continues to be a large and exploited wage~ earning working class in a variety of occupations, and that this class is engaged in various loomis of class struggle to defend and advance its interests as against that of the capitalists

Similarly, in another of my books, The Legacy o f Empire:

Economic Decline and Class Polarization in the United States, I showed that as long as capitalism and its exploitative nature remains to be the motive force of capital accumulation, there will always be an exploiting capitalist class and an exploited working class, and that this will lead to greater (not less) class polarization, and with it an intensification of the class struggle." I went on to add that the working class not only suffers from the exploitation it endures under the rule of capital, but that objectively it has an interest in transforming the entire capitalist system5

In his latest book Who!'s Class Got To Do With It?Ame.ricon Society in the Twenty-First Century, Michael Zweig writes: "The long silence about class in the United States is finally coming to an end.v6 "In the early years of the twenty-first century, as capitalism has emerged triumphant from the Cold War and capitalists

are asserting their power ever more brazenly in the United States and around the

introduction

xv

world," he continues, "the central importance of class in American life is increasingly obvious for all to see.1:7 Thus, "in regard to the economy or issues of war and peace," Zweig concludes, "class is central to our everyday lii%s,M In the introduction to a recent Special Issue of Monthly Review magazine, "Class: Exploitation, Consciousness, and Struggle," John Bellamy Foster writes: "If class war is continual in capitalist society, there is no doubt that in recent decades in the United States it has taken a much more virulent form." "Class," Foster adds, "is not simply about the life chances of a given individual or family, it is the prime mover in the constitution of modern society, governing both the distribution of power and the potential for social change. It therefore permeates all

aspects of social existence."'° "An investigation of class," Foster concludes, "thus leads to the analysis of society as a whole, its relationships of power, conflict, and change." i t Clearly, class identity and class consciousness emerge from the broader class relations that worldng people experience in capitalist society that ultimately propel them to become the agents of change. Whether the worldng class ofa particular country has attained a level of class consciousness that is high enough to see its exploitation in clear and precise terms and organize itself politically to take action to bring about a social transfomiation of major proportions is a matter that emerges organically from the working class and its political organizations through time. Clearly, it is in the process of a long and protracted class struggle, which at first seems unconnected and limited to economic battles, that the workers and their organizations come to understand the necessity of a frontal political attack on the capitalist system and its supportive institutions-including first and foremost the capitalist state.12 Thus, it is the very contradictions of the capitalist mode of production itself, then, that prompt the workers to experience firsthand the nature and extent of their exploitation and develop, in turn, the necessary consciousness and take political action to bring about the revolutionary transformation of society wherein the working class takes charge of the course of history and of social development to advance the interests

of labor and of society in general." It is within this context of an understanding of the nature and structure of the capitalist system that Marxist sociology attempts to locate the central role of social classes and class struggles that are a product of relations of production that manifest themselves in a broad range of class action-from narrow economic struggles to open class warfare aimed at overthrowing the capitalist state. The analysis of class structure and class struggle, therefore, is an indispensable, indeed central, component of the Marxist analysis of capitalist society and of all other class-divided societies, historically and today." It is within this intellectual framework of analysis, then, that we see the importance of class analysis as a if ode of theorizing and verification that Manrist sociologists undertake to understand

and change the contours of life in capitalist society.

Introduction

xvi

The Class Contradictions of Contemporary Capitalist Society To illustrate this process, let us examine the internal and external contradictions of contemporary capitalist society at some length. Whereas the internal contradictions of capitalism are based on the logic of capital accumulation as it takes place on a national level, the external contradictions of capitalism are an extension of its inner workings as manifested on a transnational, global level. Together, these internal and external contradictions of capitalism constitute the basis of the

operation of the capitalist mode of production over time and across space.

Internal Contradictions The internal contradictions of contemporary capitalist society include: the unequal distribution of wealth and income, the persistence of racism and women's oppress~ ion, the increasing role of the state on behalf of capital, the de-industrialization of the domestic economy, increasing indebtedness and itnpoverishtnent of the working class, and a host of other related problems effected by the growth and expansion of capital and capitalist relations of production over the course of the past two centuries, The unprecedented rise in the accumulated wealth of the capitalist class during the twentieth century led to the unequal distribution of wealth and income between labor and capital, leading to riches on one poll and poverty and bare subsistence on the other. The disparities in the distribution of wealth and income, especially in its magnified form in the United States, have led to associated classbased inequalities that are manifestations of exploitative property relations under contemporary U.S. capitalism. Racial and gender oppression, which are two major aspects of the exploitation

of labor, serve to facilitate the appropriation of additional surplus value, as minority and female workelT> (especially those laboring in sweatshops in the periphery of the global economy) are paid much less than white male workers, and are therefore more vulnerable and more likely to be part of the growing poverty population of working poor on a national and global scale." Super-exploited at home and abroad, these diverse groups of workers in the new international div» sign of labor are also used to divide the working class and weaken its power vis-avis capital. Racial and gender oppression is, therefore, social, political, and, above all, economic.16 It is the capitalist class that directly profits from racial and gender discrimination against minorities and women- Minority workers and working women generate much of the super-profits obtained by monopolies. However, the extra profits made from racism and sexism not only means the super-exploitation of minority and women workers, but that they have been used against all U.S.

Introduction

xvii

workers, including white male workers, in attempts to lower real wages and to increase the reserve army of the unemployed.11 In this sense, all workers -regardless of their race/ethnicity and gender-lose from racism and sexism, for the only beneficiaries of these are the capitalists in their pursuit of greater profits. Assuring the continuation of these practices under the existing framework of

capitalist society, the capitalist state has come to play a central role on behalf of capital, and especially the monopoly fraction of the capitalist class, to fulfill its mission as the guardian of the system. Over the course of history, the capitalist state in the United States has played a pivotal role in facilitating the capital accumulation process-a process which has led to further consolidation of political power in the hands of the monopolies that now effectively control the state." Given the control of the state by big business and the biggest transnational monopolies, however, the state has increasingly found itself unable to regulate and manage the broader capitalist economy and fulfill its mission of protecting the interests of capital in general and thereby the entire capitalist system." Thus, while the large corporations and their owners have been the direct beneficiaries of the state's policies and actions, the domination of the state by the monopolies has resulted in crisis of the state, threatening the entire political structure of capi-

talist society, as the state more and more becomes identified as a state of the monopolies and of big business, subservient to the most powerful fraction of the capitalist class with which it clearly identifies. The crisis of the modern capitalist state thus InagniNes the inherent contradictions of class divisions in contemporary capitalist society and brings to the fore the necessity of the resolution of these contradictions that are at base an outcome of contradictory class interests, class conflict, and class sniggle, in., the struggle for state power. The pivotal role of the capitalist state with regard to economic policy that fosters the global expansion of U.S.-based transnational corporations becomes evident when considering the continued expansion of U.S. capital across the globe, while bringing about the de-industrialization of the U.S. domestic economy that

is transforming the country from an advanced-industrial one to a service-oriented appendage of a global production system that flourishes in sweatshops throughout the world." Changes in the international division of labor through the transfer of manufacturing from the first to the third world are thus effecting a shift in produc»

son that affects millions of workers across the United States-development that has immense political implications, as well as economic and social, The crisis of the advanced capitalist economy and the state in the age of globalization has thus brought about a general crisis of the capitalist system in the United States and elsewhere that will increasingly be challenged by working people over the coming years." The global expansion of U.S. capital and, as a consequence, the deindustrialization of the domestic economy has adversely impacted the working class

through reduced employment in the high-wage unionized industrial sector and led to a decline in living standards of workers in the United States. This decline in the

Introduction

xviii

quality of life of the working people in America has been accompanied with the deterioration of living conditions that are now threatening the fabric of society and social life in the United States. Declining wages have led to greater unemployment and underemployment and a rise in poverty, swelling the ranks of the working poor-in effect, bringing about the increasing impoverishment of the working

class. External Contradictions

As an extension of the internal contradictions of capitalism and capitalist society in the advanced capitalist countries, it would be important to look at the "e>itter~ na," global contradictions of advanced capitalism and the capitalist state placed in a broader, transnational context. These contradictions are "external" in that they operate outside the national framework, but are very much part of the system of capitalist production and exchange that now takes place on a global scale. Thus,

while these "external" processes occur on a transnational basis and have international manifestations, especially in inter~state relations, they also have domestic economic, social, and political consequences that affect the structure of class relations within advanced capitalist societies." The global expansion of capital across the world, while beneficial to a handful of global monopolies and the capitalist class in general, has brought about a shift in the domestic economy of the advanced capitalist states-from industrial production to finance and the service sectors-resulting in an overall economic decline within the advanced capitalist centers. The ensuing changes in the material con-

dition of workers in the advanced capitalist countries has brought to the fore a new set of contradictions that are increasingly becoming problematic for the advanced capitalist/imperial state." The declining standard of living of the working class in the United States and other advanced capitalist countries is thus a direct reflection of the globalization of capital whose reach extends to vast territories of the world.

The globalization of capital and imperialist domination of the world political economy have thus led to the intensification of the global contradictions of capital, which continues to have a great impact on class relations throughout the world. The central contradiction of this global expansionary process and the spread of capitalist relations of productiort throughout the world is the exploitation ofwagelabor on a worldwide basis. And this, in turn, has led to the emergence of class conflict and class struggles in many countries around the world." Transnational capital has through the globalization process expanded its boundaries of operation, and thereby its sphere of exploitation, throughout the world, and the entry of multiple capitals onto the world scene from the advanced capitalist centers has led to the emergence of interimperialist competition and

rivalry between the transnationals of the chief imperialist states for supremacy over the global political economy during the twentieth century. This rivalry

Introduction

xix

between the biggest and most powerful monopolies of the global economy, which is economic and political in nature (as they are supported and defended by "their own" states), has sometimes resulted in military confrontation, as in World War I and II, and threatens to lead to further such eruptions at global proportions. The entry of China into this global race, with its unprecedented success in economic growth and expansion, both domestically and worldwide, further complicates the global balance of forces and raises a new set of questions regarding the future course of development of the global political economic situation in the twenty~first century. Another factor that affects the balance of forces in the global political economy is the worldwide struggle between capitalism and socialism. Ever since the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia in 1917, the world has embroiled in conflict between capitalist and socialist states in their struggle for global domination. This conflict is an extension of the class struggle between labor and capital on the world stage and historically includes not only the Russian, but also the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and other similar revolutions against capitalist domination during the course of the twentieth century. Although some of the socialist experiments of the past century have been short-lived and others re~directed in various ways, the nature and depth of the struggle between capitalist and socialist states have always been an outcome of the changing nature of global politicaleconomic relations and the balance of forces between rival capitalist and socialist states." In the period following the collapse of the former Soviet Union and its associated socialist states in Eastern Europe, one would be forced to conclude that this balance favors, at least for the time being, the major capitalistimperialist powers that currently dominate the global political economy. Looking at the unfolding drama in these and other regions of the world, this could easily change to its opposite in the not too distant future. If, for example, China can continue to be characterized as a socialist society with a communist party at its head, and if it continues to make progress in its growth and surpasses

the economies of the advanced capitalist countries, then one could foresee the rise of China as a socialist state to become a new global superpower in the second or third decades of the twenty-first c e n t u r y a development that may lead to the unleashing of another "Cold War" between the chief capitalist-imperialist states and emerging powerful socialist states, such as China. On the other hand, if China develops along the "capitalist road" and evolves to become another advanced capitalist state, this would add another capitalist contender to the global political economy and further intensity inter-imperialist rivalry on a world scale-a development that may likewise trigger confrontation and conflict with political and military consequences. In either case, nfyalries between emerging and existing powers are increasingly likely to become the order

of the day and result in a new set of contradictions that will require their resolution. These developments are, in one way or another, directly related to class

xx

Introduction

relations and class struggles around the world-struggles that are bound to determine the filture course of class relations on a global scale.

Class Conflict, Class Struggle, and Revolution The contradictions of capitalism over the course ofits development during the past two centuries, coupled with its repression of labor through the capitalist state, has however planted the seeds of its social transformation by giving rise to the labor movement, trade unions, and working~class political parties to effect change." While the extent and intensity of such political organization has varied from one country to another over different historical periods, the underlying drive to bring about political change has been quite strong in countries with a long history of trade union and political activity. These movements first developed in Europe, but soon spread to other parts of the world, including North America and elsewhere, where capitalism developed at a rapid pace." In time, working class movements

developed in various parts of the Third World in direct proportion to the growth and expansion of capitalism and capitalist relations of production, such as in India, China, Latin America, and the Middle East. Thus, as capitalism developed across national boundaries and became a powerful global force, so too did the worldng class become a viable opponent in this process of worldwide economic expansion. In addition to the growing labor movement across the world, there has been a resurgence of progressive social movements in the United States and elsewhere over the past several decades. These include the civil rights movement, the woinen's liberation movement, the student movement, the environmental movement, the anti-war and peace movements, the anti-imperialist national liberation movements, and several others. These movements have often become part of a

broader anti-capitalist political movement to effect change. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, for example, focused as

it was on the rights of African Americans, was at the same time closely linked to the rights of other oppressed peoples around the world, especially in the struggle against colonialism, imperialism, and neocolonialism. The student movement of the late 1960s was, in turn, organically linked to the anti-war and peace move-

ments, which were in alliance with numerous other movements that challenged the oppression of women and minorities, violation of human rights, and the destruc-

tion of the natural environment for private profit--in effect, challenging all things that foster the global domination of capital over society. On abrader scale, the global expansion of capital and transnational capitalist domination of the Third World has led to the growth of anti-imperialist anti-

globalization movements which have come to challenge the global capitalist

Introduction

xxi

system through revolutions throughout the Third World." These movements have Often become part of the worldwide struggle against capitalist globalization and imperialism led by the worldng class through cross-border labor organizing and international labor solidarity through labor internationalism." This, in turn, has led to the development of broader international alliances made up of a multitude of movement organizations that bring together various oppressed peoples to wage a wider struggle against global capitalism through transnational activism." The political mobilization of oppressed groups that have come together to effect change have sometimes succeeded in bringing about new non-exploitative social relations. The degree of success in constructing a new society along egali-

tarian lines has been an outcome of a variety of factors, above all the degree to which these experiments have been successful in thwarting imperialist attempts to undermine such efforts. Regardless of the varied experiences of one or another society or social movement to secure such change, however, social revolution and the revolutionary transformation of society in the epoch of global capitalism has more and more become the only viable option available to oppressed groups and classes to bring about fundamental social change.

Conclusion This book attempts to show the underlying forces at work in contemporary capitalist society. In doing so, it finds it imperative to delineate the class nature of social conflict and change so that the dynamics of the larger social system becomes clear and comprehensible. An analysis of the class nature of social, economic, and political institutions of society is a prerequisite for the analysis of the varied aspects of social life and social relations in a variety of historical and contemporary social settings. Class

analysis provides the best tools to examine the nature and dynamics of society and social transformation that takes into account the varied forms of class inequality and class struggle that serve as the engine of social change and social transfonnation. An analysis of society and its class contradictions requires of us no less than this central imperative of social inquiry if we are to develop a better understanding of society and social relations in all its complexities- In this effort, class and class analysis will continue to play a central role, as it has for more than a century, in helping us shape our understanding of class and class conflict in the twenty-first century.

Introduction

>odi

Notes 1. Terry N. Clark and Seymour Martin Lipset, "Are Social Classes Dying?" International Sociology 6 (1991):39'1-410.

2. Ian Pakulskj, "The Dying of Class or of Marxist Class Theoly?" International Sociology 8, no. 3 (1993):279-92, .Ian Pakulski and Malcolm Waters, The Death ofCiass (London: SagePublications, l 996), JohnMyles and Adrian Tureen,"Comparative Studies

in Class Structure," Annual Review of Sociology 20 (I994):l03-24. 3. Bench Berberoglu, Class Structure and Social Transformation (New York: Praeget, 1994).

4. See Bench Berberoglu, The Legacy of Empire.' Economic Decline and Class Polarization in the United States (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1992).

5. ibid. 6. In/Lichael Zweig (ed.), Whats Class Got to Do With IF? American Society in the Twenty-first Century (Ithaca, NY: HER Press, 2004).

7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. John Belamy Foster, "Aspects of Class in the United States: An Introduction," Monthly Review, vol. 58, no. 3 (July-»August 2006), p. l.

10. Ibid, pp. 3-4. 11. Ibid., P- 4. 12. Albert J. Szymanski, Cross Struc.'ure:A Critical Perspective (New York: Praeger, 1983), Bob Jessop, The Capitalist State (New York: New York University Press, 1982). 13. Rick Fantasia, Cu lhxres ofSolidanlty: Consciousness, Action, and Contemporary American Workers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).

14. Szymansld, Class Stricture, Scott McNall, Rhonda Levine, and Rick Fantasia (eds), Bringing Class Back In (Boulder, CO: Crestview Press, 1991). 15. Victor Perlo, Super Profits and Crises: Modern LHS. Capitalism (New York: International Publishers, 1988). 16. Robert Pemicci and Earl Wysong, The New Class Society (Lanham, MD: Row ran

and Littlefield, 2003), Bill Fletcher Jr., "How Race Enters Class in the United States," in

Zweig, Whats Class Got to Do Mrk IF?, Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel, Economic Apartheid in America (New York: The New Press, 2005). 17. Zweig, What 's Class Got to Do With In? 18. Bench Berberoglu, Political Sociology: A Conrporarive/H1'stof'ical Approach,

Second Edition (Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2001). 19. Ibid. 20. Ellen Israel Rosen, Making Swearsliops: The Globalization

of the US. Apparel Industry (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002). 2 l. James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, Globalization Unmaslfed: Impeiialisnl in the 2/ st Century (London: Zed Books, 2002), Michael D. Yates, Naming the System: Inequality and Work in the Global Economy (New York: Monthly Review, 2003); Walda Katz-Fishman, Jerome Scott, and If

Modupe, "Global Capitalism, Class Struggle, and

Social '1`ranslOrmation," in Bench Berberoglu (ed.), Globalizaaon and Change: The Transformation of Globaf Capitalism (Lanham, MD: Lezdngton Books, 2005).

Introduction

22.. Bench Berberoglu, Globalization Row ran and Littlefield, 2003).

xxiii

of Capital and the Nation-State (Lanham, MD:

23. Ibid. 24. James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, System in Crisis: The Qvnamics

of Free

Market Capitalism (London: Zed Books, 2003). 25, Ten'y Boswell and Christopher Chase-Dunn, The Spiral of Capz'.talzlsm and Socialism (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rieumer Publishers, 2000), James Petras, Capitalist and Socialist Crises in the Late Twentieth Century (Totowa, NJ: Row ran pa Allanheld, 1983).

26. JohnFoster,Class Struggle and theIndusial Revolution (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1974); Richard Boyer and Herbert Marais, labor's Untold Story, Third Edition (New York: United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, 1980). 27. JerryLembcke, Capitalist Developmentand Class Capacz'rz'es: A/Iarzxfst Theory and Union Organization (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1988). 28. Stephen K. Sanderson, Revolutions: A Worldwide Introduction to Political and Social Change (Boulder, CO; Paradigm, 2005). 29. Andrew Howard, "Global Capital andLabor Internationalism: Workers' Response

to Global Capitalism," in Berch Berberoglu (ed), Globalization and Change: The Transformation of Global Capitalism (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), Kim Moody, Workers in o Lean World: Unions in the Inremotional Economy (London: Verso, 1997).

30. DonatellaDella Porter andSidney Tarrow (eds. ),TransnarionalProtestondGlol;=al Activism (Lanham, MD: Row ranandLittlefield, 2005), Jeremy Brecher, Tim Costello, and Brendan Smith, Globalization from Below: The Power of Solfdanl!y (Cambridge, MA: SouthEnd Press,2000), Wi11iamK. Tabb, "Neoliberalism and Anticorporate Globalization as Class Struggle," in Zweig, Whats Class Got to Do With It?

Chapter 1 Conventional Theories of Class, Power, and Inequality This chapter provides a critical analysis of major conventional theories of class, power, and inequality, The theories examined here are divided into several broad groupings which include the functionalist, Weberian, classical elite, and organizational theories. A critical analysis of these theories would help us understand conventional approaches to social inequality and thus situate the alternative Marxist theory of class conflict and class struggle discussed in the next chapter in proper theoretical perspective. We begin our analysis with the dominant paradigm among mainstream academics on society and social inequality-the functionalist theory--which until recently played an important role in conservative academic circles regarding the study of stratification and inequality in American society'

The Functionalism Theory of Stratification and Inequality The modem functionalist view of society, as exemplified in the works of Talcott Parsons and others, is concerned with the relationship of the various parts of society to the social system as a whole. As each part or unit of the system is given equal importance, any change in one part will affect all the others. To maintain conditions of stability within the system, society must be in a state of "equilibriu1n"~--one that promotes the survival and maintenance of the prevailing social

system." Thus, as I illustrate in figure 1.1, the functionalist view of society and social structure, including the social, political, and economic spheres and major institutions of society, emphasizes the organic linkage between the parts and the relationship of the parts to the whole at various levels of social interaction -individual, institutional, and structural. l

Chapter l

2

Figure 1.1 -» The Functionalist View of Society and Social Structure

Society

No §1lKI 'mzcvesta

(represents the

\

IIIIHI `\

The Political Sphere

\

\ The Social Sphere

The politic!! inaituuon (more or less equal in

power md i.nflualc¢ (pluraiin democracy)

und inf le :Tue ia n more or less equal fuhion (especially through the

snIlliNtliullililiiil The Major Sodd Inadtudans of$od¢ty (A~F) (more or less equal in power and inBualca ova the mu md society) As

8I CD El

The Flrdly Education nui$i0!I

- 'm-vwvuu

IF-n

The Poiizy

'lnmllluilI

In the social sphere, for example, groups and sub-groups interact within a framework of more or less equal power and influence in relation to each other, and the major social instimtions of society feed into this mix of power relations that are balanced and supported by the institutional context that is supportive of the broader mission and goals of society. Likewise, in the political sphere, the political

institution and its various components (such as political parties) evenly represent the interests of the major social institutions and the people in general through a process of "pluralist democracy" in that each institution is linked to and influences the state in a more or less equal fashion, resulting in a broad and equitable distribution of power in society. In this way, the social, political, economic, religious, cultural, educational, and other institutions of society operate within a harmonious framework where the relationships among all these institutions make a positive contribution toward the maintenance of order that assures the continued

evolution of society along established lines, hence providing long-term stability and continuity in society and the prevailing social order. This is clearly evident in the functionalists' views on social stratification and inequality.

Generally, the functionalists see stratification and inequality as naturally occurring phenomena in all societies at all times. in their classic article "Some

Conventional Theories of Class, Power, and Inequality

3

Principles of Stratification" published in 1945, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore set forth what they call "an eiiort .. . . tO eXplain, in functional rems, the universal necessity which calls forth stratificatioN in any social system." The central thesis of the tiinctionalist theory of inequality, as outlined by

Davis and Moore, is the "universal functional necessity of stratification," transcending any and all temporal and structural properties of human societies in the historical development process. "The main functional necessity explaining the universal presence ofstratitication," they write,"is preciselythe requirement faced by any society of placing and motivating individuals in the social structure."" The model set forth in this theory is based on the following premise: As a functioning mechanism a society must somehow distribute its members in social positions and induce them to perform the duties of these positions. It must thus concern itself with motivation at two different levels: to instill in the proper individuals the desire to fill certain positions, and, once in these positions, the desire to perform the duties attached to them.'

Davis and Moore go on to argue, It does make a great deal of difference who gets into which positions, not only because some positions are inherently more agreeable than others, but also because some require special talents or training and some are flmctionally more

important than others."

Talcott Parsons, in agreement with this formulation, asserts that "social stratification is regarded . . . as the differential ranking of the human individuals who compose a given social system and their treatment as superior and iderior to one another in certain socially important respects." Similarly, stratification, argues another functionalist, is inevitable]-and is the result of the problem of societies to motivate their members to work hard to live up to social values." This assertion, like other functionalist claims on this question, is based on the assumption that stratification is "functionally necessary" to insure the socialization of "proper individuals" to develop the desire and the skills to occupy important, functionally specific positions that are "required" for the maintenance of the social system. The social system is maintained, argue the functionalists, through the allocation of "variable rewards" so that the greater the skill requirements and the importance of the position the greater are the "rewards." The disproportionate distribution of rewards, the argument goes, is for the purpose of filling the appropriate positions that are "necessary" for the "proper functioning" of society. This point is made quite clear by Davis and Moore:

4

Chapter l

Inevitably, then, a society must have, first, some kind of rewards that it can use as inducements, and second, some way of distributing these rewards differentially according to positions. The rewards and their distribution.1;ec;Q;13g _;1_.p_aI_t__of the social order, and thus givei°iSElt6 sesstn=o.1ias;°--

And, they continue, "if the rights and prerequisites of different positions in society must be unequal, then the society must be stratified."'° This leads them to conclude that "social inequality is thus an unconsciously evolved device by which societies insure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons."" This is so, according to Davis and Moore, in "every society, no matter how simple or complex.v12 Viewed from a critical standpoint, the Davis-Moore theory poses a number of conceptual, theoretical, and empirical problems at the outset. At the conceptual level, it should be stated that the confusion over the definition of stratification is so widespread that it has created a controversy even between functionalists themselves. To the extent that stratification is taken to mean a ranking of positions or statuses along various social dimensions and the differential classification of these positions based on real or apparent differences between them, there would be no major disagreement as to the usefulness of such model as a classificatory scheme. However, problems do arise when the concept is turned into a tautology and is given universal and metaphysical properties, that is, "universality," "universal functional necessity," and "inevitability" of social inequality. Providing a substantive critique of the various arguments raised by the Davis-

Moore theory, Melvin M. Tomin, a functionalist himself, sets out to refute, in functional terms, the fanner's contentions on social inequality concerning the greater or lesser "functional importance" of various positions, the questions of "motivation" and "reward," and the "positive functionality" and "universality" hence "inevitability" of social inequality," We cannot here go into an extended analysis of each one of these points, but it is interesting to note that Tunlin's critical analysis of these issues leads him to reach almost exactly the opposite conclusions from those of Davis and Moore, as he specifies various "negative functions, or dysfiinctions, of institutionalized social inequality," for example, "human igno-rance, war, poverty.""' Since Tomin identifies these as the negative

consequences of systems based on social inequality, the "contribution" of stratiliication to the positive functioning of society, according to his reasoning, does in fact become "dysfunctional" for society or the social system as a whole. Challenging the theoretical and methodological premises of the Davis-Moore thesis on the functional necessity of stratification and inequality, Tum if raises some important issues that nlust be noted: Since a theoretical model can be devised in which all other clearly indispcrlsablc

major social functions are performed, but in which inequality as motive and

Conventional Theories of Class, Power, and Inequality

5

reward is absent, how then account for stratification in terms of structural and functional necessities and inevitablities?"'

Extending his analysis to account for the key mechanism that perpetuates structured social inequality, "an essential characteristic of all known kinship systems," writes Tum if, is that they function as transmitters of inequalities from generation to generation. Similarly, an essential characteristic of all known stratification systems is that they employ the kinship system as their agent of transmission of inequalities. To the extent that this is true, then it is true by definition that the elimination from kinship systems of their function as transmitters of inequalities (and hence die alteration of the definition of kinship systems) would eliminate those inequalities which were generation-linked. Obviously, the denial to parents of their ability and right to transmit both advantages and disadvantages to their offspring would require a fundamental alteration in all existing concepts of kinship structure. At the least, there would have to be a vigilant separation maintained between the unit which reproduces and the unit which socializes, maintains and places. In theory, this separation is eminently possible. In practice, it would be revolutionary. is

Indeed it would! By curbing the transfer of wealth and property through altering the nature and tiinction of the kinship structure, it is indeed possible to bring up a generation of individuals without the necessity of a significant level of social inequality. It should be noted that the functionalist contention of "the universality of social stratification," to be found in "every society, no matter how simple or complex," stands in sharp contrast to the notion of historical specificity. While on the one hand this universal model of the fiinctionalists helps to consolidate their position theoretically and ideologically-thereby eliminating the possibility of the differential development of social evolution~»-it also conflicts with empirical reality. "Functional theories," comments Arthur Stinchcombe, "are like other scientific theories: they have empirical consequences which are either true or false. Deciding whether they are true or false is not a theoretical or ideological matter but an empirical one."17 As wealth of data available on a vast number of primitive societies show, almost all (98 percent) of hunting and gathering societies studied by anthropologists confirm that these societies do not have a class system or structured social inequality," while the remaining 2 percent have become "stratified" as a result of contact with more advanced societies.19 Hence, as humans have lived in primitive hunting and gathering societies as the predominant form of social organization for most of human history, it is clear that the historical evolution of Homo sapiens for thousands of years has been unquestionably highly

Chapter l

6

democratic and egalitarian. Only in more recent times do we begin to see stratification and class systems develop, hence we have class inequality." Critics of modem functionalism have pointed out that the functionalists, consciously or unconsciously, have accepted existing structures and conditions in capitalist society as given, and have thus contributed to maintaining the existing social order and perpetuating the dominant capitalist ideology. This has opened

the way to a flood ofcriticistn of modern liinctionalism as being, in effect, nothing more than an ideological expression of contemporary capitalist society.

The Weberian Theory of Class, Power, and Inequality It is often pointed out by Weberian theorists that Weber's theory of stratification and inequality is "multidimensional." By this is meant Weber utilized a number of equally important dimensions of class and social status to explain social stnucture and social inequality.

Io Weber,."a icla§' is.any.group.ofperson.s occupy.ing,the.same class status." or situation." "We may speak ofa '(=l8ss'," he wrote, "when (1) a number ofpeople have in common aSpeeific.causal component of their life chances, in so far as (2) this Gmnnoncnnts,reInesnrNsdesstusiysly.l2y_s¢0H0m,i9.i1\¢erensinttxs.u=»=» session of goods and opportunities for income, and (3).is represented undetjhe conditions ofQ the comModityiirlla56r.gnarléets."" Central to Weber conceptualization of class is the notion of "life chances," by which he means "the kind of control or lack of it which the individual has over goods or services and existing possibilities of their exploitation for the attainment of receipts within a given economic order,'H*' In..tl1Q_9risi1naL\?§lehe.1;i@11formulation. of class, 'class situationj"_is ultimately "market situation";. "According 0Qur terminology," Weber tells us,""tlté` factor

that creates 'class' is unambiguously economic interest, and indeed, only those

interests involved in the existence of the 'n1arket'."" .

. .. ..

..

.

One's "class situation," then, is expressed by one's access to "a supply of goods, external livingconditions, andpersonal life experiences"--all of which are derivative of and determined by the amount of control one has and which is exercised in the acquisition of income within a particular economic order. -In his later formulations of class, Weber stresses the importance of "properly" as the key variable that sets the parameters of this control. ".'Prjoperty' and .'.lack of property',".-Weber argues, are "the basic categories of all class situations."" in this formulation,.one's...life chances are "pritnardy determinedby the diilerentiation of property holdings" and power is derived from the ownership and control of property "whiclt gives[the owners] a monopoly to acquire [highly valued] goods.""' And since the specific lifechances ofindividuals

'7

Conventional Theories of Class, Power, and Inequality

is created by "the way in which *h°_..diSP9§i!i0"._°y§t.._1na1ei2iai..-nrop.er0 .is

disfN-b~TtEi£l:"§"llt"Hi§lii1-65s'of' iii Si iliution monopolizes the .Oppmttunitiesior profitable Heals for all those who [possess Pt0peHyl-.7'" Although Weber's conception of "property" is somewhat different from the Marxist definition, and that consequently such conception necessarily alters the analytical boundaries of the Weberian definition of the nature, position, and politics of specific classes, it does nonetheless point to the centrality of property relations in the control and exercise of power in society." In a_ddition to the "property class," which constitutes the determinant core of Weber s concept O-fclass WeberH&tingulshes two other cTasses"thailiN§ISé'iiiS the

totality of his class model: "acquisition class" and "social class.""

.. .

.

.

A class is an "acquisition class" when the class situation of its members is primarily determined by their opportunity for the exploitation of services O11 the market, the "social class" structure is composed of the plurality of class statuses

between which an interchange of individuals on a personal basis or in the course of generations is readily possible and typically observable."

While "acquisition classes" are based on occupational criteria, as opposed to property ownership, "social classes" are largely a product of the combination of occupational andproperty classes: the"working" class, the "lower middle" classes, the "intelligentsia," and "the classes occupying a privileged position through

property and education.as3! We cannot here go into a detailed description of each one of these classes, but suiiice it to say that Weber, in the case of both property and acquisition classes, further subdivides them into "positively privileged" and "negatively privileged" classes and adds an intermediate category, making up the "middle class." As Weber puts it: Positively privileged property classes typically live from property income. This may be derived from property rights in human beings as with slaveowners,

inland, in mining property, in fixed equipment such as plant and apparatus, in

ships, and as creditors in loan relationships. . . . Finally, they may live on income

from securities.

Class interests which are negatively privileged with respect to property . . . are themselves objects of ownership, that is they are unfree [such as slaves]." Similarly, "social status," according to Weber, rests on "a typically effective

claim to positive or negative privilege with respect to social prestige" derived from "one or more of the following bases: fa) mode of living, (11) a formal process of education . . . and the acquisition of the corresponding modes of life, or (c) on the prestige of birth, or of an occupation, Thus, within this framework, a social "stratum" then, "is a plurality of individuals who, within a larger group, enjoy a

Chapter I

8

particular kind and level of prestige by virtue of Lheir position.as3" As Weber puts it elsewhere: One might thus say that "classes" are stratified according to their relations to the production and acquisition of goods, whereas "status groups" are stratified according to the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by special

"styles of rifle.""

And, as it is clear from Weber's repeated emphasis, social status is a manifestation of class situation, rooted in property relations, and thus is a derivative of .class status. Still, although control over wealth, income, goods, services, education, high official position, power, and other privileges in the hands of the "positively privileged" property class and lack of such control and appropriation on the part of the "negatively privileged" property class place Weber's analytic scheme in a position that is in a sense analogous to the Marxist conception of exploiting and exploited classes, the logic of such classification is based on an entirely different set of conceptual definitions that separate the two traditions."

The Elite Theory of Power and Inequality The elite theory of power and inequality maintains that all societies are ruled by elites and that the major institutions of society, especially the state, constitute the mechanism by which the vast majority is ruled. Classical elite theory, advanced by Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca, argues that this is so because the masses are inherently incapable of governing themselves, and that therefore society must be led by a small number of individuals who rule on behalf of the masses. In his major work, The Mind and Society, Vilfredo Pareto identified a

minority of highly talented individuals at the top levels of society who possessed superior personal qualities and wielded great social and political power, distinguishing this group from the great masses of the people, Pareto called it the "élite."" "So let us make a class of the people who have the highest indices in their branch of activity," wrote Pareto, "and to that class give the name oféZite1are3" Further elaborating on the internal composition of this group, he divided the elite into two (political and social) segments: A governing élite, comprising individuals who directly or indirectly play some considerable part in g o v e e n t , and a non-governing élite, comprising the rest. So we get two strata in a population: (1) a lower stratum, the non-élite, with

whose possible influence on government we are not just here concerned, then (2)

Conventional Theories of Class, Power, and Inequality

9

a higher stratum, the élite, which is divided into two: (a) a governing élfre, (b) a non-governing élite."

Within this framework, the fundamental idea set forth and developed by Pareto was that of the "circulation of elites." By this, Pareto meant two diverse processes operative in the perpetual continuity of elite rule: (1) the process in which individuals circulate between the elite and the nonelite, and (2) the process in which a whole elite is replaced by a new one. The main point of Pareto's concept of the circulation of elites is that the ongoing process of replenishing the governing elite by superior individuals from the lower classes is a critical element securing the continuation of elite rule. The governing class is restored not only in numbers, but-and that is the more important thing-in quality, by families rising from the lower classes and bringing with them the vigor and the proportions of residues necessary for keeping themselves in power."

A breakdown in this process of circulation of elites, however, leads to such serious instability in the social equilibrium that "the governing class crashes to ruin and often sweeps the whole of a nation along with it.as41 In Pareto's reasoning, a "potent cause of disturbance in the equilibrium is the accumulation of superior elements in the lower classes and, conversely, of inferior elements in the higher classes.5742 Hence, "every élite that is not ready to fight to defend its position is in full decadence, there remains nothing for it to do but to vacate its place for another élite having the Verile qualities which it lacks.as4] Thus, Pareto reaches an inescapable conclusion in his for-volume study: "Aristocracies do not last. Whatever the causes, it is an incontestable fact that alter a certain length of time they pass away. History is a graveyard of aristocracies.M44* The consequences of developments in society are such that they eventually lead to total social transformation. According to Pareto, Revolutions come about through accumulations in the higher strata of society

. . . of decadent elements no longer possessing the residues suitable for keeping them in power, and shrinking from the use of force, while meantime in the lower strata of society elements of superior quality are coming to the fore, possessing residues suitable for exercising the functions of government and willing enough to use force."

Paret0's explanation of the nature and dynamics of elite rule and their circulation, therefore, rests in large part on the personal qualities of individuals in both elite and nonelite segments of society and their willingness or failure to use force to acquire and retain political power.

Chapter 1

10

Gaetano Mosca, the other major elite theorist, argued in his classic work The Ruling Class in favor of a theory of inequality and power similar to that advanced by Pareto. Like Pareto, he divided people in all societies into essentially two distinct classes: the ruling class (the elite) and the class that is med (the masses) The ruling class always enjoys a monopoly of political power over the masses and directs society according to its own interests:

_

In all societies . . . two classes of people appear--a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The First class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings,

whereas the second, the more numerous class is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is new more or less legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent."

This is not merely so with every known society of the past and the present, all societies must be so divided. Herein lies Mosca's argument for the "universal necessity" and "inevitability" of elite rule. Incorporating Mosca's views of political power and Pareto's concept of elite rule into Weber's analysis of the bureaucratic authority structure, figure 1.2 provides a schematic illustration of society and social structure according to bureaucratic/elite theories of stratification and inequality. Figure 1.2 - The Bureaucratic Elite View of Society and Social Structure The Elite

Power

The governing elite nfmp politicians

Privilege

md CEOs (The Bureaucracy) '

_..*"

Prestige

**

_

income and wealth differcnliuion bred on occupational stralinication

I

(variation in life

I

chances and

,

life styles]

Th: marginal population

unemployed)

Ill!!

m..

-

`»~. i-' '

...

r

J/

_ _ * _ E _ -1-u-

II

conuoland dominaticm

I pa (the underdus of

The professional middle class

.

-P J/

*k'

1

'L Upward and downward mobility

J

I The Muses (the Ilibori.n8 popudztion)

I I

subservience I'I

__ 1» - h

"1 -re -

h

*._

n

. l _

1-»

I*"

Hierarchic Power and Authority Structure

(bureaumaxic nrgnnizlliou of society)

u

ul;

-

-»

The lower class

Conventional Theories of Class, Power, and Inequality

II

Here, power, privilege, and elite rule remain in the hands of a small group of top bureaucratic functionades, who together with the elite constitute the dominant political force in society. It is this hierarchic structure of society that comes to legitimize the domination of the masses by the privileged elite. In his attempt to rationalize elite rule over the masses, Mosca writes: Absolute equality has never existed in human societies: Political power never has been, and never will be, founded upon the explicit consent of majorities. It always has been, and it always will be, exercised by organized minorities, which have had, and will have, the means, varying as the times vary, to impose their

supremacy on the multitudes."

Mosca attempts here to establish "the real superiority of the concept of the ruling, or political, class," to show that "the varying structure of ruling classes has a preponderant importance in determining the political type, and also the level of civilization, of the different peoples.""'" Hence for Mosca it is the political apparatus of a given society and an organized minority (i.e., the political elite) that controls this apparatus-~not the class structure--that determines the nature and movement of society and societal change." At one point, Mosca writes that "the discontent of the masses might succeed in deposing a ruling class," but, he immediately adds, "inevitably . . . there would have to be another organized minority within the masses themselves to discharge the functions of a ruling class.""" As Mosca viewed the specific "functions" of ruling classes in universal terms, he could not envision a state and a society at the service of the laboring masses, as against a ruling class or an "organized minority within the masses." Mosca's tautological arguments on the"inevitability" of elite rule as conveyed above cast a heavy shadow on his work and call into question the accuracy of his observations.

Although Mosca believed thatthe filling classes throughout history "owe their special qualities not so much to the blood in their veins as to their very particular upbringing, and recognized that "social position, family tradition, the habits of the class in which we live, contribute more than is commonly supposed to the greater or lesser development of the qualities mentioned, he nonetheless failed to address the social and political implications of his own position by rejecting the class-struggle analysis of Marx and opting instead for a psychological theory of power based on an individualistic conception of human nature. Given its contempt for the masses and its acceptance of elite rule over them as an inevitable outcome of social life, classical elite theory advanced by Pareto and Mosca lends itself to reactionary conclusions that have important political implications with respect to both the nature of social inequality and the prospects

for social transformation in modern society.

Chapter 1

12

More recently, a new stream of critical elite theorists led by C. Wright Mills shifted the focus of analysis onto the power structure, arguing that power lies in the hands of the chief administrators of national policy who collectively represent the overall interests of what Mills called "the power elite." Influenced by the analysis provided by classical elite theory but rejecting its conservative, aristocratic assumptions about elites and masses, Mills in his pio-

neering work The Power Elite presented the core of his argument this way: Within American society, major national power now resides in the economic, the political, and d1e military domains. . . As each of these domains has coincided with the others, as decisions tend to become total in their consequence, the leading men in each of the three domains of power-the warlords, the corporation chieftains, the political directorate-tend to come together, to form the

.

power elite of America." "The power elite," Mills went on to point out, is composed of those who are "in command of the major hierarchies and organizations of modem society." "They rule the big corporations. They run the machinery of the state and claim its prerogatives. They direct the military establishment. They occupy the strategic command posts of the social structure.W5" Mills also points out "this triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understa riding of the higher circles in America today.»55

The central point in Mills's analysis of the power elite is not the mere identification of the elite in the three key institutions that constitute the American power structure but the interrelationship between these institutions and between the members of the elite that control and direct them. Thus: "The shape and meaning of the power elite today can be understood only when these three sets of structural trends are seen at their point of coincidence.1?5' According to Mills, the inter-relationship between these institutions and between their top leadership is

such that retired generals become corporate executives and serve on the boards of directors of large corporations that sell inflated military hardware through lucrative defense contracts signed by old associates in the military, while corporate executives who enter politics serve the interests of big business once they hold key government posts that facilitate the passage of legislation favorable to corporate interests. Thus, as the linkage between big business and the government becomes consolidated, so too control of the state by business interests becomes solidified. In line with the increased influence over and control of the government by big business, Mills also saw the rise of the military and its more direct role and influence in political affairs. "In so far as the structural clue to the power elite today lies in the enlarged and military state," he wrote, "that clue becomes evident in the military ascendancy."" Mills argued that, "as the United States has become

a great world power, the military establishment has expanded, and members of its

Conventional Theories of Class, Power, and Inequality

13

higher echelons have moved directly into diplomatic and political circles.»58 As a result, "the higher military have ascended to a firm position within the power elite of our time.was Thus the generals, Mills concluded, "are now more powerful than they have ever been in the history of the American elite, they have now more means of exercising power in many areas of American life which were previously civilian domains.as6° Critics of Mills have pointed out that his exaggerated emphasis on the rise of the military has had a lopsided effect on his tripartite model of the power elite, and that, contrary to all appearances at the time, developments since 1960 have shown that the ascendancy of the military was not a new and independent phenomenon foisted upon society, but a result of the interests of the corporate elite which promoted the military and what Mills called "a military definition of reality."°' Thus, as one critic has argued, "in his tripartite division of the wielders of control," Mills "tends to ignore the central depository of power-the financial overlords."62

The Organizational Theory of Power and Inequality Following the general theoretical premises of classical elite theory, a number of theorists have elaborated on a particularly important aspect of power exercised by ruling minorities-political or animation-and have examined the relationship of these phenomena to class and class conflict in society. Robert Michels, one of the most influential theorists of political organization, stressed that the source of the problem of elite rule lies in the nature and structure of bureaucratic organization." He argued that bureaucratic organization itself; irrespective of the intentions of the bureaucrats, results in the formation of an elite dominated society. Thus, regardless of ideological ends, organizational means would inevitably lead to oligarchic rule: "It is organization which gives birth to the domination of the elected over the electors, of the mandatories over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegaters. Who says organization, says oligarchy."'" At the heart of Michels's theoretical model lie the three basic principles of hierarchy that take place within the bureaucratic structure of political organization: (1) the need for specialized staff, facilities, and, above all, leaders, (2) the utilization of such specialized facilities by leaders within these organizations, and (3) the psychological attributes of the leaders (i.e., charisma). Michels argued that the bureaucratic structure of modern political parties or

organizations gives rise to specific conditions that corrupt the leaders and bureaucrats in such parties. These leaders, in turn, consolidate the power of the party leadership and set themselves apart from the masses. "Even the purest of idealists who attains to power for a few years," he argued, "is unable to escape the cormption which the exercise of power carries in its train.$765 For Michels, this

Chapter 1

14

pointed to the conservative basis of (any) organization, since the organizational form as such was the basis of the conservatism, and this conservatism was the inevitable outcome of power attained through political organization, Hence, "political organization leads to power, but power is always conservative."°" Such corruption, emerging from organizational authority, argued Michels, also occurs at the individual level, Hence, to close the various gaps in his theory, Michels resorted to human-nature-based tautological arguments: Once a person ascends to the leadership level, he or she becomes a part of the new social setting to the extent that he would resist ever leaving that position. The apathy of the masses and their need for guidance has as its counterpart in the

leaders a natural greed for power. Thus the development of the democratic oligarchy is accelerated by the general characteristics of human nature. What was initiated by the need for organization, administration, and strategy is completed by psychological determinism'

The argument here is that the leader consolidates power around the newly acquired condition and uses that power to serve personal interests, thus becoming increasingly distant from the masses. As Mjchels puts it: "He who has acquired power will almost always endeavor to consolidate it and to extend it, to multiply the ramparts which defend his position, and to withdraw himself from the control of the 1nasses-1:68

Conclusion This chapter has examined the major conventional theories of class, power, and stratification. Providing a critical analysis of these theories, it has shown that the functionalist, Weberian, elite, and organizational theories of power and stratification have failed to provide a viable explanation of the class nature of social relations and the class basis of power and political struggle that has generated much of the social conflicts in society that are rooted in class and class conflict. Glossing over class divisions in society and failing to provide a critical analysis of persistent class inequalities in contemporary social life, these conventional theories have, in effect, provided the intellectual rationalizations for the legitimization of class divisions in society. Challenging these mainstream, conservative theories, critics have developed alternative approaches to the study of class and class conflict in capitalist society, the most prominent of which has been the Marxist approach. In the next chapter, we turn to the Marxist analysis of class, class conflict, and class struggle-the main critical alternative to conventional theories of strat-

ification and inequality.

Conventional Theories of Class, Power, and Inequality

15

Notes l. We refer here to the Parsonian variety of contemporary factionalism--often referred to as "structural functionalism"-since it has been this particular branch of functionalist theory that has gained paradigmatic dominance in the United States during the post-World War II period. 2. See Talcott Parsons, The Socio! System (New York: Free Press, 1951).

3. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, "Some Principles of Stratification," American Sociological Review 10, no. 2 (April 1945), p. 242, emphases added. 4. Ibid., emphases added, 5. Ibid, 6. Ibid., p. 243. 7. Talcott Parsons, Essays in Sociological Theory, rev. ed. (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press,

1954), p. 69. 8. H. Johnson, Sociology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1960), pp. 468-549. 9. Davis and Moore, "Some Principles of Stratification," p. 243. 10. Ibid. 1 l . Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Melvin M. Tannin, "Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis," American Sociologicoi Review 18, no. 4 (August 1953). 14. Ibid., 394, Melvin M. Tomin, "Reply to Kingsley Davis,"American Sociological Review 18, no. 6 (December 1953), p. 672. 15. Temin, "Reply to Kingsley Davis," p. 672.

16. Ibid. l'7. Arthur L. Stinchcombe, "Some Empirical Consequences of the Davis-Moore Theory of Stratification," American Sociological Review 28, no. 5 (October, 1963), p. 808. 18. Gerhard Lenski, Power and Privilege (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966). 19. Eleanor B. Leacock, "In;roduction," to F. Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Properly, and the State (New York: International Publishers, 1972).

20. See Albert Szymansld, Class Structure (New York: Praeger, 1983), chap. 2. 21. Max Weber, The Theory ofSociol and Economic Organization, ed. and with an

intro. by Talcott Parsons (New York; Free Press, 1964), p. 424. 22. Max Weber, From Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, trans., ed., and with an intro. by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 181. 23. Weber, The Theory ofSociaI and Economic Organization, p. 424. 24. Weber, From Max Weber, p. 183. 25. Ibid., P- 182. 26. Ibid.

2'7. Ibid., pp. 181-82. 28. See Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Scribners, 1948). In the Weberian approach classes, including "property classes," are defined in terms ozone's "market situation" or position in society, whereas in Marxist theory

class relations are based on social relations of production. See chapter 2 in this book. 29. Weber, The Theory ofSociai and Economic Organization, p. 424.

Chapter 1

16

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid., p. 427. 32. Ibid., p. 425. 33. Ibid., p. 428. 34. Ibid., pp. 428-29. 35. Weber, From Max Weber, p. 193, emphasis in the original. 36. For further discussion on this point, see chapter 2 in this book. 37. Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Society, 4 vols., ed, Arthur Livingstone (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1935). 38. Ibid., vol. 3, p. 1423. 39. Reid., PP. 1423-24. 40. ibid., pp. 1430-31.

41. I'bid,, p, 1431. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid., vol. l , p. 40. 44. Ibid., vol. 3, p. 1430. 45. Ibid., p. 1431. .. 46. Gaewno Mosca, The Ruling Class (New York: McG*raw-Hill, 1939), p. 50. 47. Tbid., p. 326. 48. Ibid., II . . . . .. .

49. Ibid.,

50. ibid., II

51. Ibid., p. Et.

52. Ibid., p. 63. 53. C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 6, 9.

54. Ibid., p. 4. 55. C. Wright Mills, "The Structure of Power in American Society," in Power, Politics, and People: The Collected Essays ofC. Wright Mills, ed. kving Louis Horowitz (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 27. 56. Mills, The Power Elite, p. 276.

57. Ibid., p. 275. 58. Ibid., p. 202. 59. Mills, "The Structure of' Power in American Society," p. 28. 60. Mills, The Power Elite, p. 202.

.

61 See G. William Domhoffand Hoyt B. Ballard, eds. C. Wright M i f l s and Ike Power Elite (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), and G. William Dolnhoft; The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America (New York; Vintage, 1971), p. 139.

62. Herbert Aptheker, The World ofC. Wright Mills (New York: Marzani and Munsell, 1960), pp. 19-20.

63. Robert Michcls, Political Parties (New York: Free Press, 1968).

64. Ibid., p. 365. 65. Ibid., p. 355. 66. Ibid., p. 333.

67. Ibid., p. 205. 68. Ibid., p. 206.

Chapter 2 The Marxist Theory of Class Conflict and Class Struggle

This chapter examines the Marxist theory of class structure, class conflict, and class snuggle. Providing an analysis of social classes and class struggles in society aimed at understanding the root causes of class inequality based on the exploitation of labor, Marx an-d_ForgeTs stressed such an analysis must be placed within the framework of the dynamics of social change in the world historical

Iliad

process and that in this context the crucial task is to identify and examine the primary motive force of social transformation that defined the parameters of societal development: class struggle. To understand thecentrality of class struggle in the Marxist analysis of society and social structure, we must first briefly discuss the theoretical foundation of the Marxist approach-historical materialism.

Historical Materialism The starting point in Marx and Engels's analysis of society and social relations is

recognizing human beings as the prime agents of material production-a process that forms the basis of production and reproduction of human existence. As they put it:

Life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itselfl

Hence, in the early stages of history, principal human needs were based on and centered in subsistence for the sustenance of life. Through time, humans created and developed tools, skills, knowledge, and work habits in short, the forces ofproduetion-to an extent that permitted, for 17

Chapter 2

18

the first time, the accumulation of surplus. Although in most of human history, for thousands of years, human beings lived in classless primitive-communal societies, the accumulation of a social surplus in the form of a surplus product gave rise to the emergence of classes in society. With the development of social classes and class inequality, there emerged historically specific social relations of production, or class relations, between those who produced the surplus and those who claimed ownership and control of that surplus (e.g., slaves vs. masters, serfs vs. landlords, wage laborers vs. capitalists). Man( and Engels pointed out that the forces of production (including the labor process at the point of production) and the social relations of production (class relations) together constitute a society's mode o f

production, or its socioeconomic foundation, defined as the way in which a society's wealth is produced and distributed-in short, the social conomic system

(e.g., slavery, feudalism, capitalism). Moreover, arising from the mode of production and organically linked to it is the superstructure, or the political, legal, juridical, ideological, religious, and cultural institutions of society, at the center of which lies the state, Figure 2.1 provides a schematic illustration of the basic concepts and components of society according to historical materialism. Figure 2.1 - The Historical Materialist View of Society and Social Structure

SUPERSTRUCTURE The State and the Legal System Ideology, Religion, Education, Maas Media

s

I c

o

§

I

fwfrrrian

I

/

mNl.Dof

doaninnlion

I

unno

wmrnl

I

Rx.

'IF

'E

class

JL slrvasi#

I /

r Technology

oonlml

The Labor Process Mun! of Production Capital Land Raw Materials Forces of Production

4

wsilllllrm acpklilatiuu

Owning Class nppnenion laboring Class urgnliindiuu resiuncn

Rclntions al' Production

MODE OF PRODUCTION

The Soda]-Economic Base The Foundation of Society

:Ins

daggle

The Marxist Theory of Class Conflict and Class Struggle

19

Applying these concepts to history and examining the material conditions surrounding the production and reproduction process, in effect the very basis of life itself, Marx and Engels observed the following: The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first ofall on the nature of the actual means they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the reproduction of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production."

Engels, in a letter to Heinz Starkenburg, further explains the historical materialist outlook on society this way:

What we understand by the economic conditions which we regard as the determining basis of the history of society are the methods by Which human beings in a given society produce their means of subsistence and exchange the products among themselves (in SO far as division of labor exists). Thus the entire technique of production and transport is here included. According to our conception this technique also determines the method of exchange and, further, the division of products and with it, after the dissolution of tribal society, the division into classes also and hence the relations of lordship and servitude and with them the state, politics, law, etc."

Once a class society emerges-in which the production process is firmly estab-

lished, a surplus is generated, and social classes have developed--the relations of production (or class relations) become the decisive element defining the nature of

the dominant mode of production, which in tum gives rise to the political super~ structure, including first and foremost the state, as well as other political and ideological institutions that serve the interests of the propertied classes in society. Thus, the superstructure arises from and becomes a reflection of the dominant mode ofproduction which reinforces the existing social order, notwithstanding the fact that the superstructure itself may influence or otherwise effect changes in

favor of the long-term interests of the dominant classes in society." As Marx points out: In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations ofproduction which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The

sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic smicture of

Chapter 2

20

society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of' social consciousness.'

For Marx, then, the relations of production, that is, the "relationship of the owners of the conditions ofproduction to the direct producers reveals the innermost secret,

the hidden basis of the entire social structure, and with it . . . the corresponding specific form of the state."" The relations of production, as the decisive element in the mode of production, together with the political superstructure which emerges from it, thus constitute the very basis of the analysis of social classes, class structure, class struggles, and social transformation, according to Marxism.

Social Class and Class Struggle The focal point stressed by Marx and Engels in explaining social class and class struggle is that an analysis of property-based unequal social relations prevalent in the organization of material production in class society is the key to an understanding of the nature of a particular social order. The position of people in the production process, situated according to their relation to the ownership/control of the means of production, is viewed by Marx and Engels as the decisive element defining class relations. It is from these historically specific social relations of production that inequalities precisely arise and lead to class conflict and class struggles, that is, struggles for political power. Thus, referring to class society, "the history of all hitherto existing society," Marx and Engels point out, "is the history of class struggles." In capitalist society, for example, there are two main classes that relate to one another in the production sphere: capitalists (owners of capital) and workers (wage labor). The capitalist class owns the means of production and accumulates capital through the exploitation of labor. The worldng class does not own the means of production but instead uses its labor power to generate value for the capitalists as

a condition for its survival. Capitalist society is thus mainly divided into these two classes: the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage~labor . . . [and] the class of modem wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their laborpower in order to live."

Under capitalist production, while a portion of the value generated by labor is returned to it for subsistence (wages), a much greater portion goes to the capitalist in the fonn of surplus value (profits), which, accumulated over time, enhances the wealth and fortunes of the capitalist class vis-8-vis all other classes in society, especially the working class, in both relative and absolute terms."

The Marxist Theory of Class Conflict and Class Struggle

21

The accumulation of capital through this process of exploitation under capitalism thus results in disparities in wealth and income between labor and capital and eventually leads to conflict and struggle between the two classes, extending to realms beyond the production sphere itself. Hence, in this class struggle, write Marx and Engels, oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an unintemxpted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common min of the contending classes."

Marx and Engels conceptualized class at dtree different yet interrelated levels: economic, social, and political. The first of these is identified as the foundation of class analysis, class-in-itself (Klasse-an-sich). This refers to groups of people who relate to production in the same way, that is, those who have the same property relationships in the productive process (e.g., workers, peasants, landlords, capitalists). Structurally, then, class-in-itself is the logical outcome of the mode of production in all class societies. At the next, sociological, level is what can be referred to as social class. A class-in-itself becomes a social class only when there is a close relationship between the members of a particular class. In this sense, industrial workers (the classic proletariat) constitute a social class in that not only do the members of this class interact in the productive process (in factories, under socialized conditions of production) but they also have a distinct culture, lifestyle, and habits-in short, a cohesive intraclass association, including intermarriage between members of the same class. Finally, the third and highest level of class is referred to by Marx as that of class-for-itself(Klasse-;filr-sich). This means that a Klasse-an-sich that has become a social class has attained full consciousness of its interests and goals and engages

in common political activity in pursuit of its class interests. Thus in capitalist society, the dominant capitalist class, through its control of the major superstructural institutions, obtains political control and disseminates ruling-class ideology, hence assuring its ideological hegemony in society. At the same time, to prevent the development of class consciousness among the masses and to neutralize and divert their frustration and anger against the system, the dominant class facilitates the development of false consciousness among the worldng class. This, in turn, serves to block the development of class consciousness among workers and thus prevents, to the extent it is successful, the potential for social revolution. Nevertheless, the material conditions of life under capitalism eventually incite workers to organize and rise up. As the working class becomes class conscious and

discovers that its social condition is the result of its exploitation by the capitalists,

Chapter 2

22

it invariably begins to organize and fight back to secure for itself economic benefits and political rights denied in capitalist society-a society wherein the exploitation of labor through the extraction of surplus value is legally assured by the capitalist stateThis exploitation, hence domination, of the working class by capital, Marx points out, would, sooner or later, lead to class struggle, that is, a struggle for

political power: "The conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie is a struggle of one class against another, a struggle that means in its highest expression a total revolution."I l "Is there any reason to be surprised," Marx asks, "that a society based on class conflict leads to brutal opposition, and in the last resort to a clash

between individuals'?"" "An oppressed class," he maintains, "is the condition of existence of every society based on class conflict. Thus the liberation of the oppressed class necessarily involves the creation of a new society," adding "only in an order of things in which there are no class conflicts will social evolutions cease to be political revolutions."

Class Struggle and the State Political power, Marx and Engels point out, grows out of economic (class) power driven by money and wealth, but to maintain and secure their wealth, dominant classes of society establish and control political institutions to hold down the masses and to assure their continued domination. The supreme superstructural

institution that historically has emerged to carry out this task is the state. The emergence of the state coincided with the emergence of social classes and class struggles resulting from the transition from primitive communal to more advanced modes of production when an economic surplus was first generated. Ensuing struggles over control of this surplus led to the development of the state, once captured by the dominant classes in society, the state became an instrument

of force to maintain the rule of wealth and privilege against the laboring masses, to maintain exploitation and domination by the few over the many. Without the development of such a powediil instrument of force, there could be no assurance of protection of the privileges of a ruling class, who clearly lived off the labor of the masses. The newly wealthy needed a mechanism that would not only safeguard the newly-acquired property of private individuals against the communistic traditions of the gentile order, would not only sanctify private property, formerly held in such light esteem, and pronounce this sancti fiction the highest purpose of human society, but would also stamp the gradually developing new forms of acquiring property, and consequently, of constantly

accelerating increase in wealth, with the seal of general public recognition, an institution that would perpetuate, not only the newly-rising class division of

The Marxist Theory of Class Conflict and Class Struggle

23

society, but also the right of the possessing class to exploit the non-possessing classes and the Mic of the former over the latter. And this institution arrived. The state was invented.14

Thus the state developed as an institution as a result of the growth of wealth and social classes: Former society, moving in class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, an organization of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its

external conditions ofproduction; that is, therefore, for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, villeinage or serfdom, wage labor) determined by the existing mode of production. The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its embodiment in a visible corporation, but it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself, in its epoch, represented society as a whole, in ancient times, the state of the slaveowning citizens, in the Diddle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our epoch, of the bourgeoisie. is In The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels writes:

it is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. Thus, the state of antiquity was above all the state of the slave owners for the purpose of holding down the slaves, as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage labor by capital."

Thus, in all class~divided societies throughout history, "political power is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another."" In modem capitalist society, the state, reflecting the interests of the dominant

capitalist class, can thus be identified as the capitalist state, for as Marx and Engels point out, this state is nothing more than a political organ of the bourgeoisie adopted for the "guarantee of their property and interests.""' Hence, "the bourgeoisie has . conquered for itselti in the modem representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common atTains of the whole bourgeoisie. In this sense, the struggle of the worldng class against capital takes on both an economic and a

..

political content: The more it [the state] becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class. The fight of the oppressed class against Lhc ruling class becomes necessarily a political right, a fight I'1I*st of all

against the political dominance of this class?"

24

Chapter 2

Seen in this context, the centrality of the state as an instrument of class rule takes on an added importance in the analysis of social class and class stiuggles, for political power contested by the warring classes takes on its real meaning in securing the rule of the victorious class when that power is ultimately exercised through the instrumentality of the state. .Outlined in its clearest and most concise form in his classic work The State and Revolution, Lenin explains that in all class societies, the class essence of the state's rule over society is rooted in domination and exploitation by a propertied ruling class of the propertyless, oppressed class. In our epoch, writes Lenin, "every state in which private ownership of the land and means of production exists, in

which capital dominates, however democratic it may be, is a capitalist state, a machine used by the capitalists to keep the working class and the poor peasants in subjection" Democracy in capitalist society, Lenin points out, "is always bound by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich."" Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slaveowners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modem wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that "they cannot be bothered with democracy," "cannot be bothered with

politics", in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred Hom participation in public and political life. . . Democracy for an insignificantminority, democracy for the rich-that is the democracy of capitalist society. . . . Marx grasped this essence of capitalist democracy splendidly when, in

_

analyzing the experience of the Commune, he said that the oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing

class shall represent and repress them in parliament"

"People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics," Lenin continues elsewhere, "and they always will be until they have

learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises." In class society, Lenin points out, the state has always been "an organ or instniment of violence exercised by one class against another,"2' And in capitalist society, this violence is exercised by the capitalist class against the working class. In an important passage in The Stare and Revolufion, Lenin stresses that the state in capitalist society is not only the political organ of the capitalist class, it is structured in such a way that it guarantees the class rule of the capitalists and, short of a revolutionary rupture, its entrenched power is practically uttshalcable:

The Marxist Theory of Class Conflict and Class Struggle

25

establishes its power so securely, so fmnly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it.za*

The question remains: With the obvious contradictions and conflicts between labor and capital, and with the ever-more visible unity of capital and the state, how is it that capital is able to convince broad segments of the laboring masses of the legitimacy of its class nlle and the rule of the capitalist state over society?

Ideological Hegemony In explaining the process by which the capitalist class disseminates its ideology through control of the state and its dominance over society, Antonio Grarnsci, a prominent Marxist of the early twentieth century, drew attention to the ideological apparatuses of the capitalist state and introduced the concept of bourgeois cultural and ideological hegemony." He stressed that it is not enough for the capitalist class simply to take control of the state machine and rule society directly through force and coercion, it must also convince the oppressed classes of the legitimacy of its rule: "The state is the entire complex of practical and theoretical activities with which the ruling class not only justifies and maintains its dominance, but manages to win the active consent of those over whom it nlles.12288 Through its dominance of the superstructural organs of the state, the ruling class controls and shapes the ideas, hence consciousness, of the masses. Thus: Hegemony involves the successful attempts of the dominant class to use its political, moral, and intellectual leadership to establish its view of the world as all-inclusive and universal, and to shape the interests and needs of subordinate groups."

With the acceptance of its ideas and the legitimization of its rule, the capitalist

class is able to exercise control and domination of society through its ideological hegemony at the level of the superstructure with the aid and instrumentality of the

state. G1-amsci, writes Martin Carney, "assigned to the State part of this function of promoting a single (bourgeois) concept of reality, and, therefore, gave the State a more extensive (enlarged) role in perpetuating class,"'° hence preventing the development of working-class consciousness. As such, it was not merely lack of understanding of their position in the economic process that kept workers from comprehending their class role, nor was it only the "pri-

vate" institutions of society, such as religion, that were responsible for keeping the working class from self-realization, but it was the Stare itself that was involved in reproducing the relations of production. In other words, the State was

much more than the coercive apparatus of the bourgeoisie, the State included the hegemony of the bourgeoisie in the superstnicture."

Chapter 2

26

much more than the coercive apparahls of the bourgeoisie, the State included the hegemony of the bourgeoisie in the superstructure."

Although the dialectics of the accumulation process, which involves first and foremost the exploitation of labor, ultimately results in class struggle, civil war, and revolution to seize state power, the ideological hegemony of the ruling class, operating through the state itself, prolongs bourgeois class rule and institutionalizes and legitimizes exploitation. Grarnsci argued that "the system's real strength does not lie in the violence of the ruling class or the coercive power of its state apparatus, but in the acceptance by the ruled of a 'conception of the world' which belongs to the rulers."" "False consciousness"---or lack of working-class consciousness and adoption of bourgeois ideas by the laboring masses-Gramsci argued, was the result of a complex process of bourgeois ideological hegemony that, operating through the superstructural (i.e., cultural, ideological, religious, and political) institutions of capitalist society, above all the bourgeois state, came to obtain the consent of the masses in convincing them of the correctness and superiority of the bourgeois worldview- In his doctrine of "hegemony," writes

Car foy, Gran sci saw that the dominant class did not have to rely solely on the coercive power of the State or even its direct economic power to rule, rather, through its

hegemony, expressed in the civil society and the State, the ruled could be persuaded to accept the system of beliefs of the ruling class and to share its social, cultural, and moral values."

"The philosophy of the cling class," Giuseppe Fiori points out, "passes through a whole tissue of complex vulgarizations to emerge as 'common sense': that is, the philosophy of the masses, who accept the morality, the customs, the institutionalized behavior of the society they live

in.3:34

"The problem for Grarnsci then,"

Fiori continues, "is to understand how the ruling class has managed to win the consent of the subordinate classes in this way, and then, to see how the latter will manage to overthrow the old order and bring about a new one of universal freedom,was

The increasing awareness of the working class of this process, hence the development of worldng-class consciousness, stresses Gran sci, helps expand the emerging class struggle from the economic and social spheres into the sphere of politics and ideology, so the struggle against capitalist ideology promoted by the bourgeois state and other oiling-class institutions becomes just as important, perhaps more so, as the struggle against capital develops and matures in other spheres of society. Countering the ideological hegemony of the capitalist class through the active participation of workers in their own collective organizations,

the class-conscious organs of workers' power-militant trade unions, workers

The Marxist Theory of Class Conflict and Class Struggle

27

political parties, and so forth--come to play a decisive role in gaining the political support of the laboring masses. In turn, through their newly gained awareness of

their own class interests, the workers transcend the bounds of bourgeois ideological hegemony and develop their own counter (proletarian) political outlook-a process that accelerates with the further development of proletarian class consciousness. Thus, as the struggle against the state becomes an important part of the class stniggle in general, the struggle against capitalism takes on a truly political and ideological content. In the late 1960s, Louis Althusser reintroduced into Marist discourse Lenin's and Gramsci's contributions on ideology and the state and provided an extended discussion on the basic concepts of historical materialism. Althusser played a key role in the effort to revitalize critical thought on the subject by incorporating the Gramscian notion of ideological hegemony into his own analysis of the "ideological state apparatuses. In lining the political superstructure to the socioeconomic base, or mode of production, Althusser argued in favor of the classical Marxist position, which identities the superstructure as determined "in the last instance" by the base: "The upper floors," he wrote, in reference to the political superstructure, "could not 'stay up' (in the air) alone, if they did not rest precisely on their base.1937 Thus, the state, the supreme political institution and repressive apparatus of society, "enables the ruling classes to ensure their domination over the working class, thus enabling the former to subject the latter to the process ofsurplus~value extortion."" This is

so precisely because the state is controlled by the oiling class. And such control makes the state, and the superstructure in general, dependent on, and determined by, the dominant class in society.

In his essay "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses," Althusser expands his analysis of the base-superstructure relationship to include other superstructural institutions--cultural, religious, educational, legal, and so on. As the hegemony of the ruling class in these spheres becomes critical for its control over the dominated classes, and society in general, the class struggle takes on a three-tiered attribute, consisting of the economic, political, and ideological levels. Central to the process of ruling-class ideological domination is the installation by the ruling class of the dominant ideology in the ideological state apparatuses, according to Althusser. The ideology of the ruling class does not become the ruling ideology by virtue of the seizure of state power alone. It is by the installation of the ideological state apparatuses in which this ideology is realized itself that it becomes the ruling ideology." The relationship between ruling-class domination and the dominant ideology iS

also emphasized by Nicos Poulantzas, who further developed Althusser's con-

28

Chapter 2

ceptualization of ideology, uating it in the context of class domination and class sit struggle. "The dominant ideology, by assuring the practical insertion of agents in the social structure," Poulantzas points out, "aims at the maintenance (the cohesion) of the structure, and this means above all class domination and exploitation.""° It is precisely in this way that within a social formation ideology is dominated by the ensemble ofrepresentations, values, notions, beliefs, etc. by means of which class domination is perpetuated: in other words it is dominated by what can be

called the ideology of the dominant class."

This Althusserian conception of the relationship between the base and the superstructure, especially the state and the ideological state apparatuses, came to inform Poulantzas's analysis of classes, class struggle, and the state, and set the stage for subsequent discussion and debate on the Marist theory of the state." Whatever their differences in focus of analysis, the contributions of Gran sci, Althusser, and Poulantzas to the Marxist theory of class struggle, the state, and bourgeois ideological hegemony ailirm and extend the analyses of the Marxist classics and thus advance our understanding of the processes of ruling class domination and hegemony and the responses needed for the transformation of capitalist society.

The State and Revolution Writing on the eve of the October Revolution in Russia, Lenin, in his pioneering work The State and Revolution, pointed out both the class nacre of the state and, more important, the necessity of its revolutionary overthrow: If the state is the product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, if it is a power standing above society and "alienating ilselfmore and more from it," it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without' the depiction o f the apparatus o f state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this "alienation.""'

Thus, for Lenin the transformation of capitalist society involves a revolutionary process in which a class~conscious worldng class, led by a disciplined workers ' party, comes to adopt a radical solution to its continued exploitation and oppression under the yoke of capital and exerts its organized political force in a revolutionary rupture to take state power. The victory of the worldng class in this struggle for power and control over

society leads to establishing a socialist, workers' state. The socialist state consti-

The Marxist Theory of Class Conflict and Class Struggle

29

tutes a new kind of state ruled by the working class and the laboring masses. The cornerstone of a workers' state, emerging out of capitalism, is the abolition of private property in the major means of production and an end to the exploitation of labor for private profit. The establishment ofa revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (as against the dictatorship of capital) is what distinguishes the socialist state from its capitalist counterpart. As the class essence of the state lies at the heart of an analysis of the nature and role of the state in different epochs throughout history, the class nature of the socialist state gives us clues to the nature and role of the state in a socialist society developing toward cormnunisin. For, as Marx has pointed out in Critique of the Gotha Program, the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e., the class nlle of the working class) is a transitional phase between capitalism and com-

munismi Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletan'ar.A!" During this period, the state represents and defends the interests of the working class against capital and all other vestiges of reactionary exploitative classes, which, overthrown and dislodged from power, attempt in a multitude of ways to recapture the state through a counterrevolution. "The theory of the class struggle, applied by Marx to the question of the state

and the socialist revolution," writes Lenin, leads as a matter of course to the recognition of the political rule of the proletariat, of its dictatorship, i.e., of undivided power directly backed by the armed force of the people. The overthrow of the bourgeoisie can be achieved only by the

proletariat becoming the ruling class, capable of cnishing the inevitable and desperate resistance of the bourgeoisie, and of organizing all the working and exploited people for the new economic system."

In this context, then, the proletarian state has a dual role to play: (1) to break the resistance of its class enemies (the exploiting classes), and (2) to protect the

revolution and begin the process of socialist construction. The class character of the new state under the dictatorship of the proletariat

takes on a new form and content, according to Lenin: "During this period the state must inevitably be a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the bourgeoi8i6).$946 Thus,

30

Chapter 2

Simrdtaneously 'Mth an immense expansion of democracy, whichfor the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists." Used primarily to suppress these forces and to build the material base of a classless, egalitarian society, the socialist state begins to wither away once there is no longer any need for it. As Engels points out:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of society as a whole-the taldng possession of the means of production in the name of society--is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after anodrer, and then ceases of itself The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes ofproduction. The state is not "abolished," it withers away."

In this sense, the state no longer exists in the fully matured communist stage, for there is no longer the need in a classless society for an institution that is, by definition, an instrument of class rule through force and violence. Lenin writes: Only in coxmmmist society, when die resistance of the capitalists has been completely crushed, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there areno classes (i.e., when there is no distinctions between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state . . . ceases to exist," and " i t becomes possible to speak of freedom." Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized, a democracy without any exceptions whatever."

It is in this broader, transitional context that the class nature and tasks of the state in socialist society must be understood and evaluated, according to Lenin. Thus, Lenin characterized the period of transition to communist society as exhibiting an infinitely higher form of democracy than that found in capitalist society, for democracy under socialism, he argued, is democracy for the masses, democracy for the great majority of the laboring population worldng together to build an egalitarian, classless society.

Conclusion We have shown that for Marxist theory the concepts of social class and class snuggle are central to the analysis of society and social relations. Moreover, Mancism stresses the importance of understanding the dynamics of social change and social transformation within the world historical process. In this context, the

31

The Man 11 ,e

/

.I

Evil monopi 1opl

cnr.c¢n1r:Lio~n CHF and ccnlralizalf ul' fcapilal `\

ID EIU.- '

sp >o8_~lo'Jo~ 11 Luszpzg Iu11

Cal fatalism

\

/ /

//

.

/ /'

"\..

--.

"P" /J

(advan

.J

/

1

. monopolycapitalism)

GlobalCapitalism

: Y/ i -

\

/

Transformation on of the div1':=ionIof mlcma lion division inlcmazionai otlabo elision laborr

I

1 _

c-nn.;

-

lu..

- I I *

-a-

.* .

_

_4

l l -

1.-an - - |

- i n

H

.

->-

-

-

\

.nuns

-__

I

l

I

[labor vs. capital]

- CLASS STRUGGLE

-_

»-

:__

- | - . .

-:»____

Developmentof civilrigL.s, women's, student, Ami-globalization environmcntzi, Ami-war, and peace movements movement

[surplus value I accumulation it capital on a v.orld scale)

4 _ 1

stare subsidies,max b r : and bailouts of corporations

__ EXPLOITATION OFWAGE-LABOR ON A GLOBALSCALE

Third World anti.imperialist -~"orlal1" :ration movements

I

Akcmarivcs to Global' Capitalism

coproduction kiss: relations)

Inlcmationdization of cxpimdist reunions

vol .in :muocboopzezs Juausod uou:>ru;suoo:a.1.l._..,.,_.- pus " " ' 1 ' ~ l " . >:a :n liq xaldluoa ln;.nsnpLn~»E.l'z1;;v.u uopzzilmrnsa plea onosaJ SCI pun ursglwd l]C asc' "of

_

\.

Ccntcrz production->-scm'cc, Enusce Pcriphnry:agrioJIture-+- '.. dustria]production

... .. ¢ _

RA#

.[1¢

¥

/ \

n A

I i

suogsnxdapPU!

'suormoox 'uonenQz;s

\

__

_l¥usu'EJ1

- sue-neJodJo:)

II

4'

-_

/

4

L€'6Z6l50NOlSSH'H&3< l'v I I -WM quo,s¢. .....4... .. ....:... pndvz ;(. ,Iodx: :H Lusgpu :dog

'OJ MEU-Uin p==»p! (wfslfwdutz ndiq)

,r

\

'q=uz:» 'Is

2p6Lu)

ump 'by leg lzuls lpn]

TheI 1du':l' : lRcvuiuljon Prolcctionism

Figurl S.i Tlw Ori'in: anal r Devilp r u t tGTb: l I Capitalism andthe CapitalistState Throu ghIts Various Stages

-_

-

u°!2=+»~Q°19

or.

\

.4......._

Lusucq.m.L \. lslpJ >3

'*\

l m w2u1:!,\

(cm I1fl°t3 uo mgdzs 'SA lvudn-:l)

£00Z.. A R M bell 1661_;o:umJI"'O

'I

flung 1S=I¢1r=dur!-::1u1

II

Class, Class Conflict, and the State in the Age of Global Capitalism

73

Globalization, the State, and Class Struggle The global expansion of capital over the past one-hundred years has had varied elllects on the state and class relations on a world scale. Figure 5.1 outlines the origins and development of capitalism and the capitalist state through its various stages-from its early beginnings to the modern global age. It shows that, as capitalism developed from its competitive to monopoly stage, it underwent a major transformation that elevated it from the national to the global level. This was accompanied by a worldwide process of economic imperialism as the export of capital replaced the export of goods that was characteristic of the earlier stage of capitalist expansion. Monopoly rule over the global economy facilitated by the advanced capitalist state, set the stage for the globalization of capital and capitalist relations across the world and led to the consolidation of capital's grip over the world economy. This provided the political framework for the direct role of the advanced capitalist state in safeguarding the interests of capital and the capitalist class around the world-a role facilitated by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization-global institutions designed to advance the worldwide operations of the transnational corporations as the instruments of global capitalism. The capitalist state, now controlled by the monopoly fraction of the capitalist class, thus came to serve the long term interests of global capital and the global capitalist system through its political and military apparatus in service of the transnationals and the transnational capitalist class.' Looldng at globalization in class terms (figure 5.2), we see that a complex web of class relations has developed at the global level that is both complementary and contradictory. Thus while the capitalist classes of the dominant imperialist states cooperate in their collective exploitation of labor and plunder of resources at the global level, the underlying contradictions ofglobal capitalism lead to interimperialist rivalries and competition among these states across the globe. Just as each imperialist

power exploits its own as well as its rivals' working classes for global supremacy, so too one observes the potential unity of the working classes of these rival imperialist states as they come together in forging a protracted struggle against the entire global capitalist system- It is here that the capitalist-irnperialis state comes to play

a critical role in facilitating the exploitation of global labor by transnational capital, but in doing so also risks its demise through the unfolding contradictions of this very same process that it is increasingly unable to control and regulate. The problems that the imperial state has come to tackle at both the global and national levels are such that it is no longer able to manage its affairs with any degree of certainty. At the global level, the imperial state has been unable to deal with the consequences of ever~growing superexploitation of labor in Third World sweatshops that has led to immense poverty and inequality worldwide, nor has it been able to take measures to reverse the depletion of resources, environmental

ILw2a`

s elf~ 1 empl

Figure 5.2 - Class Relations and Class Conflict Under Global Capitalism

1:1 II.

Class, Class Conflict, and the State in the Age of Global Capitalism

75

a

pollution and other health hazards, growing national debt forcing many countries to become subservient to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other global financial institutions, and a growing militarization of society through the institution of brutal military and civilian dictatorships that violate the basic human rights of the people. The domination and control of Third World countries for transnational profits through the instrumentality of the imperial state has at the same time created various forms of dependence on the center that has become a defining characteristic of globalization and imperialism Domestically, the globalization of capital and imperialist expansion has had immense dislocations in the national economies of imperialist states- Expansion of manufacturing industry abroad has meant a decline in local industry, as plant closings in the United States and other advanced capitalist countries has worsened the unemployment situation. The massive expansion of capital abroad has resulted in hundreds of factory closings with millions of workers losing their jobs, hence the surge in unemployment in the United States and other imperialist states.6 This has led to a decline in wages of workers in the advanced capitalist centers, as low wages abroad have played a competitive role in keeping wages down in the imperialist heartlands. The drop in incomes among a growing section of the working class has thus lowered the standard of living in general and led to a further polarization between labor and capital."

The dialectics of global capitalist expansion, which has caused so much exploitation, oppression, and misery for the peoples of the world, both in the Third World and in the imperialist countries themselves, has in tum created the conditions for its own destruction. Economically, it has afflicted the system with recessions, depressions, and an associated realization crisis, politically, it has set into motion an imperial interventionist state that through its presence in every comer of the world has incurred an enormous military expenditure in maintaining an empire that is gaining the resentment of millions of people across the globe who are engaged in active struggle against it."

The imperial/capitalist state, acting as the repressive arm of global capital and extending its rule across vast territories, has dwarfed the militaristic adventures of past empires many times over. The global capitalist state, through its political and military supremacy, has come to exert its control over many countries and facilitated the exploitation of labor on a world scale. As a result, it has reinforced the domination of capital over labor and its rule on behalf of capital. This, in turn, has greatly politicized the struggle between labor and capital and called for the recognition of the importance of political organization that many find it necessary to effect change in order to transform the capitalist-imperialist system. Understanding the necessity of organizing labor and the importance ofpolitical leadership in this struggle, radical labor organizations have in fact taken steps emphasizing the necessity for the working class to mobilize its ranks and take

united action to wage battle against capitalist imperialism globally. In this sense,

Chapter 5

76

labor internationalism (or the political alliance of workers across national boundaries in their stnrggle against global capitalism) is increasingly being seen as a political weapon that would serve as a unifying force in labor's frontal attack on capital in the ensuing class struggle." Imperialism today represents a dual, contradictory development whose dialectical resolution is an outcome of its very nature-a product of its growth and expansion across time and space within the confines of a structure that promotes its own destruction and demise. However, while the process itself is a selfdestructing one, it is important to understand that the nature of the class struggle that these contradictions generate is such that the critical factor that tips the balance of class forces in favor of the proletariat to win state power is political organization, the building of class alliances among the oppressed and exploited classes, the development of strong and theoretically well-informed revolutionary leadership that is organically linked to the working class, and a clear understanding of the forces at work in the class struggle, including especially the role of the state and its military and police apparatus-the focal point of the struggle for state power. to

The global domination of capital and the advanced capitalist/imperial state during the twentieth century did not proceed without a fight, as a protracted stniggle of the working class and its against capital and the capitalist state unfolded throughout this period of capitalist globalization. The labor movement, the anti-imperialist national liberation movements, and the civil rights, women's, student, environmental, anti-war, and peace movements all contributed to the development of the emerging anti-globalization movement in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. These and related contradictions of late-twentiethcentury capitalist globalization led to the crisis of the imperial state and the entire globalization project which increasingly came under attack by the mass movements of the global era that came to challenge the rule of capital and the imperial state throughout the world.

The Crisis of the Imperial State in the United States While the changes at work in the U.S. economy and society have their roots in earlier decades when the consolidation ofU.S. monopoly power began to take hold on a world scale, the increased globalization of U.S. capital under the auspices of U.S. transnational monopolies in recent decades has aITected various classes and segments of U.S. society unevenly. The diverse impact of economic changes during this period on different classes and fractions of classes are precipitating causes of the unfolding political crisis of the capitalist state in the United States.

In this context, the intensified globalization of U.S. capital and the decline of the

Class, Class Conflict, and the State in the Age of Global Capitalism

T7

U.S. domestic economy since the early 1970s constitute the material basis of the crisis of the advanced capitalist state in the United States during the past three decades." The period from 1945 to the present saw an unparalleled growth of U.S. transnational capital throughout the world. U.S. foreign investment during this period grew immensely, from $19 billion in 1950 to $9.7 trillion in 2005. But the postwar boom that reached its peak during the Vietnam War came to an abrupt end when the U.S. defeat in Southeast Asia (which brought to a halt major war contracts to U.S. corporations) plunged the economy into a severe recession by the mid I970s. So powerful was the impact of its defeat in Vietnam that the United States has been unable to alter the situation in any fundamental way. As a result, the decline of U.S. global hegemony has become irreversible, despite the fact that individual corporations have continued to expand their overseas operations and reaped immense profits. Given the logic of capital accumulation on a world scale in late capitalist society, it is no accident that the decline of the U.S. domestic economy since the early 1970s corresponds to the accelerated export of U.S. capital abroad in search of cheap labor, access to raw materials, new markets, and higher rates of profit. The resulting deindustrialization of the U.S. economy has had a serious impact on workers and other affected segments of the laboring population and has brought about a major dislocation of the domestic economy.12 This has necessitated further state inteivention on behalf of the monopolies and has heightened the contradictions that led to the crisis of the U.S. state. The crisis of the advanced capitalist state in the United States manifests itself at different levels, ranging from international conflicts (interimperialist rivalry, disintegration of regional political and military alliances, and the inability to suppress nationalist movements and revolution in the Third World) to domestic economic and budgetary crises (trade and budget deficits, monetary and fiscal crisis, unemployment, recession, etc,) to national political crisis (factional struggles within the capitalist class, problems of legitimacy, repression of the working class and mass movements, militarization of the polity and society, and so on).13 Table 5.1 provides data on militaiy spending, gross federal debt, annual budget deficits, and the net interest paid on debt. As the data show, military spending increased from $81.7 billion in 1970 to $536 billion in 2006, gross federal debt increased from $381 billion in 1970 to $8.6 trillion in 2006; annual budget deficits increased from $2.8 billion in 1970 to $423 billion in 2006; and the net interest paid on the debt increased from $14.4 billion in 1970 to $220 billion in 2006 (see table 5.1). The most critical problem facing the U.S. State as the leading imperial state, however, is the crisis emanating from the restructuring of the international division of labor involving plant closings and the transfer of the production

process to overseas territories. The consequent deindustrialization in the imperial

78

Chapter 5

center has led to higher unemployment and underemployment, pressing down wages to minimum levels in the United States," while imperial-installed puppet regimes have intensified the repression of workers and peasants in the Third World and forced on them starvation wages in order to generate superprofits for the U.S.-based transnational corporations."

Table 5.1 - U.S. Military Spending, Federal Deficit, and Interest Paid on Debt, 1970-2006 (in billions of current dollars)

Year 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 (est.)

Military Spending

Gross Federal Debt

Annual Budget

380.9

Net

81.7 86.5

541.9

134.0 252.7

909_0

-2.8 -53.2 -73.8

1,817.4

-212.3

299.3

3,2063

-221,0

272.1

4,920.6

-164.0

294.5 495.3

5,628.7 7,905.3

-~236.2 -318.3

535.9

8,611.5

-423.2

Net Interest Paid 14.4 23.2

52.5 129.5 184.3 232.1 222.9 184.0 220.1

Source: U.S. Council ofEconolnic Advisers, Economic Report of the President, 2006, pp. 375, 377.

The Crisis of the Capitalist State

in the Third World The expansion of U.S. capital to the Third World has been accompanied by the rise of the authoritarian state, especially in those formations critical to the profit needs of the transnational corporations. Thus Brazil, Argentina, Chile, die Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Iran, and Turkey, among others, have at one time or another experienced the domination of the rightist authoritarian state, often in the form of a neo-fascist military dictatorship, albeit installed to power by the imperialist forces outside their geographic boundaries." The rise to power of right-wing repressive states in the Third World are a byproduct of imperialism in its late capitalist stage, which finds itself in a position

where its domination can be assured only through brute military force. This is

Class, Class Conflict, and the State in the Age of Global Capitalism

79

accomplished through the installation of repressive military dictatorships in some countries and-what amounts to the same thing-the installation of right-wing "civilian" authoritarian regimes that violate the most basic human rights of the people. Here, the role of the key institutions of the imperial state-from "inteIIigence" agencies to paramilitary units-lbecolne the decisive forces that subvert the internal political institutions of Third World states in order to maintain imperial control over the authoritarian regimes installed into power, and to eliminate popular opposition to their rule." In this way, the repressive state in the Third World becomes an appendage of the imperial state and operates in accordance with its dictates. It is in this sense that the crisis of the imperial state at the global level translates into a crisis of the capitalist state in the Third World.

With the growth of foreign investment and economic activity in a growing number of Third World countries, there has been a marked increase in the number and strength of the working class, leading to strikes and demonstrations and open defiance of the repressive neo-colonial capitalist state." This, in turn, has led to further repression of the masses, while at the same time plunging the state into a deep crisis of legitimacy where order is maintained through the butte force of the army and the police. Such repression has, in turn, led to a further crisis of the authoritarian state and elevated the class struggle to a higher level, at which the masses have succeeded in overthrowing these regimes in a number of counties around the world, including Iran, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Added to their economic bankruptcy through a mounting foreign debt, doubleand triple-digit inflation, and alarming rates of unemployment, the political crisis of the capitalist state in these Third World formations, which has led to military/ police repression, has thus fueled the forces of change and revolution.19 The logic of transnational capitalist expansion on a global scale is such that it leads to the emergence and development of forces in conflict with this expansion. The working class has been in the forefront of Wiese forces, strikes, mass demonstrations, political organizing through party formation, confrontation with the local client state machine, armed insurrection, civil war, and revolutionary upheavals are all part and parcel of the contradictory structure of relations imposed upon the laboring people throughout the world by transnational capital, the imperial state and its client states in the Third World.

The Crisis of the Capitalist State on a Global Scale The crisis of the capitalist state at the global level is a manifestation of the contradictions of the global economy, which in the early twenty-first century has

reached a critical stage in its development. The massive flow ofU.S. transnational investment throughout the world, especially in Western Europe, Japan, and other

80

Chapter 5

advanced capitalist regions, has led to the post~World War II re-emergence of interirnperialist rivalry among the major capitalist powers, while fostering alternate cycles of cooperation and conflict in the scramble for the peripheral regions of the global capitalist system-Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East." With the integration of the economies of Western Europe into the European Union (EU), the postwar emergence of Japan as a powerful economic force, and the more recent rise of China to global prominence, the position of the United States has declined relative to both its own postwar supremacy in the 19405 and

1950s and to other advanced capitalist economies since that time. Despite the fact that U.S. capital continues to control the biggest share of overseas markets and accounts for the largest volume of international investments, its hold on the global economy has recently begun to slip in a manner similar to Britain's in the early

twentieth century. This has, in turn, led the U.S. state to take a more aggressive role in foreign policy to protect U.S. transnational interests abroad. Its massive deployment in the Middle East in the early 1990s, which led to the Persian Gulf War of 1991, and more recently its intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 and invasion of Iraq in 2003, has resulted in great military expenditures and translated into an enormous burden on worldng people of the United States, who have come to shoulder the colossal cost of maintaining a global empire whose vast military machine encompasses the world. In the current phase of the crisis of the U.S. imperial state, the problems it faces are of such magnitude that they threaten the very existence of the global capitalist system as a global power bloc. Internal economic and budgetary probIems have been compounded by ever-growing military spending propped up by armed intervention in the Third World (Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on), while a declining economic base at home manifested in the housing and the banking crisis, deindustrialization, and a recessionary economy is further complicated by the global rivalry between the major capitalist powers that is not

always restricted to the economic field, but has political (and even military) implications that are global in magnitude-" The growing prospects of interimperialist rivalry between the major capitalist powers, backed up by their states, are effecting changes in their relations that render the global political economy an increasingly unstable character. Competition between the United States, Japan, and European imperial states representing the interests of their own respective capitalist classes are leading them on a collision course for world supremacy, manifested in struggles for markets, raw materials, and spheres of influence in geopolitical-as well as economic-terms, which may in fact lead to a new balance of forces, and consequently alliances that will have serious political implications in global power politics. As the continuing economic ascendance of the major capitalist rivals of the United States take their

prominent position in the global economy, pressures will build toward the poli-

Class, Class Conflict, and the State in the Age of Global Capitalism

81

ticization and militarization of these states from within, where the leading class forces bent on dominating the world economy will press fowvard with the necessary political and military corollary of their growing economic power in the global capitalist system," as has been the case with the German and French opposition to war against Iraq on the U.N. Security Council in 2003. These developments in global economic and geopolitical shifts in the balance of forces among the major capitalist powers will bring to the fore new and yet untested international alliances for global supremacy in the post~Cold War era. Such alliances will bring key powers like Russia and China into play in a new and complicated relationship that holds the key for the success or failure of the new rising imperial centers that will emerge as the decisive forces in the global economic, political, and military equation in the early decades of the twenty-first cents]-y_23 The contradictions and conflicts imbedded in relations between the rival states of the major capitalist powers will again surface as an important component of international relations in the years ahead. And these are part and parcel of the restructuring of the international division of labor and the transfer of production to overseas territories in line with the globalization of capital on a worldwide basis--a process that has serious consequences for the economies of both the advanced and less developed capitalist countries. Economic decline in the imperial centers (manifested in plant closings, unemployment, and recession) and superexploitation of workers in the Third World (maintained by repressive military regimes) yield the same combined result that has a singular global logic: the accumulation of transnational profits for the capitalist class of the advanced capitalist countries--above all, that of the United States, the current center of global capitalism. It is in this context of the changes that are taldng place on a world scale that the imperial state is beginning to confront the current crisis of global capitalism.

Conclusion The contradictions of the unfolding process of global expansion and accumulation have brought to the fore new political realities: renewed repression at home and abroad to control an increasingly frustrated worldng class in the imperial heartland, and a militant and revolutionary mass of workers and peasants in the neocolonial states of the Third World poised to resist capitalist globalization." It is these inherent contradictions of global capitalism that are making it increasingly difficult for the imperial state to moderate and manage class conflict, while at the

same time preparing the conditions for international solidarity of workers on a world scale. Our understanding of the need for change and social transformation, which

is political in nature, necessitates a clear, scientific understanding of modern im-

Chapter 5

82

perialisni in its late twentieth- and early twenty-first-century form, so that this

knowledge can be put to use to facilitate the class sniggle in a revolutionary direction. In this context, one will want to know not only the extent and depth of global capitalist expansion, but also its base of support, its linkage to the major institutions of capitalist society (above all the state), the extent of its ideological hegemony and control over mass consciousness, and other aspects of social, economic, political, and ideological domination. Moreover-and this is the most important point-one must study its weaknesses, its problem areas, its vulnerabilities, its weak links, and the various dimensions of its crisis-especially those that affect its continued reproduction and survival. Armed with this knowledge, one would be better equipped to confront capital and the capitalist state in the sniggle to transform imperialism and the globalization process that today, in the early twenty-first century, represents the highest and most mature stage of global capitalism.

Notes I. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party. In vol. 6 of Kar! Marx and F`reden'ck Engels: Collected Works (New York: International

Publishers, 1976), p. 505. 2. Frederick Engels, Ludwig FeuerbaeN and the End ofCla.98 Adopting a class analysis approach to the race question, Du Bois during the latter years of his life began to develop "firm and decided views about the basis for race discrimination" in class terms: "He continually pointed to the wage diftleren» rial between black and white workers as the material basis for racism."' E- Franklin Frazier was another prominent black intellectual who provided an equally penetrating analysis of the interconnection of race and class in the

United States. Going beyond his earlier studies of race relations and the black

I

Class, Race, and Gender: Racism, Patriarchy, and Class Conflict

117

family, Frazier's views on racism later became more and more informed by class analysis.10 "Influenced by the class-based theories of left intellectuals and organizations," writes Anthony Platt, "by the 1930s . . [Frazier's] writings tended to reinterpret the history of race relations through a prism of exploitation."" "The introduction of the Negro into America," Frazier pointed out, "was due

.

to the economic expansion of Europe" and that "the fate of Negro slavery was determined by economic forces", in this sense, "the Negro's status in the United States," he stressed, "has been bound up, in the final analysis, with the role which the Negro has played in the economic system."" Framing the problem in such broader, historical and structural terms, Platt writes, Frazier "located the fundamental roots of racism in the dynamics of class relations on a global scale.»l3 Both Du Bois and Frazier understood racism as a manifestation of class conflict. They understood, therefore, that social emancipation would be the outcome of a resolution of the struggle between the main opposing classes in society. Although Du Bois's views on the forms the struggle would take differed from Frazier's, both agreed on the necessity of social change to end exploitation and thus facilitate the development of peaceful relations between the races. Whereas Du Bois argued in favor of gradual transformation of societal institutions to combat racism through progressive political reforms, Frazier saw no other viable alternative to resolve the race question except through a radical transformation of the existing social-economic system, Much more forceful and direct, Frazier argued that there could be "no fundamental changes in race relations . . . unless these changes are brought about in connection with some revolutionary movement": However well intentioned, "the accumulation of goodwill will not do it," he added, because "the present racial situation is bound up with the present economic and social system.as!" Frazier's anticipation of a new dynamic emerging from the evolving contradictions of capitalist society in the late twentieth century led him to optimistic conclusions on the possibility of black-white unity within the working class, targeting the capitalists as the source of racial oppression and class exploitation of an increasingly integrated multiracial and multinational working class. Drawing his optimism on this point from the elfccts of the Great Depression on labor in the 1930s, and observing the "spread of radical ideas among working class Negroes through cooperation with white workers," Frazier projected that "as the Negro may become an integral part of the proletariat, . . . the feeling against his color may break down in the face of a common foe.9:16 Clarifying his position on the interplay of race, class, and social emancipation, "In the urban environment," he wrote, the black worker "is showing signs of understanding the struggle for power between the proletariat and the owning classes, and is beginning to cooperate with white workers in this struggle which offers the only hope of his complete emancipation."1-1 Thus, with the development ofproletarian class consciousness, the black

Chapter 8

118

workers would come to merge with other sections of the working class and thereby identity their cause as one that is opposed to the class rule of the capitalists. The changing class composition of the African-American community in more recent decades gave rise to a subsequent debate on the race and class controversy between William Julius Wilson and Charles Vent Willie. la This controversy, which began with the publication of Wilson's The Declining Significance ofRaee and continued through his subsequent book The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, took place within the context of the changing dynamics of the class stnicture in the black community resulting from the transformation of the U.S. economy and its impact on urban centers, which gave rise to an "underclass" of largely unemployed or menially employed black population trapped in major U.S. cities." Thus, nearly half a century after the great debate between Du Bois and Frazier, Wilson's book set into motion a new round of this continuing debate on the nature and role of race and class in the United States in

recent decades. Describing his book The Declining Significance of Race as "a study of race and class in the American experience," Wilson points out that its focus is "a rather significant departure" from that of his previous book, Power, Racism, and Privilege, in which, he says that he "paid little attention to the role of class in under~ standing issues of race.»20 "I now feel that many important features of black and white relations in America," he writes, "are not captured when the issue is defined as majority versus minority and that a preoccupation with race and racial conflict obscures fundamental problems that derive from the intersection of class with race."" Wilson goes on to state, Race relations in America have undergone fundamental changes in recent years, so much so that now the life chances of individual blacks have more to do with their economic class position than with their day-to-day encounters with whites. In earlier years the systematic efforts of whites to suppress blacks were obvious

to even the most insensitive observer. Blacks were denied access to valued and scarce resources through various ingenious schemes of racial exploitation, discrimination, and segregation, schemes that were reinforced by elaborate ideologies of racism. But the situation has changed. However detemiinative such practices were for the previous efforts of the black population to achieve racial equality . . . they do not provide a meaningful explanation of the life chances of black Americans today."

In building his case for a macrosociological, historical analysis of the process of transformation that the African American community has undergone since the days of slavery, Wilson identifies three distinct stages in the development of race relations in the United States:

Class, Race, and Gender: Racism, Patriarchy, and Class Conflict

119

Stage one coincides with antebellum slavery and the early postbellum era and may be designated the period ofplaniotion economy and racial-caste oppression. Stage two begins in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and ends at roughly the New Deal era and may be identified as the period of industrial expansion, class conflz'cl?, and racial oppression. Finally, stage three is associated with the modern, industrial, post»-World War II era, which really began to crystallize

during the 1960s and 1970s, and may be characterized as the period ofprogressive tronsitionfrom racial inequalities to class inequaIllties.23

In the antebellum period and in the period from the mid nineteenth to the mid twentieth century, "Racial oppression was deliberate, overt, and is easily documented, ranging from slavery to segregation. However, since the middle of the twentieth century, "many of the traditional barriers have cmrnbled under the weight of the political, social, and economic changes of the civil rights era. A new

set of obstacles has emerged from basic structural shifts in the economy. "These obstacles," Wilson explains, "are therefore impersonal but may prove to be even more formidable for certain segments of the black population. Specifically, whereas the previous barriers were usually designed to control and restrict the entire black population, the new barriers create hardships essentially for the black underclass; whereas the old barriers were based explicitly on racial

motivations derived from intergroup contact, the new barriers have racial signifi-

canoe only in their consequences, not in their origins, In short, whereas the old barriers bore the pervasive features ofracial oppression, the new barriers indicate an important and emerging form of class subordination."

Thus, "in the modem industrial period," Wilson writes, "fundamental eco nordic and political changes have made economic class position more important than race,9328 such that "as the influence of race on minority class-stratification decreases . . . class takes on greater importance in determining the life chances of

minority iI1diVid113]g_»>29 The clear and growing class divisions among blacks today constitute a case in point. It is difficult to speak of uniform black experience when the black popu-

lation can be meaningfully stratified into groups whose members range from those who are affluent to those who are impoverished. This of course has not always been the case, because the crystallization of a black class structure is fairly recent."

Wilson argues that the social-economic and political changes in American society during the course of the twentieth century have led to the development of a class structure that has fostered growing class division among African Amer-

icans, such that in "the last quarter of the twentieth century a deepening economic

Chapter 8

120

schism seems to be developing in the black community, with the black poor falling further and further behind middle- and upper-income blacks,as3' see

business cycle), their labor-for out of poverty slowing, and their well that are at least comparable to those ofwhites with equivalent qualifications. The

and to the pressures of state aili

"In view of these developments," Wilson writes, "it would be difficult to argue that the plight of the black underclass is solely a consequence of racial oppression, that is, the explicit and overt efforts of whites to keep blacks subjugated," adding, "in the same way that it would be ditlicult to explain the rapid economic improvement of the more privileged blacks by arguing that the traditional forms of racial segregation and discrimination still characterize the labor market in American industries.7933Wilson concludes, "the recent mobility patterns of blacks lend strong support to the view that economic class is clearly more important than race in predetermining job placement and occupational mobility.""' If Wilson' s argument lends itself to a class-based view of changes in the social

position of blacks in the United States, Willie insists that race and racism continue to persist in black-white relations in American society. "Race is one of the most sensitive and sure indicators of the presence or absence ofjustice in our society," writes Willie." "To repress the guilt of racial discrimination through denial and other means," he adds, "is to permit injustice to fester and erupt from time to time

in race riots and other forms of rebellion."'" Contrary to Wilson's position, Willie argues that "race has not declined but continues as a significant variable di€t`erentiating blacks from whites at all income levels."" He goes on to argue that "racial discrimination is one of the major factors contributing to economic deprivation among blacks.2138 In contradistinction to Wilson's thesis of the declining significance of race and the increasing importance of class in determining the social position of African Americans in the United States today, Willie contends that race, not class, plays a central role in determining one 's social position: "I would like to introduce

a counterhypothesis," Willie writes, that the significance of race is increasing and that it is increasing especially for middle-class blacks who, because of school desegregation and affirmative action

Class, Race, and Gender: Racism, Patriarchy, and Class Conflict

121

and other integration programs, are coming into direct contact with whites for the first time for extended interaction."

Against Wilson's emphasis on the physical condition of the African American underclass effected by recent changes in the economic structure, which, together with favorable civil rights legislation, has led to improvements in the economic position of the emerging African American middle class, Willie focuses on the effects of race and race relations in general and argues that, despite recent economic gains, race continues to playa dominant role in the life experiences of African Americans, especially the middle class. Stressing the importance ofpsychological factors, those who suffer most from the effects of these changes, Willie argues, are members of the educated middle class, not the underclass: "The people who most severely experience the pain of dislocation due to the changing times are the racial minorities who are talented and educated and integrated, not those who are impoverished and isolated.""° Responding to Willie's emphasis on the significance of race in African American middle-class life, resulting from increased black-white contact within this class, Wilson writes,

but in new

few years ago `ed `mtegrated

but of the

to a menial black elite

ditions of the isolated black poor."

Clearly, the Wilson-Willie debate on race and class has generated a number of important questions that have both historical and current significance for understanding race relations in the United States today. While the African American community has clearly undergone major transformations in its social structure and, thus, experienced class differentiation based on changes in the labor force structure over the past hundred years, it is also clear that race continues to play an important role in determining the predicament of African Americans in the United States today, albeit in different ways and forms within different classes across the

racial divide. As Wilson argues, although racial antagonisxns and tensions continue to

characterize the American social landscape, class divisions among African Americans yield differential results in advancing one's class interests. Thus, as the black class structure increasingly resembles the white class structure, middle-class

122

Chapter 8

blacks will more and more identify their interests with those of middle-class whites, as opposed to poor blacks, notwithstanding the fact that they will continue to experience racial tensions and conflict within the middle class itself for as long as racism in its various forms continues to exist in the United States. The point is that increasing class differentiation within the African American community will make uniform, racially oriented policies obsolete as the class nature of such policies becomes increasingly transparent.

Class, Gender, and Patriarchy Historically, patriarchy and the oppression of women in society coincided with the development of social classes and class struggles. The transformation of the status of women from being a central productive force of primitive society to one subordinated to male domination through patriarchal social relations was the result of the emergence of class domination and exploitation in general. Throughout history, from slavery to feudalism to capitalism, the oppression of women continued to constitute an important part of the exploitation and oppression of labor. In time, the subordination of women to men became consolidated as part of the social landscape complementing the overall exploitation oldie laboring people that the masses came to suffer in class society. Figure 8.2 illustrates the nature and source of exploitation and oppression of women from feudalism to the advanced stages of capitalism. Figure 8.2 - Class, Power, and Gender: The Sources of Exploitation and Oppression of Women

family Llbof

Czpiulisx

paonucnon

Labor

qzhevc

FEUDALLSM

0

*

- Oppfoaion nu

Sou ix; of Opprqssiosl

Class, Race, and Gender: Racism, Patriarchy, and Class Conflict

123

Under feudalism, serf women were doubly oppressed-lin both the production and the domestic spheres-in addition to their exploitation through surplus product extortion by the landowning class. Moreover, the landlords not only had complete control over the sets' lives, but were especially oppressive towards serfs' wives, including the practice of "the right of the first night." Thus the landlords were theprimary source of women's exploitation and oppression under feudalism, while the serf husband did also exercise a level of control and domination over his wife within the domestic sphere, and thus was a secondary source of oppression of women under feudal patriarchy. Under small-scale commodity production, where the serf family had freed itself from feudal bondage and managed its own affairs as independent peasants in the villages, the male heads of households replaced the landlords as theprimmjy source of oppression ofserfwomen due to the continuation ofpatriarchal practices that gave power to men over women. As the serfs began to desert the landlords' lands and migrated to the urban areas, and as few of these serfs who were fortunate enough to acquire their own piece of land and live as peasants but eventually were forced oft the land and joined the ranks of others in the mass migration to the cities, the changing nature of production from feudal to small-scale commodity production to capitalist forms brought changes in the source of women's oppression through the various stages of transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe during the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries. Capitalism and capitalist relations of production that became established the latter part of this period further facilitated the oppression ofwornen through cheap labor and domestic work to advance the interests of the capitalist class in the process of expanded capital accumulation, Figure 8.2 further illustrates this process during the early and late stages of capitalist development. Thus while the male head of the household was the sole wage laborer working for the capitalist became the source of oppression of women within the working class in the domestic sphere, the entry of working class women into the labor force in late capitalism drew women into the production process and thus brought about a shift in the source of their exploitation and oppression from the husband at home to the cap» talist at the workplace-exploited and oppressed first and foremost by the capitalist class and its paid agents (managers) on the shop floor who exercised their power and domination over working women on behalf of capital. Ironically, this exploitation and oppression of working women under capitalism led to their economic independence as wage earners, thus to their empowerment vis-8-vis their husbands and the work force through unionization. Thus, while the earnings of working women, despite being less than that of working men, helped them to re-negotiate the terms of their relationship at work and at home, and secure greater

rights in gender relations in the domestic sphere, the similarity of their experience at work with that of their husbands led to the development ofa potential common

124

Chapter 8

front against their boss, as the worldng-class family became more and more conscious of their class interests as against that of their common foe, the capitalists. The recognition of the interconnection between gender and class as part of the process of development of the family, private property, and inheritance was forcefully made by Frederick Engels who understood the role of production relations in shaping the broader social relations of class society." Decades later, another champion of the worldng class and of wolnen's rights, Alexandra Kollontai, took up the task of exposing the root causes ofwornen's oppression and showed the way for the emancipation of women in capitalist society. "The conditions and forms of production," Kollontai wrote in The Social

Basis of the Woman Question, "have subjugated women throughout human history, and have gradually relegated them to the position of oppression and dependence in which most of them erdsted until now."43 Kollontai argued that since "specific economic factors were behind the subordination of women . . . a colossal upheaval of the entire social and economic structure was required before women could begin to retrieve the significance and independence they had lost.$144 "All the experience of history teaches us," she concludes, "that a social group works out its ideology, consequently its sexual morality, in the process of its sniggle with hostile social forces1945 and these forces constitute the very basis of class struggle in society. Thus, Kollontai's analysis of the nature and sources of women's oppression led her to look for a class solution to the emancipation of women. The rights ofwornen, she argued, could not be achieved while society was

organized on the basis of private profit. Going beyond the critique of capitalism and the exploitation of labor in general, Kollontai placed the interests of women workers at the forefront of her analysis and examined the struggles of working women and their families in late nineteenth-century capitalist society which preceded the bourgeois women's movement that emerged later during this period, bringing into sharp focus the class content of women's rights under capitalism.

Providing a class analysis approach to the study of wolnen's position in capitalist society, Kollontai, like Rosa Luxemburg and Clara Zetkin, defined the rights and interests of women on the basis of their class position, not their gender alone. She developed a sharp critique of the feminist movement for representing the interests of only a segment of the female population-bourgeois women. Siding with the working class politically and advocating the transformation of capitalist society, Kollontai focused her attention on worldng women and saw their liberation as part of the process of emancipation of the working class from capitalist exploitationThe class essence of women's rights, as manifested in the position of women in society with respect to labor, is clearly driven home in Kollontai 's works where she focuses on the problems of woridng women as they occur in their daily 1nate~ rial life conditions, The exploitation of working women thus takes on a special, class meaning, as Kollontai differentiates the experiences (and thereby the inter-

Class, Race, and Gender: Racism, Patriarchy, and Class Conflict

125

ests) of women of different classes--a distinction which has important political

implications. In pointing to the intricate relationship of class and gender in capitalist society, and the necessity of the struggle against women's oppression, Kollontai argues that one must fight for the "fundamental transformation of the contemporary economic and social structure of society without which the liberation of women cannot be complele.""° This means that, to put an end to the oppression of women, a major transformation of the existing capitalist order must take place --one that inquires a revolutionary restructuring of social, economic, and political life that charactedzes the fundamental structures of capitalist society. Kollontai asks, "Can political equality in the context of the retention of the entire capitalistexploiter system free the working woman from that abyss of evil and suffering which pursues and oppresses her both as a woman and as a human being'?"'" And she answers it as follows: The more aware among proletarian women realize that neither political nor juridical equality can solve the women's question in all its aspects. While women are compelled to sell their labor power and bear the yoke ofcapitalism, while the present exploitative system of producing new values continues to eidst, they cannot become free and independent persons."

Thus, the aim of working women, Kollontai points out, "is to abolish all privileges deriving from birth or wealth" and that, therefore, they are in this sense "fighting for the common class cause, while at the same time outlining and putting forward those needs and demands that most nearly affect themselves as women, house~ wives and mothers.""' The struggles of working women, therefore, "are part and parcel of the common workers' cause!"5° There was a time when working men thought that they alone must beau' on their

shoulders the brunt of the struggle against capital, that they alone must deal with the "old world" without the help of their womenfolk. However, as working-class women entered the labor market by need, by the fact that husband or father is unemployed, working men became aware that to leave women behind in the ranks of the "non-class-conscious" was to damage their cause and hold it back. The greater the number of conscious fighters, the greater the chances of success. . . . Every special, distinct form of work among the women of the working class

is simply a means of arousing the consciousness of the woman worker and

.

drawing her into the ranks of those fighting for a better fuhire. . . [The] meticulous work undertaken to arouse the self-consciousness of the woman worker are serving the cause . . . of the unification of the working class."

It is in this context of the broader interests of the working class as a whole that

Kollontai deyelopcd her understanding of the interplay between class, gender, and

Chapter 8

126

patriarchy, and identified the centrality of the exploitation of labor for private profit as the basis of the oppression and exploitation of working women in capitalist society. The necessity of the struggle against women's oppression simultaneously with the struggle against capitalist exploitation has been further developed by Marxist feminists in recent decades. Providing an in-depth analysis of the intersection of class and gender in capitalist society, Marxist feminists have made an important contribution to a clear, class-based understanding of the causes and consequences of woinen's oppression under capitalism.

Conclusion Patriarchy and racial oppression, which developed with the emergence of class divisions in society, have become the twin pillars of capital accumulation through the exploitation of labor in capitalist society. Facilitating the accumulation process to generate greater profits for the capitalists, racial and gender oppression have thus become part of the process of capitalist development to maintain the system and to secure its future. Thus, racial and gender divisions have come to serve more than the greater profit needs of capital through pay diiierentials, they have pro-

vided capital with the weapon of "divide and rule" to maintain its power over society and to assure its continued control of the state and other vital social institutions that secure the class rule of the capitalist class. A class analysis of racial and gender oppression is imperative for a clear understanding of the connection of these phenomena with the broader exploitation of labor that maximize profits for the capitalists-an exploitation that is especially severe and more cruel when it is directed against worldng women and racial/ ethnic minority workers. The class essence of racial and gender oppression becomes apparent when we examine the class nature of capital's behavior toward

women and racial/ethnic minorities. Thus, as Kollontai and Frazier have pointed out, while a small segment of these populations can escape this oppression and become beneficiaries of capitalist rule, the worldng people in general, and women and minority workers in particular, are the clear victims of capitalist exploitation that capital has come to understand as something beneficial for its continued accumulation of wealth and rule over society.

Notes 1. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. I (New York: Intematjonal Publishers, 1967), p. 751. 2. W. E. B. Du Bois, "The White Masters of the World," in Virginia Hamilton (ed.), The Wrongs of W. E. B. Du Bois (New York; Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1975), pp.

201-202.

Class, Race, and Gender: Racism, Patriarchy, and Class Conflict

127

3. Victor Perlo, Super Profits and Crises: Modem US. Capitalism (New York: International Publishers, 1988), p. 85.

5. W. E. B. Du Bois, "The Social Effects of Emancipation," in Meyer Weinberg (ed.), W E. B. Du Bois: A Reader (New York; Harper &. Row, 1970), P. 71. 6. Ibid., pp. 342-43. '7. Du Bois, quoted in Gerald Home, Black & Red: W E. B. Du Bois and the AfroAmerican Response to the Cold War, 1944-/963 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), p. 224. 'up

8. W. E. B. Du Bois, "Negroes and the Crisis of Capitalism

the United States,"

Monthly Review, 4, no. 12 (April 1953), pp. 482-483.

9. Home, Black & Red, p, 225. 10. For his earlier studies, see, for example, E. Franklin Frazier, The Negro Family in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939). His later views on the relationship of race and class are developed in E. Franklin Frazier, The Negro in the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1949), and idem, Race and Culture Contacts in the Modem World (New York: Knopf 1957). I I. AnthonyM. PIatt,E. FranklinFraz1'erRecoinsidered (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press, 1991), p. 164. 12. Frazier, quoted in Platt, E. Franklin Frazier Reconsidered, p. 164. 13. Ibid., p. 219. 14. Tbid., P- 186.

15. Ibid., p. 164. 16. ibid., p. 163. 17. Ibid., P- 164. 18. For an overview of the different positions taken in this debate, see Charles V. Willie (ed.), The Caste and Class Controversy on Race and Poverty (Dix Hills, NY: General Hall, 1989). 19. See William Julius Wilson, The Declining Significance of Race (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1978) and idem., The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Ufidercfass, and Public Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).

20. William Julius Wilson, The Declining Significance of Race, Second Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. ix. 21. Ibid., p. ix. 22. Ibid., p.l.

23. Ibid., pp. 2-3, italics in the original. 24. Ibid., p. 1.

25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid., pp. 1-2. 28. Ibid., P- 23. 29. Ibid., P- x. 30. bid. 31. void., P- 152.

32. Ibid., p, 151. 33. Ibid., pp. 151-2.

Chapter 8

128

34. Ibid., p. 152. 35. Charles Vent Willie, The Caste and Class Controversy on Race and Poverty, 2nd ed. (Dix Hills, N.Y.: General Hall, 1989), p. 82. 36. Ibid., p. 82. 37. Ibid., p. 86. 38.

m.

39. Ibid., p. 20. 40. Ibid., p. 21. 41. William Julius Wilson, "The Declining Significance of Race: Revisited But Not Revised," in Willie, The Caste and Class Controversy an Race and Poverty, p. 36. 42. Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Properly, and the State (New York: International Publishers, 1972). 43. Alexandra Kollontai, "The Social Basis of the Woman Question" in Alix Holt (ed.), Selected Writings ofAlexandra Kollonfai (Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill and Company, 1978), p. 61.

44. Ibid., pp. 58, 61. 45. I`bid. 46. Ibid., pp. 59-60. 47. Kollontai, in I. M. Dazhina et al., (eds.), Alexandra Kollontoi; Selected Articles

and Speeches (New York: hitemational Publishers, 1984), pp. 33-34. 48. Ibid., p. 34. 49. Ibid., p. 64.

50. Ibid. 51. Ibid., pp. 62-65. Addi sing the h pos and spiral S [`milli us f work g women, Kollontai proclaimed: "Let a joyous sense of serving the common class cause and of fighting simultaneously for their own female emancipation inspire women workers to join in the celebration," p. 65.

Chapter 9 Conclusion: Class Conflict, Class Struggle, and Social Transformation in the Age of Globalization I have in this book highlighted the centrality of class and class conflict in the age of contemporary global capitalism. Class is not merely a sociological category by which people are defined in terms of their position in society, it is a reality of the lives of billions of people around the world. Whether one belongs to the working class, peasantry, the self-employed shopkeeper, landlord, or capitalist, or is even situated outside of existing class relations and class conflict between the chief social classes of contemporary global capitalist society, class impacts the lives of everyone who is, directly or indirectly, part of the global community in which major decisions are made by those in power who control the key social, economic, and political institutions of society. Class and class conflict, the product of major social divisions in society, are the outcome of centuries of struggle between contending social forces over the course of history. The evolution of society from one mode or system of production to another has always been the result of class conflict and class struggle that has

served as the motive force of societal development through time. lt is through a succession of civil (i.e., class) wars and revolutions against prevailing modes of class domination and class rule that societies have developed and become transformed over the course of the past several thousand years. In our time, in the age of globalization, i.e., the era of global capitalism, class and class conflict have become more, not less, pronounced, and their prevalence everywhere around the world made it a visible feature of the global capitalist systern. Today, as class divisions widen and as classes become increasingly polarized and in continual conflict, class stnrggles are becoming more and more pan of the social landscape of global capitalist society across the world.

129

130

Chapter 9

In this concluding chapter, I outline the class contradictions of global capitalism, the emerging forms of class struggle, and the prospects for the trans~ formation of global capitalism in the twenty-first centuzy. I discuss these within the context of the globalization of capital in the twentieth century and map Out the political implications of this process for the future course of development and transformation of capitalism on a global scale.

Globalization of Capital, Class Conflict,

and Class Struggle With the spread of capitalism as the primary source of the globalization of capitalist class relations on a world scale, capital has effected transformations in the class structure of societies with which it has come into contact. As a result, the class contradictions of global capitalism have become the primary source of class conflict and class struggle throughout the world. The development of capitalism over the past century formed and transformed capitalist society on a global scale. This transformation came about through the restructuring of the international division of labor prompted by the export of capital and transfer of production to cheap labor areas abroad. This, in turn, led to the intensification of the exploitation of labor through expanded production and reproduction of surplus value and profits by further accumulation of capital and the reproduction of capitalist relations of production on a world scale. A major consequence of this process is the increased polarization of wealth and income between labor and capital at the national and global levels, and growth in numbers of the poor and marginalized segments of the population throughout the world. These and other related contradictions of global capitalism define the parameters of modem, capitalist globalization and provide us the framework ofdiscussion on the nature and dynamics of globalization in the world today.

The widening gap between the accumulated wealth of the capitalist class and the declining incomes of workers has sharpened the class struggle in a new political direction, which has brought the advanced capitalist state to the center stage of the conflict between labor and capital and revealed its ties to the monopolies. This has undermined the legitimacy of the capitalist state, such that the struggles of the working class and the masses in general are becoming directed not merely against capital, but against the state itself) This transformation of the workers' struggle from the economic to the political sphere is bound to set the stage for protracted struggles in the period altered--stnlggles that would facilitate the development of a much more politicized international labor movement. The globalization of capital is thus bound to accelerate the politicization of the working class and lead to the building of a viable international solidarity of workers directed

Conclusion

131

against transnational capital, global capitalism, and the advanced capitalist state

on a world scale? The relationship between the owners of the transnational corporations-the global capitalist class-and the imperial state, and the role and functions of this state, including the use of military force to advance the interests of this capitalist class, thus reveals the class nature of the imperial state and the class logic of globalization in the world today." But this logic is more pervasive and is based on a more fundamental class relation between labor and capital that now operates on a global level, that is, a relation based on exploitation. Thus, in the age of capitalist globalization, social classes and class struggles are a product of the logic of the global capitalist system based on the exploitation of labor worldwide.' Capitalist expansion on a world scale at this stage of the globalization of capital and capitalist production has brought with it the globalization of the production process and the exploitation of wage-labor on a world scale. With the intensified exploitation of the working class at super-low wages in repressive neocolonial societies across the globe, the transnational corporations of the leading capitalist countries have come to amass great fortunes that they have used to build up a global empire through the powers of the imperial state, which has not hesitated to use its military force to protect and advance the interests of capital throughout the world. It is in this context that we see the coalescence of the interests of the global economy and empire as manifested in control of cheap labor, new markets, and vital sources of raw materials, such as oil, and the intervention of the capitalist state to protect these when their continued supply to the imperial center are threatened. What better an example of this can one think of than what is now taking place in the Middle East! V. I. Lenin, in his book Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, pointed out that capitalism in its highest and most mature monopoly stage has spread to every corner of the world and thus has planted the seeds of its own contradictions everywhere." It is in this context of the developing worldwide contra-

dictions of advanced, monopoly capitalism that Lenin pointed out, "[I]mperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat . . . on a worldwide scale."'

Class Struggle and Social Transformation in the Age of Globalization Global capitalist expansion, which has caused so much exploitation, oppression, and misery for the peoples of the world, has created the 'conditions for its own transformation. Economically, it has atilicted the system with recessions, depres-

sions, and an associated realization crisis, politically, it has set into motion an imperial interventionist stale that through its presence in every comer of the world

has incurred an enormous military expenditure to maintain an empire, while

132

Chapter 9

gaining the resentment of millions of people across the globe who are engaged in active struggle against it? The imperial capitalist state, acting as the repressive ann of global capital and extending its rule across vast territories, has dwarfed the militaristic adventures of past empires. The global capitalist state, through its political and military supremacy, has come to exert its control over many countries and facilitated the exploitation of labor on a world scale. As a result, it has reinforced the domination of capital over labor and its rule on behalf of capital, This, in tum, has greatly politicized the stniggle between labor and capital and led to the recognition of the importance ofpolitical organization that is necessary to transform the global capitalist system. In considering the emerging class struggles throughout the globe, the question that one now confronts is a political one- Given what we know of neoliberal globalization and its class contradictions on a world scale, how will the peoples' movements respond to itpolitieally worldwide? What strategy and tactics will be adopted to confront this colossal force? It is important to think about these questions concretely, in a practical way--one that involves a concrete scientific analysis and organized political action. Understanding the necessity of mobilizing labor and the importance of political leadership in this struggle, radical labor organizations have in fact taken steps emphasizing the importance for the working class of mobilizing its ranks and taking collective action to wage battle against capitalist globalization." Strikes, demonstrations, and mass protests initiated by workers and other pop~ ulan forces have become frequent in a growing number of countries controlled by the transnationals in recent years. Working people are rising up against the local ruling classes, the state, and the transnationals that have together effected the super-exploitation of labor for decades. Various forms of struggle are now underway in many countries under the grip of transnational capital. The logic of transnational capitalist expansion on a global scale is such that it leads to the emergence and development of forces in conflict with this ex-

pansion. The worldng class has been in the forefront of these forces. Armed insurrection, civil war, and revolutionary upheavals are all a response to the repression imposed on working people by global capitalism and its client states throughout the world. Together, these struggles have been effective in frustrating the efforts of global capital to expand and dominate the world, while at the same time building the basis of an international worldng-class movement that finally overcomes national, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic boundaries that artificially sep~ grate the workers in their fight against global capitalism. In this sense, labor internationalism (or the political alliance of workers across national boundaries in their struggle against transnational capital) is increasingly being seen as a political weapon that would serve as a unifying force in labor's frontal attack on capital in the early twenty-first century."

Conclusion

133

The solidarity achieved through this process has helped expand the strength of the international working class and increased its determination to defeat all vestiges of global capitalism throughout the world, and build a new egalitarian social order that advances the interests of working people and ultimately all of humanity. Global capitalism today represents a dual, contradictory development whose dialectical resolution will be an outcome of its very nature-a product of' its growth and expansion across time and space within the corrines ofa stnrcture that promotes its own destruction and demise. However, while the process itself is a self destructing one, it is important to understand that the nature of the class struggle that these contradictions generate is such that the critical factor that tips the balance of class forces in favor of the working class to win state power is political organization, the building of class alliances among the oppressed and exploited classes, the development of a strong and theoretically well-informed

revolutionary leadership that is organically linked to the working class, and a clear understanding of the forces at work in the class struggle, including especially the role of the state and its military and police apparatus-~the focal point of the struggle for state power.10 The success of the worldng class and its revolutionary leadership in confronting the power of the capitalist state thus becomes the critical element ensuring that once captured, the state can become an instrument that the workers can use to establish their rule and in the process transform society and the state itself to promote labor's interests in line with its vision for a new society free of exploitation and oppression, a society based on the rule of the working class and the laboring masses in general.

Conclusion In this concluding chapter, I have outlined the class nature of social change and

social transformation in the age of globalization. Our understanding of the necessity for the transformation of global capitalism, which is political in nature, demands a clear, scientific understanding of its contradictions in late twentiethand early twenty-first-cenhuy form, so that this knowledge can be put to use to facilitate the class struggle in a revolutionary direction. In this context, one will want to know not only the extent and depth of global capitalist expansion, but also its base of support, its linkage to the major institutions of capitalist society (above all the state, but also other religious, cultural, and social institutions), the extent of its ideological hegemony and control over mass consciousness, and other aspects of social, economic, political, and ideological domination. Moreover-and this is the most important point»--one must study its weaknesses, its problem areas, its vulnerabilities, its weak links, and the various dimensions of its crisis+-

especially those that affect its continued reproduction and survival. Armed with

Chapter 9

134

this knowledge, one would be better equipped to confront capital and the capitalist state in the snuggle for the transformation of global capitalism in this century.

Notes 1. Nick Beams, The Significance and Implications

of Globalization: A Marxist

Assessment (Southfield, MI: Mehring Books, 1998). 2. Cyrus Bina and Chuck Davis. 2002. "Dynamics of Globalization: Transnational Capital and the International Labor Movement" in Berch Berberoglu (ed), Labor and Capital in the Age of Globalizoi'ion (Lanham, MD: Rovnnan and Littlefield Publishers, 2002), Andrew Howard, "Global Capital and Labor Internationalism: Workers' Response to Global Capitalism," in Bench Berbefroglu (ed.), Globalization and Change: The Trans-

formation of Global Capitalism (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), Dimitris Stevis and TerryBoswell, Globalization antiLabor: Democratizing Global Govemonce (lanham, MD: Row ran and Litiletield, 2008).

3. Bill Warren, Imperialism, Pioneer of"Capitalism (London: Verso, 1980), Albert J.

Szymanski, The Logic oflmperialism (New York: Praeger, 1981), Berch Berberoglu, The Inlemallionolization ofCopilof: Imperialism and Capitalist Development on a World Scale

(New York: Praeger, 1987), ideln., Political Sociology: A Comparative/Historical Approach, Second Edition (Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2001). 4. James F. Petras, Critical Perspectives on lrnperialisrn and Social Class in the Third World (New York: MonthlyReview Press, l 978), BenchBerberoglu, Class Structure ana* Social Transformation (New York: Praeger, 1994).

5. V. I. Lenin, "The State and Revolution" in V. I. Lenin, Selected Works in Three Volumes, vol. 2 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, [1917] 1975). 6. Ibid., p. 640.

'7. While one consequence of capitalist globalization has been domestic economic contraction and an associated class polarization, a more costly and dangerous outcome of this process has been increased militarization and intervention abroad. However, this has created major problems for the imperial state and is increasingly threatening its etTectiveness and, in the long run, its very existence. 8. Peter Waterman, Gtoboiizorfon, SocialMovemenr5, and the New Intemonlonot1°sm5 (London: Mansell,l998), Renaldo Munch, Globalization ondLabor: The New Great Transfornlotion (London: Zed Books, 2002), Stevis and Boswell, GlofnofizoNon and Labor.

9. Beams, The Significance and Implications ofGIobol1lzan'on, Walda Katz-Fishman, Jerome Scott, and If Modupe, "Global Capitalism, Class Struggle, and Social Trans~ formation," in Bench Berberoglu (ed.),Globalization and Change: The Tronsfo:1noftllon

of

Global Capitalism (Lanrharn, MD: Lexington Books, 2005). The necessity of the political struggle against global capital has been emphasized by workers' organizations, and this has

led to several successful revolutions during the twentieth century. They have stressed the central importance ofinternational labor solidarity in the struggle against global capitalism. 10. Albert Szymanski, The Copi1'alistState and the Politics ofCloss (Cambridge, MA: W'mtllrop, 1978), Peter Knapp and Alan J. Spector, Crisis and Change: Basic Questions of Marxist Sociology (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, Publishers, 1991), Berberoglu, Political Soc-

iology; Stevis and Boswell, Globalization and Labor.

Bibliography Abdel-Malek, Anouar. Nation and Revolution. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981.

Abdo, rah la. "Women of the Intifada: Gender, Class, and National Liberation," Race and Class 32, no. 4 (1991). Abrahamian, Ervand. Iran Between Two Revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. Acker, Joan. Class Questions: Feminist Answers. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2006. Ackerman, Frank, Neva R. Goodwin, Laurie Dougherty, and Kevin Gallagher (eds.). The Political Economy oflnequality. Washington, D.C. ° Island Press,

2000. Akhavi-Pour, I-Iossein and Heidar Azodanloo. "Economic Bases of Political Factions in Iran," Critique: Journolfor Critical Studies of the Middle East,

no. 13 (Fall 1998), Alexander, I. "Real Wages and Class Struggle in South Korea," Journal ofCon~ temporary Asia, vol. 17, no. 4 (1987). Althusser, Louis. For Marx, London: Penguin. 1969.

. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books, 1971.

. Essays in SemCritietsm.

London: New Left Books, 1976. Althusser, Louis andEtienne Balibar.Reading Capital. London: New Left Books, 1968.

..

Arnaladoss, M., ed. Globalization and its Victims as Seen by its Victims.

Columbia: South Asia Books, 1999. Amir, Samir. Unequal Development: An Essay

_

on iNe Social Formations of

Peripheral Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1976. _ The Arab Nation: Nationalism and Class Struggles. London: Zed Press, 1978. . Capitalism in the Age of Globalization: The Manogenzent ofContempo-

rary Society. London: Zed Books, 1997-

135

BibliographY

136

.

"Imperialism and Globalization," Monthly Review, vol. 53, no. 2 (June 2001). Arnuzegar, Jahangir. The Dynamics of the Iranian Revolution. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991. Andersen, Margaret L, and Patricia Hill Collins, eds. Race, Class, and Gender; An Anthology, Sixth edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007. Anderson, Charles H. The Political Economy ofSociol Class. Englewood Clips, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974. Aptheker, Herbert. The American Revolution, 1763-1783. New York; International Publishers, 1960.

Aptheker, Herbeit. Annotated Bibliography of the Published Writings ofW. E B. Du Bois. Millwood, NY: Kraus-Thomson Organization Ltd., 1973.

. Early Years of the Republic. New York: International Publishers, 1976. Appadurai, Arjuna. Globalization. Durham: Duke University Press, 2001. Aronowitz, Stanley. False Promises: The Shaping of American Working-Class Consciousness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Working Class Hero: A New Strai'egyforLabor. New York: Adama Books,

.

1983.

Arrow, Kenneth, Samuel Bowles, and Steven N. Durlauf (eds.). Meritocracy and Economic Inequality. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Ashraf, A. "Bazaar and Mosque in Iran's Revolution," MERIP Reports, vol. 13, no. 3 (March-April 1983). Ayala, Cesar J. "Theories of Big Business in American Society," Critical Sociology, vol. 16, no. 2-3 (Summer-Fall 1989).

Bakhash, Shaul. The Reign of the Ayatoflahs. New York: Basic Books, 1983. Balibar, Etienne. On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. London: New Left Books, 1977. Bamyeh, Mohammed A. The Ends of GlolJolizoz'ion. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

Boron, Paul and Paul M. Sweezy. Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966. Bamdt, Deborah, ed. Women Working the Na_/ia Food Chain: Women, Food & Globalization. Toronto: Sur ach Press, 1999. . . Tangled Routes: Women, Work, and Globalization on the Tomato Trail. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2002. Bashiriyeh, Hussein. The State andRevolution in Iran: 1962-1982. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1984. Batatu, Hanna. The Old Social Classes and the RevolutionolyMo1>ements oflroq. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978. Bauman, Z. Globalization: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity, 1998. Bayat, Asef. Workers and Revolution in Iran: A Third World Experience of Workers' Control. London: Zed Books, 1987.

Bibliography

137

Beams, Nick. The Stgnyiconce and Implications of Globalization: A Marxist Assessment. Southfield, MI: Mehnlng Books, 1998. Beard, Charles. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1962. Beard, Charles, and Mary Beard. The Rise of American Civilization. New York:

Macmillan, 1930.

Beechey, Veronica and Tessa Perkins. A Matter of Hours: Women, Part-time Work and the Labor Marker. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,

1987. Bello, Walden and Stephanie Rosenfeld. 1990. Dragons in Distress: Conflict in

Asia 's Miracle Economies. San Francisco: Institute for Food and Development Policy, 1987. Below, Gennady. What Is the State? Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986. Beneria, Lourdes."Gender and the Global Economy," in Arthur MacE van and William K. Tabb (eds), Instability and Change in the World Economy. New

York: Monthly Review Press, 1989. Berberoglu, Berch. The Internationalization of Capital: Imperialism and Capitalisf Development on a World Scale. New York: Praeger, 1987.

. The Legacy ofErnpire: Economic Decline and Class Polarization in the United States. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1992.

. The Political Economy ofDevelopmenI. Albany: State University of New

York Press, 1992. . Class Structure and Social Transformation. New York: Praeger, 1994.

. ed. The National Question: Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict, and SeDetermination in the Twentieth Century. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995. . Turmoil in the Middle East: Imperialism, War, and Political Instability. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999. .Political Sociology: A Comparative/HistoricalApproach, Second edition.

Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2001.

. ed. Labor

Row ran

and Capital in the Age

of Globalization.

Lanham, MD., CO :

and Littlefield, 2002.

. Globalization of Capital and the Nation-State. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2003.

.

Nationalism and Ethnic Con_;'lict.' Class, State, and Nation in the Age of Globalization. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2004. . ed. Globalization and Change: The Transformation of Global Capitalism _

Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005. . The Slate and Revolution in the Twentieth Century: Major Social Transformations of Our Time. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2007.

138

BibliographY

Bina, Cyrus and Chuck Davis. "Dynamics of Globalization: Transnational Capital and the International Labor Movement" in Bench Berberoglu (ed.), Labor and Capital in the Age of Globalization. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2002.

Bina, Cyrus and Behzad Yagh1naian."Post-War Global Accumulation and the Transnationalization of Capital," Capital & Class, no. 43 (Spring 1991). Biro, Lajos and Marc J. Cohen (eds.). The United States in Crisis. Minneapolis: MEP Press, 1979. Blau, Francine D. "Women in the Labor Force: An Overview," in Joe Freeman (ed.), Women: A Feminist Perspective. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1984. Blaut, James M. The National Question: Deeolonising the Theory ofNolionalism. London; Zed Books, 1987. Block, Fred."The Ruling Class Does Not Rule: Notes on the Marxist Theory of the State." Socialist Review, no. 33 (May-June 1977). ."Class Consciousness and Capitalist Rationalization: A Reply to Critics," Socialist Review, nos. 40-41 (July~October 1978). .. Revising State Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987. Boswell, Tend and Christopher Chase-Dunn. The Spiral oftlfapitalism and Socialism. Lanham, MD: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1978. Boswell, Terry, et al. Racial Competition and Class Solidarity. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006. Bottomore, Tom and Robert J. Btym (eds.). The Capitalist Class: An International Study. New York: New York University Press, 1989. Bowles, Samuel and Richard Edwards. Understanding Capitalism. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1985. Boyer, Richard and Herbert Morals. Labor 's Untold Story, Third edition. New York: United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, 1980. Braun, Denny. The Rich Get Richer: The Rise oflneome Inequality in the United States and the World. Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1991. Blavermatl, Harry. Labor antiMonopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974. Brecher, Jeremy. Strike! Greenwich: Fawcet, 1972. Brecher, Jeremy, Tim Costello, and Brendan Smith. Globalization from Below: The Power of Solidarity. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2000. Brenner, Robert"The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of NeoSrnithian Marxism," New Left Review, no. 104 (July-August 1977). Brown, Jonathan C., ed. Workers' Control in LafinAmerica, 1930-1979. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997 Bryan, Dick."The Internationalization of Capital and Marxian Value Theory." Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol, 19 (1995). Burris, Val. "Class Structure and Political Ideology," Critical Sociology, vol. 14, no. 2 (Summer 1987).

139

BibliographY

.

"New Directions in Class Analysis," Critical Sociology, vol. 15, no. 1 (Spring 1988). Calvert, Peter. The Concep! of Class. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982. Camoy, Martin. The State and Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1984. Chaliand, Gerard, ed. People Without a Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan. London: Zed Press, 1980. Chandra, Bipan."The Indian Capitalist Class and Imperialism Before 1947." Journal of Contemporory Asia 5, no. 3 (1975). Chase-Dunn, Christopher. Global Formation: Structures

of the World Economy.

Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 1998. ._ et al. (eds.). Globalization on the Ground Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2001. Chatterji, Rakhahari. Working Class and the Nationalist Movement in India: The Critical Years. International Academic Publishers, 2001.

Chattopadhyay,Paresh- "India's Capitalist Industrialization," in BenchBerberoglu (ed.), Class, State, and Development in India. New Delhi: Sage Publications. 1992. Chem, Fantu. The Silent Revolution in Africa: Debt, Development and Democracy. London: Zed Books, 1989. Chilcote, Ronald H., ed. Dependency and Marxism: Toward a Resolution of the Debate. LaMiani, MD: Crestview Press, 1982. Clark, Tony N. and Seymour Martin Lipset. "Are Social Classes Dying?" International Soctofogy 6 ($991)I 397-410. Clarke, S. 1977. "Mancisrn, Sociology and Poulantzas's Theory of the State." Capital and Class 2 (1991).

Clawson, Dan. The Next Upsurge: Labor and the New Social Movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.

Clawson, Patrick."The Internationalization of Capital and Capital Accumulation in Iran and Iraq," Insurgent Sociotogisf, vol. 7, no. 2 (Spring 1977). Collins, Chuck and Felice Yeskel. Economic Apartheid in America- New York: The New Press, 2005. Cornell, Stephen and Douglass Hartmann. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2007, Crompton, Rosemary and Jon Gubbay. Economy and Class Structure, New York ; St. Martin's Press, 1978. Dahrendorf, Ralph, Class and Class Conflict in Indastriai Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959. Danaher, Kevin and Roger Burbach (eds.). Globalize This! The Battle Against the

World Trade Organization and Corporate Rule. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2000.

Bibliography

140

Davis, Horace B. Nationalism and Socialism: Marxist and Labor Theories of Nationalism to 1917. New York: Monthly Review Press. 1967. . Toward a Marxist Theory of Nationalism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1978. Davis, Mike. Prisoners of the American Dream: Politics and Economy in the History oflhe US. Working Class. London: Verso, 1986. Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore, "Some Principles of Stratification,"American Sociological Review, vol. 10, no. 2 (April 1945). Davina, I. M. et al., (eds.). Alexandra Kolfontai: SelectedArticles and Speeches. New York: International Publishers, 1984.

Della Porter, Donatella and Sidney Tarrow (eds.).TransnationolProtest and Global Activism. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2005. Devine, Jim."The Structural Crisis of U.S. Capitalism," Southwest Economy and Society, vol. 6, no. 1 (Fall 1982). Domhoff, G. William, Who Rules Ameriea? Englewood Cliffs, NJ1 Prentice-Hall, 1967. . The Higher Circles: The Governing Class inAmerica. New York: Vintage, 1971. The Powers That Be: Processes of Ruling Class Domination in America, New York: Vintage. 1978. . The Power Elite and the State. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990. . Who Rules America? Power, Politics, and Social Change. New York: McGraw Hill, 2005. Dowd, Douglas F. The Twisted Dream: Capitalist Development in the United States Since I 776. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers, 1977. Draper, Hal. Karl Marx 's Theory of Revolution: State and Bureaucracy. Parts 1 and 2. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977 Du Bois, W. E. B. "Negroes and the Crisis of Capitalism in the United States," Monthly Review, vol. 4, no.l2 (April 1953).

.

. "The Social Effects of Emancipation," and "The Class Struggle," in Meyer Weinberg (ed.), W E. B. Du Bois: A Reader, New York: Harper & Row, 1970. . "The White Masters of the World," in Virginia Hamilton (ed.), The Writings of W. E. B. Du Bois. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1975. Dworkin, Dennis. Class Struggles. London: Longman, 2007. Elsy, Geoff. The Future of Class in History: Wllot's Levi of the Social? Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007. Elison, Diane and Ruth Pearson."nimble Fingers Make Cheap Workers: An Analysis of Workers in Employment in Third World Export Processing," Feminist Review, vol. 33 (1981).

Engels, Frederick."Letter to Heinz Starkenburg" in K. Mani and F. Engels, Selected Correspondence- New York: International Publishers, 1935.

141

Bibliography

. The Origin of the Family, Private Properly

and the State. New York:

International Publishers, 1972. . The Peasant War in Germany. New York: International Publishers, 1973. .Anti-Duhring. New York: International Publishers, 1976. . Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Cla5sical German Philosophy. In vol.

26 of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Collected works, 353-398. New York; International Publishers, 1990. Erickson, Gerald and Harold L. Schwartz (eds.). Social Class in the Contemporarjy United States. Minneapolis: Marxist Educational Press, 1977. Espying-Andersen, Gosta, Roger Friedland, andErik Olin Wright."Modes of Class Struggle and the Capitalist State," Kapitalistaie, nos. 4-5 (Summer 1976). Falk, Richard. Predatory Globalization: A Critique. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999. Fantasia, Rick. Cultures ofSolidari(y: Consciousness, Action, and Contemporary American Workers, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Farhi, Farideh. "Class Stnugles, the State, and Revolution in Iran" in Berch Berberoglu (ed.), Power andStabilia*y in fheMiddle East. London; ZedBooks, 1989. Faux, Geoffrey p. The Global Class War. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2006. Fernandez, Raul and JoseF. Ocainpo. "TheLatin AmericanRevolution: A Theory of Imperialism, Not Dependence," Latin American Perspectives, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1974). Fiori, Giuseppe. Antonio Gromsci, Lye of a Revolutionary, London: New Left Books, 1970. Fletcher Jr., Bill."How Race Enters Class in the United States," in Michael Zweig (ed.), What 's Class Got to Do With It? American Society in the Twenty-first Century. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 2004. Furan, John. Fragile Resistance: Social Transformation in Iranfrom 1500 to the

Revolution. Boulder: Westview Press, 1993. . ed. The Future of Revolutions: Rethinking Political and Social Change in

the Age of Globalization. London: Zed Books, 2002.

. Taking Power:

On the Origins

of Third

World Revolutions. Cambridge,

U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Foster, John. Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution. New York: St.

Martin's Press, 1974. . "Aspects of Class in the United States: An Introduction," Monthly Review, vol. 58, no. 3 (July-August 2006). The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1986. Foster, John Bellamy and Henryk Szlajfer (eds.). The Faltering Economy: The

Problem ofAccamulotiori Under Monopoly Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1984.

Bibliography

142

Frank, Andre Gunder. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967. Frazier, E. Franklin. The Negro Family in the United States Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939. The Negro in the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1949. Race and Culture Contacts in the Modern World. New York: Knopf, 1957. . Black Bourgeoisie. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1957. Freedman, Estelle B. Feminism, Sexuality, and Politics: Essays. Chapel Hill:

. .

University of North Carolina Press, 2006. Freedman, Jane. Feminism. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press, 2001. Freidxnan, Andrew L. Industry and Labor: Class Struggle as Work antiMonopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan, 1977. Friedman, Jonathan, ed. Globalization, the State, and Violence. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2002. Frobel, Forker, Jorgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye. The New International Division of Labor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Fuentes, Annette and Barbara Ehrenreich. Women in the Global Factory. Boston: South End Press, 1983. Gabriel, Satyananda J. "A Class Analysis of the Iranian Revolution of 19'19," in J. K. Gibson-Graham, S. Res rick, and R. Wollf(eds.), Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism. Durham: Duke University Press, 2001. Gartman, David. Auto Slavery: The Labor Process in the American Automobile Industry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1986. Geschwender, James. Class, Race, and Worker insurgency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Gills, Barry K, and John Kenneth Galbraith. Globalization and the Politics of Resistance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. Gimenez, Martha."The Feminization of Poverty: Myth or Reality," The Insurgent

Sociologist, vol. 14, no. 3 (Fall 1987). Glazerman, G. Classes and Nations. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979. Glenn, Evelyn Nakano and Roslyn L. Feldberg."Degraded and Deskilled: The Prolatarianization of Clerical Work," Social Problems 25 (1977). Gold, David, Clarence Y. H. Lo, and Erik Olin Wright. "Some Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of the Capitalist State," parts 1 and 2. Monthly Review 27, nos. 5 and 6 (October and November 1975). Gosh, B. N. and Halil M. Guven, eds. Globalization and the Third World: A Study of Negative Consequences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Gran sci, Antonio. Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers, 1971. Selections from Political Writings 1921-26. New York: International

.

Publishers, 1978. Green, J. 1980. The World of the Worker: Labor in Twentieth Century America.

BibliographY

143

New York: Hill and Wang, 1978. Gurley, John G. Challengers to Capitalism, San Francisco: San Francisco Book Company, 1976. Holiday, Fred. Iran: Dictatorship and Development. New York: Penguin. 1979. . The World of 2000. New York: St. Martin's, 2001. Hamilton, Nora. "Mexicoz The Limits of State Autonomy," Latin American Perspectives, vol. 2, no. 2 (Summer 1975). Hamilton, Richard. Class and Politics in the United States. New York: Wiley, 1972. I-Ianison, Bennett, and Barry Bluestone. The Great U-Turn: Corporate Restructuring and the Polarizing ofAmerico. New York: Basic Books, 1988. Hart, Jeffrey Hart. Rival Capitalists: International Competitiveness in the United

States, Japan, ana' Western Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992. Hart-Landsberg, Martin and Paul Burkett. China and Socialism: Market Reforms' and Class Struggle. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2005. Hartman, Heidi. "Capitalism, Patriarchy and Job Segregation by Sex," Signs 1 (1976). Harvey, David. The Limits to Capital. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1982. .The Condition ofPostmodernity, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1989. The New Imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Hedley, R. Alan. Running Out of Control: Dilemmas of Globalization. West Hartford: Kumanian Press, 2002. Herman, A."Conceptualizing Control: Domination and Hegemony in the Capitalist Labor Process," The Insurgent Sociologist, vol. 11, no. 3 (1982). Hertz, Norina. Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death ofDemocrocy.

. .

New York: Free Press, 2002. Heywood, Leslie L. The Women 's .Movement Today: An Encyclopedia of ThirdWave Feminism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006. Higgott, Richard A. and Anthony Payne (eds.). The New Political Economy of Globalization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2001 Hing, Lo Shiu."Politica1 Participation in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan," Journal of Contemporarj/ Asia, vol. 20, no. 2 (1990). Hirsh, Joachim. "The State Apparatus and Social Reproduction: Elements of a Theory of the Bourgeois State." In Store and Capital: A Marxist Debate,

edited by John Holloway and Sol Picciotto. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979.

Hodges, Donald C. and Robert Elias Abu Shanab (eds.). NLF: NorionalLiberation

Fronts, 1960/1970. New York: William Morrow & Co, 1972. Holloway, John and Sol Picciotto."CapitaI, Crisis and the State." Capital and

BibliographY

144

Class, no. 2 (1977).

Holt, Alix, ed.Selected Writings off leandra Kollontot . Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill and Company, 1978. Hooglund, Eric. Land and Revolution in Iran, 1960-1980. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982. Home, Gerald, Black & Red: W E. B. Du Bois and the Af'o-American Response to Ike Cold War, 1944-1963. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986. Houtart, Francois and Francois Polet (eds.). The Other Davos Summit: The Globalization

of Resistance

to the World Economic' System. London: Zed

Books, 2001, Howard, Andrew. "Global Capital and Labor Internationalism: Workers' Response to Global Capitalism," in B. Berberoglu (ed.), Globalization and Change: The Transformation of Global Capitalism. Lanham,MD: Lexington Books, 2005. Howe, Irving, ed. The World of the Blue Collar Worker. New York: Quadrangle

Books, 1972. Howe, Gary Nigel. "Dependency Theory, Imperialism, and the Production of Surplus Value on a World Scale," in Ronald H. Chilcote (ed.), Dependency and Alarxism. Lanham, MD; Westview Press, 1982. Hudson, Michael. Super Ifnperialistnf The Origin and Fundamentals of US. World Dominance. Revised edition. Herndon, VA.: Pluto, 2003. Hunnius, Gerry, et al., eds. Workers' Control: A Reader on Labor and Social

Change. New York: Vintage Books, 1973.

Hurrell, Andrew, ed- Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1999. Hutton, Will and Anthony Giddens, eds. Global Capitalism. New York: New Press, 2000. Jabbari, Al\1nad."Econornic Factors in IIan's Revolution: Poverty, Inequality, and Inflation" in A. Iabbari and R. Olson (eds),Iran: Essays on a Revolution in the Making. Lexington, KY: Mazda Publishers, 1981. Jabbari, Ahmad and Robert Olson, eds. Iran: Essays on o Revolution in the

Making. Lexington, KY: Mazda Publishers, 1981. James, Harold. The End of Globalization: Lessons from the Great Depression, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Jayawardena, Kumari. Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World. London: Zed Books, 1986. Jazani, Biz fan. Capitalism and Revolution in Iran. London: Zed Press. 1980. Jelin, Elizabeth, ed. Women and Social Change in Latin America. London: Zed Books, 1990.

Jenkins,Rhys. Transnational Corporations and Uneven Development.New York: Methuen, 1987.

145

BibliographY

Jessop, Bob. The Capitalist State. New York: New York University Press, 1982. Kang, David C. Crony Capitalism: Corruption and Development in South Korea and the Philippines. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Kapstein, Ethan B. Sharing the Wealth: Workers and the World Economy. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. Katouzian, Homo. The Political Economy of Modem Iran: 1929-1979. New

York: New York University Press, 1981.

Katz-Fishman, Walda, Jerome Scott, and Ife Modupe."Global Capitalism, Class

Struggle, and Social Transformation," in B. Berberoglu (ed.), Globalization and Change: The Transformation

of Global

Capitalism. Lanham, MD;

Lexington Books, 2005. Keddie, Nikld R.Iran: Religion, Politics, and Society. London: Frank Cass. 1980.

. Roots ofRevolul.fon:

An Interpretive History

Yale University Press, 1981.

of Modern Iran. New Haven:

Keddie, Nikld R. and Eric Hooglund (eds.). The Iranian Revolution and the Islamic Republic. Washington, D.C.: Middle East Institute, 1982. Keenan, Roger. The Communist Party and the Auto Workers' Unions, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1980. Kessler-Harris, Alice. Gendering Labor History. Urbana: University of Illinois

Press, 2006. Keyder, Caglar. State and Class in Turkey. London: Verso, 1987. Kloby, Jerry. "The Growing Divide: Class Polarization in the 1980s," Monthly Review 39, no. 4 (September 1987). Jnequofity, Power, and Development: Issues in Political Sociology. Second edition. New York: Humanity Books, 2004. Knapp, Peter and Alan J. Spector, Crisis and Change: Basie Questions ofMorxisl Sociology. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, Publishers, 1991Kohl, Benjamin and Linda C. Fartlting.Impasse in Bolivia: Neoliberal Hegemony and Popular Resistance. London: Zed Books, 2006.

Kollontai, Alexandra."The Social Basis of the Woman Question" in Alix Holt

(ed.),Selected Writings ofA lexandra Kollontai. Westport, CT: LawrenceHill and Company, 1978. . "Sexual Relations and the Class Struggle," in Alix Holt (ed.), Selected Writings ofAleandra Kollontai. Westport, CT: LawrenceHillandCompany, 1978. ' Landau, Saul. The Pre-Emptive Empire: A Guide to Bush s Kingdom. London:

Pluto, 2003. Leggett, John C. Mining oNe Fields: Farm Workers Fight Back. Highland Park, NI: The Raritan Institute, 1991. Lembcke, Jerry. Capitalist Development and Class Capacities: .Marxist Theory

and Union Organization. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1988. Lenin, V. I. Works. vol. 3 l. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1947.

Bibliography

146

. Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 1971. . What is To Be Done? In V. I. Lenin, Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 1971.

. Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, In V. I. Lenin, Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 1971. The Store and Revolution. In V. I. Lenin, Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 197 I. . The State, in K. Marx, F. Engels, and V. I. Lenin, On Historical Materialism. New York: International Publishers, 1974. . Selected Works in Three Volumes. vol. 2. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975. Levine, Rhonda. Class Struggle and the New Deal: Industrial Labor, Industrial Capital, and the State. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1988. Loren, Charles. Classes in the United States. Davis, CA: Cardinal Publishers, 1977. Mafeje, A. "Neo-colonialisln, State Capitalism, or Revolution?" in P. Gutlcind and P. Waterman (eds.), African Social Studies. London: Heinemann, 1977. Maitre, Priyatosh. The Globalization of Capitalism in Third World Countries. Westport, CT; Praeger Publishers, 1996. Mamdani, Mahmoud. Politics and Class Formation in Uganda. New York; Monthly Review Press, 1976. Mandel, Ernest. Lore Capitalism. London: New Left Books, 1975. . . From Class Society to Communism. London: Ink Links, 1979. Marable, Manning. W E. B. Du Bois: BIaek Rodico1 Democrat. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1986. Marcus, Tessa. Modernizing Szzper-ExploiMtion. London: Zed Books, 1990. Marx, Karl. Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. New York;

.

McGraw-Hill, 1964. . Capitol. 3 vols. New York: International Publishers, 1967.

. The Eighteenth Brumaire ofLoufs Bonaparte. In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 1968.

. The Civil War in France. In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected .

Works. New York; International Publishers, 1972. Critique of the Gotha Program. In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 1972. Preface to o Contribution to the Critique o f Politicol Economy. In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 1972. Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers, 1947.

_ _ =

.. Manifesto of the Communist Party. In vol. 6 of Karl Marx and Frederick

Engels, Colleeted Works, 477-519. New York: International Publishers,

BibliographY

147

1976. Mayorga, Rene Antonio."National-Popular State, State Capitalism, and Military Dictatorship," Latin American Perspectives, vol. 5, no. 2 (Spring 1978). McCall, Leslie. Complex Inequality: Gender, Class, and Race in the New Economy. New York: Routledge, 2001. McNall, Scott, Rhonda Levine, and Rick Fantasia (eds.). Bringing Class Back In, Lanham, MI): Westview Press, 1991. McWilliams, Carey. Factories in the Field, Santa Barbara and Salt Lake City: Peregrine Publishers, 1971. Meiksins Wood, Ellen et al. (eds.). Rising From the Ashes? Labor in the Age o f "Global" Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998. . Empire of Capital. London: Verso, 2005. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press, 1968. Michels, Robert. Political Parties. New York: Free Press, 1968. Milani, Mohsen M. The Making oflran 's Islamic Revolution: From Monarchy to Islamic Republic, Second edition. Lanham, MD: Westview Press, 1994. Miles, Marina. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labor. London: Zed Books, 1990. Midband, Ralph. The State in Capitalist Society. New York: Basic Books, 1969. . "Political Forms and Historical Materialism." In Socialist Register, I975, edited by R. Miliband and J. Saville. London: Merlin Press, 1975. .Marxism and Politics. London: Oxford University Press, 1977. . Capitalist Democracy in Britain. London: Oxford University Press, 1982. . Divided Societies: Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. Mills, C. Wright. White Collar: TheAmerican Middle Classes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1951. _. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. . The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Milkman, Ruth. Gender at Work. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987. Miller, Norman and Roderick Aya (eds.). National Liberation: Revolution in the Third World. New York: The Free Press, 197 I. Moaddel, Mansoor."Class Struggle in Post-Revolutionary Iran," International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 23 (1991). "Ideology as Episodic Discourse: The Case of the Iranian Revolution," American Sociological Review 57 (June 1992).

.

. Class, Politics, and Ideology in the Iranian Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Moghadam, Fatimeh. "An Historical Interpretation of the Iranian Revolution," Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 12 (1988). Moghadarn, Valentine. "Populist Revolution and the Islamic State in Iran," in T.

Bibliography

148

Boswell (ed.), Revolution in the World System. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1989. . "Islamic Populism, Class, and Gender in Postrevolutionary Iran," in J.

.

Furan (ed.), A Century

of Revolution.° Social Movements

in Iran. Minne-

apolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994. Mohiddin, Ahmed. African Socialism in Two Countries. London: Croom Helm, 1981,

Mo11enkop£ John. "Theories of the State and Power Structure Research." Insurgent Sociologist 5, no. 3 (1975). Moody, Kim. An Injury to All: The Decline

of

American Unionism. London:

Verso, 1988.

. Workers in a Lean World: Unions in the International Economy. London: Verso, 1997. Marais, HerbertM. The SmiggleforA american Freedom. New York: International Publishers, 1944. Mosca, Gaetano. The Ruling Class. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939. Mukherjee, Aditya. Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Making

of the Indian

Capitalist Class, 1920-1947. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002. Munck, Renaldo. Politics and Dependency in the Third World. London: Zed Books, 1984. .Latin An1erica: The Transition to Democracy. London: Zed Books, 1990.

. Globalization and Labor: The New Great Transformation. London: Zed Books, 2002. Myles, John and Adrian Tureen,"Comparative Studies in Class Structure," Annual Review ofSociology 20 (1994):103-24. Nash, June and Maria Patricia Fernandez-Kelly (eds-)- Women, Men, and the International Division of Labor. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983.

Nichols, Theo and Huw Beynon. Living with Capitalism: Class Relations and the

Modern Factory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977. Nissen, Bruce."U.S. Workers and the U.S. Labor Movement," Monthly Review, 33, 1 May 1981), . Ollman, Bertell. "How to Study Class Consciousness and Why We Should," Critical Sociology, vol. 14, no. 1 (Winter 1987).

Olson, W. "Crisis and Social Change in Mexico's Political Economy," Latin American Perspectives, 46 ( 1985). Oni rode, Bade. An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy, London: Zed

Books, 1985. . A Political Economy of the African Crisis. London: Zed Books, 1989. Pakulski, Jan."The Dying of Class or of Marxist Class Theory?" International

Sociology 8, 3 (1993): 279-92. Pakulski, Jan and Malcolm Waters. The Death of Class. London: Sage, 1996.

149

Bibliography

Par itch, Leo and Colin Leys (eds). The New Imperial Challenge. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2003 Parenti, Michael. Democracy for the Few. Eighth edition. Boston: Thomson

.

Wadsworth, 2008. Pareto, Vilfredo. The Mind and Society. 4 vols. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1935. Parking, Frank. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983 . ..__. The Social Analysis of Class Structure. New York: Routledge, 2003.

_

Paisa, Misagh. Yhe Social Origins

of the Iranian Revolution.

New Brunswick:

Rutgers University Press, 1989. Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. New York: The Free Press, 1951. _. Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York: Free Press, 1960. . Societies: An Evolutionary Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1966. Pascale, Celine-Marie. Making Sense of Race, Class, and Gender: Commonsense, Power, and Privilege in the United States. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Paxton, Pamela and Melanie M. Hughes. Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2007. Peer,Richard, ed. International Capitalism and lndustrial Restructuring. Boston:

Allen & Unwire, 1987. Perlo, Victor. Super Profits and Crises: Modern US. Capitalism. New York:

International Publishers, 1988. Perrucci, Robert and Carolyn Perrucci. The Transformation of Work in the New Economy: Sociological Readings. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing, 2007. Pemieci, Robert and Earl Wysong. The New Class Society. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2003. Pesaran, M. H- "Tho System of Dependent Capitalism in Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Iran," International Journal

of Middle

East Studies, vol. 14 (1982).

Petras, James F. Critical Perspectives on Imperialism and Social Class in the Third World. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1978. . Class, State and Power in the Third World. Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmund, 1981. Capitalist and Socialist Crises in the Late Twentieth Century. Totowa, NJ: Row ran & Allanheld, 1983. . The Lej? Strikes Back: Class Conflict in Latin America in iN Age of Neoliberalism. Lanham, MD: Westview Press, 1998. . The Power oflsrael in the United States. Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2006.

. Rulers and Ruled in the U.S. Empire, Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2007. . Zionism, Militarism, andthe Decline ofU..S'. Power.

2008,

Atlanta: Clarity Press,

BibliographY

150

.Petras, James and Christian Bay."The Changing Wealth of theU. S. Ruling Class," Monthly Review 42, no. 7 (December 1990). Petras, James andHenry Veltmeyer. Globalization Unfnasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. London: Zed Books, 2002. . System in Crisis." The Dynamics of Free Market Capitalism. London: Zed Books, 2003. .Multinationals on Trial: Foreign Investment Matters. London: Ashgate, 2007. Petr's, James, Henry Veltrneyer, Luciano Vasapollo, and Mauro Casadio. Empire with Imperialism: The Globalizing Dynamics of World Capitalism.

London: Zed Books, 2006. Pfeiffer, Richard M. Working for Capitalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979. Phillips, Brian. Global Production and Domestic Decay: Plant Closings in the

I/.S New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998. Piazza, James A. Going Global: Unions and Globalization in the United States,

Sweden, and Germany. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2002. Piven, Frances Fox and Richard Cloward. The New Class War. New York: Pantheon Books, 1982. Platt, Anthony M. E. Franklin Frazier Reconsidered. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1991. Polet, Francois, ed. The State

of Resistance:

Popular Struggles in the Global

South. London: Zed Books, 2007. Poulantzas, Nicos. Political Power and Social Classes. London: Verso, 1973. . Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: New Left Books, 1975. =

. Slate, Power, Socialism. London: Verso, 1978.

.

Prashad, Vijay and Too Ballade, eds. Dispatches from Latin America: On the Frontlines Against Neoliberalism. Boston: South End Press, 2006. Prechel, Harland. Big Business and the State: Historical Transitions and Corpo-

rate Transformation, l880.s'-»l990s. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000. Quijano, Anibal. Nationalism and Capitalism in Peru. New York:Modern Reader, 1971. Rah ran, Atiur. Peasants and Classes. London: Zed Books, 1987. Raj, Shirin. Gender and the Political Economy of Development: From Nazionalism to Globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. Rajaee, Far fang. Globalization on Trial: The Human Condition and the Information Civilization. West Hanford: Kumaiian Press, 2000. Rapley, John. Globalization and Inequality; Neoliberalism 's Downward Spiral,

Lanham, MD: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004. Ricks, T. "Background to the Iranian Revolution; Imperialism, Dictatorship, and Nationalism, 1872 to 1979" in A. .labbari and R. Olsen (eds.), Iran: Essays

BibliographY

151

on a Revolution in the Making. Lexington, KY: Mazda Publishers, 1981. Roos, Patricia."SexuaI Stratification in the Workplace: Male-Female Differences in Economic Returns to Occupation," Social Science Research 10 (1981).

Rosen, Ellen Israel. Making Sweatshops: The Globalization of the U.S. Apparel Industry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Ross, Robert J. S. and Kent C. Trachte. Global Capitalism: The New Leviathan. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990. Rothenberg, Paula S., ed. Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. New York: Worth Publishers, 2007. Rothman, Robert A. Inequality and Stratu'iea!ion: Race, Class, and Gender. Fifth

edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005. Roy, Ash Narain. The Third World in the Age of Globalization. London: Zed Books, 1999. Rowbotham, Sheila. Women, Resistance, and Revolution. New York: Pantheon,

1972. Russo, John and Sherry leeLinkon, eds. New Working-Class Studies. Ithaca, NY:

ILR Press, 2005. Safe, Helen I."Runaway Shops and Female Employment: The Search for Cheap Labor," in Eleanor Leacock and Helen I. Safa (eds.), Women 's Work. South Headley, MA: Bergin and Garvey, 1986. Salt, Jarnes."Sunbelt Capital and Conservative Political Realignment in the 1970s and 1980s," Critical Sociology, vol. 16, no. 2-3 (Summer-Fall I 989). Sanderson, Stephen K. Revolutions: A Worldwide Introduction to Political and Social Change. Lanham, MD: Paradigm, 2005. Sattel, Jack."The Degradation of Labor in the 20th Century: Hand Braverman's Sociology of Work," The Insurgent Sociologist, vol. 8, no. I (Winter I978). Sayigh, Rosemary. Palestinians: From Peasants to Revolutionaries. London: Zed Press, 1979. . Schaeffer, Robert K. Understanding Globalization: The Social Consequences of

Political, Economic, and Environmental Change. Second edition. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2003 _ Seekings, Jeremy. Class, Race, and Inequality in South Africa. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005 _ Sen, Anupaln. The Store, industrialization, and Class Formations in India. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982. Sender, John and Sheila Smith. The Development of Capitalism in Africa. London: Methuen & Co., 1986. Shaiken, Harley. Work Transformed: Automation antiLabor in the Computer Age. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986.

Shivji, Issa G. Class Struggles in Tanzania. New York: Monthly Review Press,

1976. . The State and the Working People in Tanzania. Dakar: CODESRIA, 1986.

Bib]iograplty

152

Sin ha, Arum. Against the Few; Struggles of lndia 's Rural Poor. London: Zed Books, 1990. Sklair, Leslie. Assembling for Development: The Maquila Industry in Mexico and the United States. Boston: Unwire Hyman, 1989. . .. The Transnational Capitalist Class. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 200 I . . Globalization: Capitalism and Its Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. . The Sociology of Progress_ London: Routledge, 2007. Smith, Jackie G. and Hank Johnston, eds. Globalization and Resistance: Transnotional Dimensions ofSoeial Movenvenis. New York: Routledge, 2002Smith, Sheila. "Class Analysis Versus World System: Critique of Samir Amir's Typology of Underdevelopment," Journal ofContemporaryAsia, vol. 12, no. I (1982).

Smith, Tony. The Logic 0fMarx 's Capital. Albany: State University otlnew York Press, 1990. Snow, Robert T, "The New International Division of Labor and the U-S. Work Force: The Case of the Electronics Industry," in June Nash and Maria Patricia Fernandez-Kelly (eds.), Women, Men and the InternationaIDivision of Labor. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983. So, Alvin Y. "How to Conduct Class Analysis in the World Economy'?" Sociological Perspectives, vol. 33 (1990). _"The Changing Pattern of Classes and Class Conflict in China," Journal ofContemporai;vAsia, vol. 33, no. 3 (August 2003). So, Alvin Y. and Suwarsono. "Class Theory or Class Analysis? A Reexamination of Marx's Unfinished Chapter on Class," Critical Sociology, vol. 17, no. 2 (Summer 1990). Stepan-Norris, Judith and Maurice Zeitlin. "'Who Gets the Bird?' or, How the

Communists Won Power in America's Unions," American Sociological

Review 54 (August 1989). Stevis, Dimitris and Terry Boswell, Globalization and Labor: Democratizing Global Governance. Lanham, MD: Row ran and Littlefield, 2008. Stork, Joe. "Class, State, and Politics in Iraq," in Bench Berberoglu (ed.), Power and Stability in the Middle East. London: Zed Books, 1989. Sweeny, Paul M. The Theory of Capitalist Development. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1942. . Szylnanski, Albert. The Capitalist State and the Politics of Class. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1978. . The Logic oflmperialism. New York: Praeger, 1981. Class Structure: A Critical Perspective. New York: Praeger, 1983. Tabb, William K. "Neoliberalism and Anticorporate Globalization as Class Struggle," in Michael Zweig (ed.), What 's Class Got to Do With1t?American _.

BibliographY

153

Sociezjf in the Twenlyg/irst Century. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 2004. Therborn, Goran. Science, Class and Society. London: New Levi Books. 1976. . What Does the Ruling Class Do When If Rules? London: New Left Books, 1978. . The Ideology of Power and the Power of ldeology. London: New Left

Books, 1980. Tonelson, Alan, The Race to the Bofronz: Why a Worldwide Worker Surplus and Uneontrolled Free Trade are Sinking American Living Standards. Lanham,

MD: Westview Press, 2000. Tomin, Melvin. "Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis," American Sociological Review, vol. 18, no. 4 (August 1953). U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of The United Stores, 2006. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2006. U.S. Council of Economic Advisers. Economic Report of the President, 200].

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2001. . Economic Report of the President, 2007. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 2007, Van der Pijl,Kees. Transnational Classes ondlnternationalRelations. New York: Routledge, 1998. Vickers, Jeanne. Women and the World Economic Crisis. London: Zed Books, 1991.

Waas, Michael Van. "Multinational Corporations and the Politics of Labor Supply," The Insurgent Sociologist, vol. 11, no. 3 (1982)Wagner, Helmut, ed. Globalization and Unemployment. New York: Springer, 2000. Wallenstein, Immanuel. The Modern World System. New York: Academic Press, 1974. The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. . The Politics of the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. , "The United States in Decline?" In Hegemony, Globalization, and Anti-

Systemic Movements, Thomas E. Reifer (ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002.

. The Decline ofAniericon Power: The United States' in a Chaotic World. New York: New Press, 2003.

Ward, Kathryn, ed. Women Workers and Global Restructuring. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press, 1990. Warren, Bill. "Imperialism and Capitalist Industrialization," New LejtReview No. 81 (September/October 1973).

Jmperiolism, Pioneer of Capitolism. London: Verso, 1980,

Waterman, Peter. Globalization, Social Movements, and the New International-

Bibliography

154

isms. London: Mansell, 1998. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit

of Capitalism. New

York:

Scribners, 1948. The Theory of"Social and Economic Organization. Edited and with an introduction by Talcott Parsons. New York: The Free Press, 1964. . From Max Weber. Essays in Sociology. Translated, edited and with an

.

introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. . Economy and Society. 3 vols. New York: Bedminster Press, 1968. Weeks, John. Capital and Exploitation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,

1981. Weinberg, Meyer, ed. W E. B. Du Bois: A Reader. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Williams, Eric. Capitalism and Slavery. New York: Capricorn, 1966. Willie, Charles V., ed. The Caste and Class Controversy on Race and Poverty, Dix Hills, NY: General Hall, 1989. Wilson, William Julius. The Declining Signwcance of Race. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press, 1978. . The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Wolff, Edward N. Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About In. New York: New Press, 2002. . "Changes in Household Wealth in the 1980s and 1990s in the U.S.," Working Paper no. 407 (May 2004). Wood, Stephen, ed. The Degradation of Work? Skill, Deskilling, and the Labor Process. London: Hutchinson and Company, 1982. . The Transformation of Work? London: Unwire Hyman, 1989. Wright, Erik Olin. "Class Boundaries in AdvancedCapitalist Societies," New Let? Review, no. 98 (1976).

_. Class, Crisis and the State. London: New Left Books, 1978. 1

66" f n r i n i i n n

up

\Jfl\v1»1nl»

M

M

S

AP r*1...... O l s n l h - v m as

Soc.-., *':~ "l.l""\l\Y/I . Classes. London: Verso, 1985. . The Debate on Classes, London: Verso, 1989. _. Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Yates, Michael D. Naming the System: Inequality and Work in the Global Economy. New York: Monthly Review, 2003. Zaalouk, Malak. Power, Class and Foreign Capital in Egypt. London: ZedBooks, 9

1"llJl.

.11.I¢.

so

1989,

Zabih, Sepehr. Iran 's Revolutionary Upheaval. San Francisco: Alchemy Book Co., 1979.

Bibliographic

155

Zavareei, M. "Dependent Capitalist Development in Iran and the Mass Uprising of l 979," Research in Political Economy, vol. 5 (1982). Zeitlin, Maurice. Classes, Class Conflict, and the Stare. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1980, Zweig, Michael, ed. What's Class Got to Do With It? American Society in The

Twentyjirsi §Centwy. Ithaca, NY: LLR Press, 2004.

Index accumu-laton of cap tai, 56, 56, 60, 69, 89, 91, 113, 130

28, 35-36, 38-40, 45-47, 51-52, 55-61, 64, 66, 68-69, 71, 73, 74, 76, 81, 82, 86-88, 90-91, 94, 97, 99, 102 109, 110, 113-15, 123-24, 130-33 capitalist class, 20, 24, 25, 26 capitalist state, xiii-xv, 21-25, 36-37, 39, 46, 51, 62, 65-66, 69, 71, 73, 76-79, 81, 86, 88-90, 94, 113, 132-34, contradictions of, 24, 65, 86, 88, 130-33, crisis of, 78-81, 133, repression of working class by, 21-22,25-26,28,29946,51-52, 88, 90, 94, 113-16, 123-26, 129, 130,131-32 Catholic Church, 100

Africa, 52, 54-58, 61, 63-66, 79, 103,113

African Americans, 44, 115, 118, 119, 120-21 Althusser, Louis, 26-28 Asia, 52, 54, 58-61, 63, 64-65, 66, 77, 79, 103

bazaar merchants, 105-07, 109 bourgeois nationalism (See also nationalism), 87, 88, 89, 90, 91-94

bourgeoisie (See also capitalist), 22, 23,25,29,35,36,53,66,87-94 bureaucracy, 10, 13

China, xvii, 58, 60-61, 719, 80, 81 class (See also social classes), xi-xix, 5-11, 13-14, 17-30, 35-40, 42-47, 51-6'7, 69--71, 73-76, 77, 79, 80-81, 87-99, 99-100, 103-109, 101-11, 115-28, 129-32, consciousness, xiii, 21-22, 25-26, 45-46, 71, 81, 87-89, 113, 118; gender and, 113, 122-26,race and, 113-22 class structure, II, 17, 30, 35, 36, 38,

capital, 20-26, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37-40, 44-47, 51-52, 56-57, 59-61,

64--65, 69, '71, 73, 75, 76-77, 78, 80-82, 88-90,93-94, 100-104, 113, 114, 115, 116, 123, 126, 130-33, 134, accumulation of, 35-36, 40, 52, 56-57, 60, 69, 81, 89, 91, 100,

102-04, 113-115, 123-24, 130, concentration o12 44, 59 capitalism, xiv-xix, 7, 18, 21, 24, 26,

40, 47, 51-56, 58, 61-62, 66, 7, 157

Index

158

99, 102-03, 114, 116, 118, 119,

121, 130, development of in the

u.s., 38, 47, 62, 114, 116, 11s, 119, 121, 124, in the Third World, 40, 41, 51, 53, 61, 100 class struggle, xi-xix, 1, 14, 17,

80, 86, 91, 93, 94, 95, 103, 111, 113, 115, 117, 123, 11'7, 125 European Union, 79, 81 exploitation of labor (See also surplus value, worldng class),

xi-xix, 17, 20, 21, 25, 28, 35, 39, 52, 61, 66, 69, 73, 75, 113,

20-22, 23, 25-28, 29-30, 37,

124--26, 130-32

44-47, 51, 61, 65-66, 69-71, 73, 76, 79, 81, 86-88, 93-94, 96-97, 102, 107, 111, 116, 122, 124,

129-33, social classes and, xi-xix, 17, 20-22, 25-28, 47, 98, 129, 131, and the state, 20, 22-24, 69-71, 73, 76, 79, 81, 86-87, 88, 94, 109, 124, 130, 132, in the Third World, 65-66, 73,76,79,81,94,131 colonialism, xviii, 52, 56, 57, ss, 63, communism, 28 Communist Party, 45-46, 93 compradors, 54, 61, 68, 100 Davis, Kingsley, 3-4 democracy, 24, 29, 30, 61, capitalist, 24, socialist, 29, 30, 61 dictatorship, 28, 78, 93, 95, 100, 101, 106, is, 109; bourgeois, 28, 93, 95, proletarian, 28-29

distribution of income, 42-43, 47

Du Bois, W. E. B., u.n--nin.-18

elites, s-13 employment, 41, 44, 57, 64, 114, structure of, 41, 114 encomienda system, 55 Engels, Frederick, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 71, 123 ethnic conflict, 91-94, 96, 97, class nature oil 94-96, 97 ethnonationalism (See nationalism) Europe, 35, 45-46, 54-55, 56-59,

feminism (See also gender, women, patriarchy), 124, 126 feudalism, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 forces of production, 17, 18 foreign direct investment, 61-62, 64, 68, 77, 79, 102, 103, 104, 110 Frazier, E. Franklin, 117-18 functionalism, 1-6 gender (See also women), 122-26 global capitalism, 71, 74-77, 79, 81, 82-83, 129-33, 134

global economy, Sl, 62-64, 66, 75, 77, 79, 81-82, 131 globalization, xi-xix, 51, 61, 63, 66, -,-

69, 73, 74, 76, 81, 82, 129-30,

131,132 Grarnsci, Antonio, 25-27 Great Britain, 59, 62, 101

...

Great Depression, 40, 46-47, 61, 95,

117 hacienda system, 55 Hammers, 101, 109 Hezb'Allah (Party of God), 109 histoical materialism, 17-20, 26, 30 ideological hegemony, 21, 25-28, 81, 86-89, 133 ideological state appalaluses, 27 imperial state, 51, 60, 62, 65, '73,

75-76, 77, 79-81, 102, 131, 132, 134

159

Index

imperialism, xi-xviii, 51-52, 57-67, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 91, 94, 96, 101-03, 131 income, 6-8, 20, 41-43, 47, 52, 116, 119, 120, 130, distribution of, 42, 43, 47 India, 58-60, 101 Industrial Workers of the World, 45 industrialization, 61, 64-66, 68, 103

landlords, 18, 21, 52, 59-60, 66, '70, 99, 105-09, 122-23 Latin America, 52, 56, 58-59, 61, 62463, 65, 66, 79 Lenin, v.I., 23-24, 26, 28-30, 90, 131 Luxemburg, Rosa, 124

inequality, 1-14, 19-20, 75, 103,

Marxism, xii- xiii 20, 26, 27, 30 Marxist theory, xii-xiii, 1, 7, 17, 26, 27, 28, 30 l Michels, Robert, 13-14 Middle East, 54, 61, 79, 99, 101, 109,131 military, 11-13, 55, 62, 42, 57, 64, 66,67,73,75-77,78,79-83, 101-03, 131-34 Mills, C. Wright, 11-13 mode of production, 18, 19, 20, 21,

theories of, 1-14 Iran, 99-109 Iranian Revolution, 101-09, class nature of, 105-06, 107-09, class struggle and, 107-08, religion in, 106-08 Islam, 99, 101, 103-09 Islamic iimdamentalism, 101-109 Japan, 40, 61, 64, 79, 105 Java, 58 Jesuits, 103

Khomeini, Ayatollah, 104-05 Knights of Labor, 45 Kollontai, Alexandra, 123-25 labor, 17-18, 19, 20-26, 28, 30, 52,

Marx, Karl, 11, 17-24, 28-29, 71, 89

23, 27, 38, 39, 54-59, 63, 23, 25, 29, 41, 56-61, 65 , 86, 92 Moore, Wilbert E., 3-4 Mosca, Gaetano, 8, 9-11 na&0n,38,85-89,90,91,92,94,96 national liberation, 65-66, 78 nationalism, 60, '70, 85-88, 90-97,

55, 56-59, 61-65, 66, 69, 71,

and class struggle, 85, 87-88,

73, 75, 76, 77, 79, SI, 88, 89,

93-94, 96-97, and ethnic

93, 103, 107, 115-19, 122-28,

conflict, 91-92, 94, 96, 97, and the state, 62, 89, 90, 91, 92, 97,

132-34, division of, 17-18, 19, 20-22,26,39,45,47,52, 56-57, 59, 61-64, 66-67, 77, 81, 89, 113-14, 116-17, 122-24, 126, 130-32, exploitation of 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, 35, 52, 66, 69, 73, 75, al, 113-17, 120-21, 123-26, 130-32, unions, 45-46, 107

labor movement, 48-49, 76, 103, 115, 116, 130

108, as ideology, 87, 88, 89,

90-92, 94, 96, 97, 98; bourgeois, 87,88,89,90,91-94 neocolonialism, xi-xviii, 51, 55, 62, 63, 64, 65, '66, 67 n¢8oliberalism.,_513. 63,

63'

October Revolution, xvii, 28

oppression, 113-26, gender, 113, 122, 123-26, racial, 113-21

Index

160

Palestinians, 101, 109 Parenti, Michael, 9, 38 Pareto, Vilfredo, 8-9, 12 Paris Commune, 45 Parsons, Talcott, 1, 3

progressive, 10001, 108 revolution, 21, 22, 24-25, 28-29, 37, 38, 45, 52, 61-62, 65-66, 70, 76-77, 79, 81-82, 72, 79, 81, 88-89, 92, 93, 99-109, 131,

patriarchy, 113, 122-26, capitalism and, 113, 122-26, class and,

socialist, 29, 93, state and 23, 24-27, 28-30, 51, 61-62, 70, 76,

113, 122-26 peasants, 21, 24, 53, 54, 59, 60, 61,

131 ruling class, 9-11, 22, 23-24, 25, 26,

64, 78, 81, 102, 103, 104, 105,

27, 28, 29, 57, 70-71, 102, 109

106,108, 109, 123

Perlo, Victor, 41, 114 petty bourgeoisie, 36, 53, 92, 93, 94,

Shah Reza Pahlavi, 99-101, 106-08 slavery, 18, 23, 38-39, 55-57,

95, 97 Piatt, Anthony, 116, 117 political elite, 11 political power (See also state), 8, 9, 10, 20, 22, 23, 30, 37, 56, 62, 73, 93, 96-97, 108 Poulantzas, Nicos, 27, 28 power elite, 11-12 privatization, 95 profits, 20, 38, 40-42, 64, '11, 76, 78-80, 82, 126, 132 proletariat (See also working class), 21,22,28,29,36,40,45,53, 59,70,76,82,87-88,117,125, 133, dictatorship of 28-29

113-15, 117, 118, 119, in

Africa, 55-57, 113, in the

Americas, 55, 57, ancient, 23, in the U.S. South, 114 social classes (See also class), xi-xix, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 47, 52, 96, 122, 129, 131, and class struggle, xi-xix, 17-20, 22, 47, 96, 131, 133, polarization of, 47, 134,and the state, 18-20, 22, 52, 96, 131 social system, 1, 3-4, 51, 117 social transformation, xi, xix, 9, 12, 17, 20, 38, 39, 51, 63, 64, 66, 83, 97, 99, 105, 129, 131-33 socialism, xvii, 30, 52, 95

race, 101, 109, 113-21; and class,

Spain, 55-56, 58

101, 113-21, and African Americans, 113-21 racism, 44, 113-21, class nature of, 113--21, 126 relations of production, 15, 18-20, 25,36,38,55,56,58,59,60, 61, 68, 87, 123, 132 religion, 25, 97, 99-101, 104, 106-08, and class, 25, 97, and state, 25, 99-101, 104, 10608

state, 2, 8, 11-12, 18-20, 21-30, 38-39, 45, 46, 51-52, 54-55, 57, 59-62, 64-66, 69-71, 73, 75-81, 85-97, 99-109, 113, 126, 130-33, 134, capitalist, 5, 6, 14, 21,23-25,36-37,39,46,51, 62, 65-66, 69-71, 73, 75-78, 79-81, 86-94, 101, 102, 103, 104, 10609, 110-111, 113, 130-33, class nature of, 28, 30,

religious fundamentalism, 99

38-39, 52, 69-71, 85-86, 89-90,

religious movements, 99-101, los,

94, 96-97, 105, 107-08, 113,

161

Index

126, 131, and revolution, 23, 24, 28-30, 45, 51, 61-62, 65, '70, 77, 79, 88-89, 93, 99-108, 133;

proletarian, 29, 30, 31 32, 82, 88 status, social, 6, 7,

s, 117, 122

Stinchcombe, Arthur, 5 stratification, 1-6, 10, 14, 119, theories of, 1-5, 10 strikes, 44-45, 66, 79, 103, 132 structural functionalism (See

functionalistn) Superstructure (See also state), 18-20,25,27,30 surplus value (See also exploitation of labor), 20, 21, 31, 35, 40, 52, 130, rate of if the U.S., 41

Taliban, 100 Third World societies, 51-54, 61, 77, class SITLICHIIC of, 51, 53, 61-65 trade unions (See unions) transnational corporations, if 51-52, 53, 62-66, 73, 76, 77, 80,131 Tudeh Party, 107, 110 Tomin, Melvin, 4-5 unions, 26, 45-46, 107 United States, 12, 14, 35, 38, 40-44, 47,62,64-65,75-78,80,91,

93, 101, 103, 108, 109, 111, 113-21 wage labor (See also working class), 18, 20, 23, 42, 54-55, 56, 58, 59, 89, 114 wealth, 5, 8, 18, 20-22, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 52, 56-57, 59-60, 73, 90, 102, 114, 125,

126, 130, concentration of, 40, 61, distribution of, xiv, 42-43, 47 Weber, Max, 6-8 White Revolution, 99, 101-02, 106, 109 Willie, Charles, 117, 120, 121 Wilson, William Julius, 117-21 women (See also gender, patriarchy), 122-26, under capitalism, 126, 128 working class (See also proletariat, wage labor), xii-wi, 20-22, 23-26, 28, 29, 35-37, 40, 43-45, 47, 51-53, 59, 64-67, 69, 73, 75-77, 79, 81-82, 88-90, 93-94, 95-96, 103, 106, 113-17, 123-25, 129-33, 134 woricl* economy, 38, 46, 57-58, 73, 79, 81, 82, 101, 10'7

World War I, 61

_ -

World War II, 40, 62, 64, 65, 79

About the Author Dr. Berch Berberoglu is Foundation Professor of Sociology, Director of Graduate Studies in Sociology, and Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Nevada, Reno. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon in 1977. He has been teaching and conducting research at the University of Nevada, Reno for the past 30 years. Dr. Berberoglu has written and edited 26 books and many articles. . finest recent books include Labor and Capital in the Age of Globalization (2002), Globalization of Capital and the Nation-State (2003), Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict: Class, State, and Nation in the Age ofGlobalization (2004), and Globalization and Change: The Transformation of Global Capitalism (2005). His areas of specialization include political economy, globalization, development, political sociology, nationalism and ethnic conflict, classfrace/gender, and comparative-historical sociology. His latest book is The State and Revolution in the Twentieth Century: Major Social Transformations of

Our Time (Row ran and Littlefield, 2007).