Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EDWARD ANDREW
University
of Toronto
science
politique,
XV|:3
578
EDWARD ANDREW
support the attribution.0 Draper and Cohen cite both passages as sources
for the distinction but, whereas Draper asserts that "this distinction is
made mainly in/' Cohen more judiciously asserts that "the distinction is
taken from" The Eighteenth Brumaire and The Poverty of Philosophy 7
Before looking at the passages cited as the textual source of the
distinction between a class in itself and a class for itself, let us clarify
what the commentators mean by the distinction, Cohen provides a
forceful defence of the distinction, thinking it essential to establish a
strictly structural definition of class (in itself) distinct from any political
or cultural expression of class identity (for itself). Cohen asserts that "a
person's class is established by nothing but his objective place in the
network of ownership relations, however difficult it may be to identify
such places neatly. His consciousness, culture, and politics do not enter
the definition of his class position/'* Indeed, "not even his behavior is
an essentia] part of a person's class identity. Przeworski, who
deprecates the distinction, accepts Cohen's view that the distinction
entails an opposition between the economic as objective reality and the
political and cultural as subjective expressions of the underlying
economic reality. Przeworski writes:
The difficulties encountered by Marxist theory in analysing the class structure of
concrete capitalist societies had already appeared at the time of the formation of
the socialist movement. Their roots are to be found in the formulation by Marx of
the problematic in which the processes of class formation are seen as a necessary
transition from a "class in itself to a "class for itself/* a formulation in which
economic relations have the status of objective conditions and all other relations
constitute realms of subjective actions. &
of Revolution*
of
Abstract. This note argues that, widespread opinion to the contrary, Marx did not make a
distinction between a class in itself and a class for itself but between a class against capital
and a class for itself, Marx's formulation of a 'class against capital exhibits a political
dimension lacking in a class in itself; political institutions and arrangements are
not simply the instrument or the expression of a pre-existing class structure but rather
condition or shape the class structure. The implications of the erroneous attribution to the
theoretical understanding of class formation as well as practical politics are explored,
Malgne les opinions largement repandues Marx n'a pas fait de distinction entre
une classe en soi et une classe pour soi, mais plutdt il a fait une difference entre une classe
contre le capital et une classe pour soi. La formulation marxienne dune * classe contre le
capital *a une dimension politique qui ne se retrouve pas dans une classe en soi ; les
institutions et compromis politique s ne sont pas sirnplement T instrument ou Texpression
d'une structure de classes pre-existente, mais plutdt ils faconnent ou conditionnent la
structure de classes. Dans eet article I'auteur evalue les consequences de la mauvaise
interpretation decet aspect du marxisme sur la comprehension theorique de la formation
des classes ainsi que sur la pratique politique,
Resume,
580
EDWARD ANDREW
....
struggle. 12
Class in
581
Marx's class analysis, Cohen recognizes that Marx often meant by class
a contender for political power. Cohen cites a few of Marx's statements
such as . . .the proletariat can act as a class only by constituting itself as
a political party11 and every moment in which the working class comes
oat as a class against the ruling classes and attempts to force them by
pressure from without is apolitical movement?'15 Cohen points out that
what fails to act or come out as a class is nothing other than the working
class. Thus, like the peasantry, the industrial workers who fail to be a
class for itself are merely a class in itself. However, The Communist
Manifesto states: The organisation of the proletarians into a class, and
consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by
the competition between the workers themselves?'16 Do competing
workers constitute a class? In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels
write: The separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to
carry on a common battle against another class; otherwise they are on
hostile terms with each other as competitors?'17 This formulation
suggests that individual proletarians only constitute a proletariat or a
working class on condition that they are organized in trade unions and
political parties. Thus Marx's texts do not unambiguously support
Cohens structural definition of class or his view that the structure of
capitalist industry forms the working class (as distinct from Thompsons
and Przeworskis view that workers actively contribute to the making of
the working class). Cohens representation of historical materialism
then is an attempted clarification rather than a faithful reproduction of
Marxs views on class,
The analytic distinction of a class in itself and a class for itself allows
Cohen to distinguish one's class position from any political or cultural
expression of ones class identity. This distinction does not seem to
parallel Marxs distinction in The Eighteenth Brumaire regarding the
French peasant forming an economic class but not a political class. For
Marx says that the French peasants form a class insofar as millions of
families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their
mode of life, their interests and their culture from those of the other
classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter. That is,
Cohens class in itself excludes culture as a component of class whereas
Marx's presentation of the peasant class includes it. Moreover the
15 Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History, 76. Emphasis in the original.
16 Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol, 6, 493.
17 Ibid., Vol. 5, 77,
582
EDWARD ANDREW
Insofar as this class psychology fails to express the reality of these relations in a
significant sector of the individuals that make up a class, these human aggregates
may be thought of as a class in itself.
But it will be a classfor itself in a social situation in which it becomes aware
of these relations in the form of a political ideology that clearly defines the real
conditions of its existence and the contradictions between those conditions and
its interests as a social class, and which proposes the means of overcoming this
situation.1*
583
inner truth or abjective reality, is inaccessible for those who hold by the
outward appearance of class conflict, the acting out of a class identity in
opposition to other organized groups or classes* Once the class in itself
has been identified (with all the rigor and difficulty that Dos Santos and
Cohen acknowledge) one can then deduce the nature of the class for
itself or what the politics and consciousness of that class ought to be
(which lamentably will diverge from what the political culture of that
class in fact is)*
Further, does a class in itself remain unaltered in the course of its
political engagements, in its class alliances and class struggles? Is the
class structure simply to be viewed as the cause of political practices and
state institutions* and political parties merely the effect or the
expression of the balance of class forces? Are states and parties merely
the instruments of pre-existing classes or is the political realm a sphere
for the formation, deformation and reformation of classes? If political
engagements alter the class structure (a point that any political activist
would be hard pressed to deny) and are not merely the expression or
instruments of a pre-established class structure, the class in itself has
come out of itself. Przeworski, who sees classes as the effects of
struggles conditioned by a conjuncture of economic, political and
ideological factors, wishes to reject the formulation of class in itself and
for itself and replace it with a concept of a class in struggle. **21 This
formulation, Przeworski thinks, will emancipate classical Marxism from
economic determinism, opening Marxism up to a more pluralist
understanding of social development. All I would point out in opposition
to Przeworski is that Marx's formulation was a class against capital and a
class for itself and that Przeworski 's class in struggle is similar in
signification to Marx's class against capital*
The antithesis of the class against capital and the class for itself
presents less ambitious claims upon the social theorist than the
antithesis of the class in itself and the class for itself. However it is
perhaps questionable whether a class, without a sustained period of
social hegemony, could exist for itself, that is, articulate its own
understanding of the world, legitimate its interests and aspirations as
norms of conduct and forms of cultural expression, free of the ideology
of hitherto dominant classes. But then a class for itself is not
necessarily the pre-condition for a revolutionary seizure of power. If the
English gentry or the French bourgeoisie required the scientific realism
of Dos Santoss, Cohen's or Draper's class for itself," we would still be
awaiting the revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries*
The capitalist class only existed "for itself that is, represented its
hegemony in its own terms independent of patriarchal relations,
authoritative rather than market forms of allocation, codes of honour,
hereditary status and other marks of pre-capitalist society a good
584
EDWARD ANDREW
many years after the revolutions in Britain and France , As a class against
the aristocracy but not yet for itselfstill dependent upon political
and cultural forms of the aristocracy the bourgeoisie, constantly
changing its character and composition, rose to social and political
dominance. By analogy, as a class against capital but not yet for
itself still dependent upon political and cultural forms of the
bourgeoisie the working class, constantly changing its character and
composition, organized and disorganized on sectoral, regional, ethnic
and sexual lines, will have to engage in prolonged struggle for social and
political dominance, For class consciousness is as much the effect as the
cause of class struggle.
The In itself/for itself dichotomy may well represent a serious
barrier to working class self-definition and to the formation of an
effective politics of labour* A class in itself is constituted by the
economic structure prior to political and cultural engagements rather
than constituting itself in partisan combination and combat* As distinct
from the self-definition of a class against capital, a class in itself is
defined by a vanguard, armed with the science to grasp objective
processes, which then define class consciousness on the basis of its
understanding of the objective (but never specified) interests of the
workers. The for itself is imputed to workers by intellectuals rather
than emerging in the course of the workers struggle against capital. The
misattribution to Marx of the dichotomy of class in itself/for itself
represents a Leninist constriction of Marxist politics and a doctrinal
limitation to empirical application of class analysis.