C H A P T E R - III

QUANDARY OF 'CLASS' AND 'SUBJECT' IN MARXISM

QUANDARY Of 'CLASS'ANP 'SUBJECT' IN ~qxiSM

The indeterminate nature of the new middle class, more

or less, stems directly from the crucial problems encountered

within the theories of class. It needs no reiteration that

various traditions of class historically emerged mainly in the

Western Capitalist Societies. All theories of class whether

based on production relations, market situations or subjective

criteria etc., have remaimed somewhere concerned about the inse­

parable ties between capitalism and society. To be specific,

class concepts have, from the very outset, been widely influenced

by the central paradigm of capitalism. However rec~nt develop­

ments within advanced capitalism have produced far reaching

consequences in the class structure of capitalist societies -­

making strenuous demands on class theory. 1 Most of the class

analyses are thus increasingly confronted with serious difficul­

ties and facing practical dilemmas (e.g. the question of the

new middle class).

Besides that, the limitations of such theories become ever

more pronounced and aggravated while studying societies in which

different modes of production and reproduction are simultaneou­

sly existing: and features like national, tribal and caste

etc., form the significant constituents of social structure.

For instance in India, while according primacy to the

capitalist mode of production, state and the attendant

1. Blom, R., 'The Relevance of Class Theory', acta Sociologica, Vol.28, no.,3, 198~, pp.l71-92.

91 contradictions, Marxist scholars2 have simply seen caste,

religion and other cultural specificities of Indian society as

subservient to class relations. Weberian and neo-Weberian

theoretical postulates which emerged in the West have also ~een

increasingly absorbed with suitable modifications in the studies

of caste and class. 3 Be.sides that determination of structural

features of caste and class by generating meaningful analytical

and relational typologies has significantly contributed to the

understanding of caste~class relationship -- rendering theoreti­

cal constructs universally operational and comparable cutting . 4

across regional and cultural limitations. Classes have also

been visualized as operating within the framework of castes as

the later are simultaneously experiencing the ongoing process 5 . of adaptive transformation. The ~ole of colonial experience

2.

3.

4.

~.

For variants of Marxist approach, see;. Desai, A.R., Social Backgroynd of Indian Natignalism, Bombay: Popular Book Depot, 1948; Desai, A.R., State ~nd Society in India: Essays in Disseo1, Bombay: Popularrakashan, 1975; Bettelheim, c., India lndepenfent, London: Me Gibbon & Kee Ltd., 1968; and Thorner, D., and and Labour in India, Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1974, See, Beteille, A., Caste. Class and Powex, Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1965; Bhatt, A., Caste. Class a~d Politic~, Delhi: Manohar Book Service, 1975; and Aggarwal, .c., Caste. Refiftion and Power, New Delhi: Shri Ram Centre fpr Industria elations, 1971. See, D'Souza, v.s., ~ocial St~cture of a Planned City-­Cbapdigarh, New Delhi: Orient ongmans, 1968; D'souza, V.S., 1Caste Structure in India in the Light of Set Theories', IurrtnJ AothropolBgy, 1972; and D'Souza, v.s., 'Social

nequa !ties and evelopment in India', Economic an~ Poli;tis;al Weekly, Yo.l~l.O.__.N$49, 197~. Singh, Y., 'Caste and Class s Some Aspects of Continuity and Change', Sociological Bylletin, Vol,, XVI~ ... J~o-.2, 1968.

92 is noted yet another dimension in the formation of caste and

class relationship. 6 Further efforts are being made to

understand Indian social formation, caste-class relationship

and their transformation within a framework comprising of ·_:

dialectics, structural processes, historicity ·and ideological

(cultural) and political consciousness. 7

There are a whole range of complex issues related to

agrarian structure, peasantry, caste, tribe, kinship, religion

and culture, which co~stitute the Indian social reality. 8 The

emergent trend towards indigenization and the increasing use of

history etc., to unearth the structural dynamics of classes and

castes alongwith other constituents of Indian society are merely

reflective of a pronounced feeling of uneasiness towards

Western paradigms. That the concealed modern socio-political

metaphor germane to traditional structures has remained

indeterminate within the ongoing social and economic transforma­

tion in India is a strong indictment against the theoretical

and conceptual potential of Western class theories. The

6. Saberwal, s., 'Inequality in Colonial India', Cont[iby!ions to Indian Sociology (New; Series), Vol_.l3_.~No.2, 1979.

7. Sharma, K.L., F S I e 1

orthcoming, 8. For a Critical assessment of various issues and the approa­

ches involved in their study in relation to caste, class see Singh, Y., 'Sociology of Social Stratification', in,

R S o S 1 ,

suitability and relevance of various class perspectives

(having historical roots in the West) for the analysis of enti­

rely different societies such as India, has already been seriously

questioned. 9 More and more the focal issues of class in the

Third World are becoming the glaring 'blind spots' of Western . 10

class theory.

Of late class research has no doubt diversified to cover

a good many areas viz. socialization, state, ideology, conscioua­

ness and even way of life and subjectivity etc. but tbe

fundamental problems of class theory -- i.e. the basis for ,-··

determining class structure and the relation between class loca-

tion 11 and class action -- remain unresolved. The processes

involved in the formation of 'classes' at the level of political

are hazy. Moreover, •the most important blank spots in the

theory of class concern the processes whereby 'economic classes'

become 'social classes• and whereby in turn the latter are . 12 related to other social forms". What is more the 'social'

essence' of classes is unclear~ and the very definition of

'class• is a much dispUted issue.

AN OVERVIEW OF CLA§S THEORIES

The usage of 'class' in social theory appeared by the

beginning of nineteenth century, and was part of a new

9.

10.

Sharma~ K.L~ Essays yo Soc1fl S!rat!fi&atiQD , Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 980. he study lays bare the · . inadequacies and ambiguities of various class theories; and thoroughly reveals the misconceptions of class and their negative consequences on studies in India. Lloyd, P., 6 Thitd World Ptoletariat? London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982, p.124.

11. Blom, R., op.cit., 198~, p.l.71. 12. Giddens, A., Jbe Class §!ructy.e Of j:.be f4!a.oced ~2c1J:U!s,

London: Hutchinson, 1973, p.J05.

94 language reflective of social change associated with the

13 industrial revolution in England. Prior to that much used

terms for classificaticn were 'rank', 'order' and 'estate' etc.

But soon, •during the nineteenth century --- 'class' ousted ~

'estate' in social theories, ideological declarations and the

programmes of social movements•. 14 However, the adoption of

'class• -- as an integral part of his work -- by Marx, was the

watershed in the concept's history. No doubt class played a key

role in his analysis C?f 1 pure capital ism' and remained throughout

central to his project, but it was given nowhere a formal

definition by him. It was used in varying degrees of abstraction

as suited to particular purposes and contexts. and Marx did

not provide a consistent theory of class. What ensued him, was

a relentless struggle among his followers to search for a

• genuine Marxist theory of class through the exposition of his

work.l 5

It may be mentioned in the passing that classes connote

different meanings while conceived at the level of production

13.

*

See, Briggs, A., 'The Language of 'Class' in the Early Nineteenth Century England', in, Flinn, M.W., & Smout, T.C., Essays in Social Hi§!OIY, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974. Ossowski, s., Class Siruct~re iD tb! Social Conscioysness, London: Routledge & Kegan aul, 1963, p.123 • • ,.,, Draper notes the tendency, "for pointless quotation­mongering, through which a new theory of class can be dis­covered in Marx every. !Week". Draper, H. , Karl Marx' 1 Th,tory of RevolvtiPDt. Vol...l, New York: 1977, p.l7.

The present overview is limited to recent developments within Marxist theories of class.

95

relation; seen as statistically determined strata based on

crlteria of education, income etc., or as categories perceived

through subjective evaluations indicating social prestige. The

latter is characteristic of 'functional' and 'attributional'

approaches those emerged in the 1940s &50s16 and have been widely

followed up in the American studies, Another aspect of class

remained limited to the investigation of the dependence of class

c~ncepts on situation and on the authority of classics of socio­

logy.17 Yet another influential trend, following Weber, has been

to view classes based on ~onsumption criteria at the level of

market relations.

As noted earlier, Weber, while building a critique of

Marx's theory of class had sought to delink the concept of class

from the context of production relations and had situated it

within the relations of distribution (market, life style and

attendant .status). In this scheme of things, class situation

is equated with market situation; class system becomes equiva­

lent to status system -- a function of subjective evaluations

and ,: not of objective criteria. SOcial structure turns out to

be a gradational array of continuous strata. Futhermore, the

overconcern with empirical descriptions of socio-economic

nature -- devoid of any historical perspective -- obscures the

analysis of class structure to the extent that almost amounts

to the perdition of the notion of class.

16.

17.

e.g. Parsons, T., 'An Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification'• ~rican Jouroal ~ Sociologx, Vol.s~. !2491 oo.S41-62; avis, K;, and oorl w.E.{ Some principles Of Stratification", American so,io R91$8 RtyiJw, Vol.10.No.2, 194~, pp.242-49. See, e.g. 8endix, R., and Lipset, S.M.(tds.t Cfass. Staty1 apd ~~ London: Routel•dge and Kegan Paul, 974 tfirstr ed.953 ; for several other impressions in the 1970s see also, Beteille, A., Social Inequality, Panguins: 1969.

96 Since Marx's thought has been subjected to both the unre-

18 lenting criticism and tenacious defence; Marxist class theory

includes a range Qf theoretical approaches and interpretations

of Marx. Following Marx, classe·s for long were defined only in

terms of their relationship to the means of production. This

limited class conception -- though not originally intended by

Marx -- stemmed directly from or at least cohered broadly with

the description of class structure provided in the ~om~unist

Manifesto: 19 All history is the history of class struggles;

characteristic of every mode of production are two antagonistic

principal classes, -- the exploiters and the exploited. Society

under capitalism, as a whole is splitting up more and more into

two great classes -- the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Central to this political tract was the vision of impending

socialism to be materialized through class struggle. By

intellectual ingenuity proletariat was the chosen class to

fulfill this historic mission.

At the time of this formulation the meaning of proletariat

was,more or less,self evident : 20 poor and miserable, thrown off

the land, and forced to sell hiaself -- piecemeal as a

commodity, like every other article of commerce to a cap4talist.

Proletariat was called into existence through the introduction

of machinery and was begotten directly through manafacture -- as

18. Bottomore, T.B., Classts in Modern Sgciety, London: Allen & Unwin, 196~, p.21.

19.

20.

Marx, K. and Engles, F., Tbe Commnnlst ~nifesto, ed. by Harold Laski, New York: Pantheon Books, 1967. Przeworski, A., CaR1~11am and Social Democrasy, Cambridge: Cambridge University ress, 198~, pp.55-~.

97 an appendage of machine. Above all by proletariat meant ' exP­

loitation' within the production process. All the criteria i.e.

the relation to the means of production, manual and productive

labour, poverty and degradation furnished a consistent image

of the proletariat.

a ••• in the middle of the nineteenth century the theore­

tical connotation of the concept of the proletariat, defined

in terms of separation from the means of production corresponded

closely to the intuitive concept of proletariat conceived in

terms of manual, principally industrial labourers". 21

There was no aahiguity between the material conditions

and theoretical description; the class position and class situ­

ation of the proletariat were synonymous.

However, soon the class concept of proletariat had lost

much of the immediate intuitive sense that it conveyed at the

time of the Communist Manifesto. In the 1888 English edition

of the Manifesto, Engels felt the need to add a footnote

defining proletariat: " ••• the class of modern wage labourers

who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced

to selling their labopr power in order to live". 22 Henceforth

through· Kautsky onwards up to Soviets, this defination (with

slight variations) was received with much enthusia.m within

Marxist circles, academic fora and research institutes all over

the world. The class concept having distanced from proletariat

21. ibid. p.57. 22. Marx, K. and Engels, F., op.cit., 1967, p.l31.

98 started behaving in an undulating fashion signifying both

'narrow' and 1 broad 1 meanings. The •narrow sense' continued

to represent ma·nualwage-earners in industry, transport and

agriculture; while the broad definition covered all those who

did not own the means of production and were forced to sell

their labour power in order to survive (extended at times even

to small producers, traders and farmers be£ause the little

property they had,did not prevent their exploitation).

Przeworski notes23 that by 1958, this definition included ~·

secretaries and executiV·es, nurses and corporate lawyers, teachers

and policemen; computer operators and exe~utive directors.

Separated from the means of production and compelled to sell

their labour power for a wage, they were all . proletarians.

However, a feeling of uneasiness continued to be pronounced.

For whatever reasons, some of the proletarians neither actad

nor thought like proletarians. Proletariat was very much there

in society, but it was stripped off the original sense. Divorce

between 'class' and 'proJetariat' was complete.

Crisis in capitalism did not develop, class structure

did not polarize, socialism was nowhere in sight; what was

more, the very centre-piece of Marxist theory i.e. 'class'

started behaving in an erratic fashion hence striking a lasting

blow on Marxism. Proletariat eonceived as: blue-collar, ··

white-collar, manual worker, wage-earner, productive & unpro­

ductive worker, 'exploited masses', 'oppressed people' etc.,

all became symptomatic of an obvious theoretical difficulty of

23. Przeworski, A., op.cit., 1985, p.57.

99 defining classes in terms of relations to the means of

production or of objective economic determination of class.

At last the absence of a consistent theory of class was

strongly felt and the need to build one was listed on top of

Marxist agenda. Confronted with this formidable challenge,

Marxist scholars have -- particularly since 60s & 70s -- been

actively engaged to fill this lacuna in Marxism. Marx's ..

voluminous work has been thoroughly researched; the areas

which till recent had _remained little known and obscure, have

also been closely scrutinized e.g. guidelines for locating classes

have been searched in the earlier drafts of 'Capital' and in the

methodological passuses in the introduction to 'Grundrisse124

etc. The various efforts aimed at the construction of a

Marxist theory of class have resulted in German and Anglo-french

debates.

German And fvlglo-Frencb Class Debates.

The German debate, 25 in general, is constitutive of two

broad trends of class research. On the one band the concern

has remained with the further development of class concepts

out of Marx's critique of political economy i~e. building of

a class theory as proposed in eapital. 26 Making a distinction

between the surface forms of capitalism ~nd its essence, it

3. 2~. For German debate and throughout for many of the points made

below, see, Blom, R., and Kivinen, M., 'Jhe Relevance And Dimensions of Class Theories'! Paper presented at XI World Congress of Sociology, New De hi, 1986.

26. Marx, K., Capital (3 Vols.l, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978.

100

is argued, that class is based on the 'form determinants' of

capitalist production relations. Consideration is also given

to the laws of development of capital, accumulation processes,

the tendency of the profit rate to fall etc.; and their

consequences for class structure. Theoretical derivations

are also extended to study the forms of consciousness. By

demystifying statistical and judicial categories such as

'manual workers', 'white-collar workers' and civil servants etc.

it is revealed that hidden behind these categories, in fact,

are different class positions.

On the other hand, German class analysis has evolved out

* of the theory of State Monopoly Capitalism, visualizing class

structure in the context of state monopoly domination. The

central concern of this trend has been to ascertain the extent to

which . labour has developed into a commodity and is subordinated

·to the laws of development of ca]Oi tal. Top echelons of white­

collar workers employed by public and private capitals, and

state are considered as part of the state monopoly bourgeoisie.

The middle strata engaged in wage labour are seen as incoherent

and differentiated -- being located somewhete between the

bourgeoisie and the working class. In sum: the German Debate

is far from coherently explaining that part of class structure

which is neither much 'capital' nor 'labour'. This part which

is more or less, constitutive of 'new middle class' is at best

id d ' ~ ' a • ' cons ere as incoherent, differentiated or contradictory in

class character.

• Note the Marxist theory of class' tendenci to seek refuse in'stateL- an institution posited externa to'civil'society'.

101 27 The Anglo-French debate, particularly started from

Poulantzas' concern with the role of ideological and political

relations as determinants of classes and as reproducers of the

social structure. The latest contribution in this tradition

is that of Eric Olin Wright, whose central concern for long

remained with the capital relations of domination/subordination.

He has recently retreated from his earlier position to stage

a come-back of 'exploitation' in the centre of class analysis.

Besides this, the Anglo-French debate has remained broadly

concerned with the methods of control of work process, the

differences in domination/exploitation positions within the

production process or to what extent various strata~bear the

tasks of global capital etc. Considerable attention has also

been devoted to the elaboration of concepts necessary for the

study of class struggles and cla-ss relations. The limitations

of various theoretical currents (within this debate), the

difficulties encountered by them in the class analysis and

their particular inability to produce a coherent and concrete

analysis of the new middle class, have already been discussed

in ample detail in the preceding chapters.

Class theories are not only confronted with difficulties

while examining changes in class structure, but the problems

encountered are also acute and complex, at the level of the

formation of classes into conscious and active subjects. At

this level the famous distinction -- introduced by Marx in the

27. The various important contributions within the Anglo-Freneh debate i.e.of ~Poulantzas, Wright, Crompttn, Gubb~y Carchedi etc. have already been thoroughly discussed in the earlier chapters.

102 Poverty of Philosophy28-- between class-in-itself and class­

for-itself, is invoked. Class-in-itself is limited to the

'objective' and 'economic' base, and class-for-itself is chara­

cteristic of organization and consciousness of solidarity.

The problematic of the class formation becomes formulated in

terms of the transformation of 'objective' (economic) into sub­

jective (political and ideological class relations). Two

particular consequences are considered important:

In the deterministic sense, the objective relations

necessarily become transformed into subjective relations. Since

class interests are seen as the product of objective conditions,

and politics is a struggle for the realization of these interets;

by implication it is argued that objective class positions

(positions within the relations of production) find an ultimate

reflection in political actions.· To be specific,· in time, obje­

ctive class relations spontaneously find expression in politics

and class consciousness. Of relevance, in this context, are

the views (in a limited sense) of Rosa Luxemburg, 29 particularly

her 'spontaneism•. The transformation of objective into subje-

* ctive class is necessary, however, the only existence of the

party is not enough. Repeated confrontations (e.g. mass strike

etc.) lead to the making of a political organization, that in

28. Marx, K., The Poverty of Philosophy, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975.

29.

•

Nettl, P., Rosa Lyxemburg, London:l969; for alternative interpretations of Luxembur~•s views, see, Fr~lick, P., Rosa Luxemburg: Htr Life an Woxk, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972; and Magri, L. =problems of the Marxist Theory of the Revolutionary Partyl, New Left Review 1 No.60,1970,pp. 97-128. . More particularly for Luxemburg, class (proletariat ) is subject-object of history.

103

turn results in increased class conflicts. These class

conflicts further enhance the organization and consciousness of

a class (proletariat here) and so on. Thus history marches on

in a dialectical fashion. 30

On the other hand, in the 'voluntaristic' sense, it is

argued that objective conditions do not spontaneously lead to

political class organization. Glass formation at the political

level materializes only by the organized interventioa of an

external agent i.e. party. The process of 'spontaneous'

organization stops short of culminating into a political

formation. Given the concrete historical conditions of crisis,

class formation at political level can only take place under

the ideological guidance of a 1 party'. 31 The thesis is

supported by . ~arguing in retrospection that even the idea of

socialism had become available to workers, only from above.

Socialism had originated first in the minds of bourgemis

intelligentsia and they in turn, had communicated it to more

intellectually developed proletarians. Thus it was introduced

into the proletarian class struggle from without and was not

something that spontaneously arose within it. Besides that,

the difficulties of 'class' become even more pronounced, when

it comes to the interpretation of differences between trade

unionistic and political consciousness.

30. ibid. p.J37. 31. A well known example, concerning these views is that of

Lenin; Lenin, V.I., What Is To Be Dgne, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964.

Recent D§yel~Rments Within Marxist

Tbeou of Cla;s

104

More recent theories of class have sought a departure

from objective economic determination of class. In theoretical

and methodological terms, the movement is particularly away

from economism, reductionism and objectivism. Consideration is

being given, more and more, to aspects of subjectivity, and to

the cultural and ideological moments in class analysis. The

increased efforts are ~o take into account new organizational

forms of social action, emerging alternative movements, social

practices and s~ruggles -- more particularly the constitution

of classes, class consciousness and development of classes·

into political forces etc. within the civil society.

Reformation of subjectivity as affected by the

developments within the capitalist mode of production, has

emerged one of the prime concerns of class theory. The basic

contention is that along with the changes in the mode of

production, there emerges the need for new forms of action on

the part of individuals -- which in turn is linked to overall

change in living conditions. As the individual develops intc

labour power and an instru-ment of labour, there occurs

simultaneously the process of internalization of the norms of

abstract work (e.g. change in the concept of time etc.).

105 Social relations within society become 'material' and

'fetishist', social needs acquire new meanings and members of

society develop capacities (or incapacities) for new kinds of

self observation and control.

The fall-outs of the production process (e.g. efficiency,

economizing principles etc.) generate pervasive consequences,

also in the sphere of reproduction of labour power. On the

one hand, these socialization processes are seen as having

their own dynamics and sphere of materiality; on the other hand

changes in the mode of production are considered as inseparable

from the practices of self-reflection. However, socialization

requirements such as work-motivation and obedience of labour etc.

are recurrent problems demanding continuous solutions for the

survival of capitalism32 -- hence creating permanent obstacles

for a clearer class analysis at this level.

Cultural And Igeological Determination

Of §ybjes;tiyity

The above concerns with the socialization aspects in class

theory are related to a more broader approaeh that stresses the

importance of 'purposeful action' of the •subject' in class

determination. This approach has particularly emerged from the

E.P. Thompson•s33•cultural· determination'• of the English

32.

33.

See, Edwards, R.c., Conttft!~ I•r~ain. London: Heinemann, 1979: and Littler, C.R., helDeyelopmtpt ~Labour Pr9s:ess in CaRJlist Sos;ieties, London: Heinemann, 982. Thompson, E.P., The Making 9f ~be English Working Class, New York,: Vintage Books, 1963. Thompson's approach is juxtaposed to Althuaser's structural­istic Marxism (discussed in the next chapter).

1. 0 s working class. Class is con~idered as an 'agency' and special

attention is given to the role of 'spontaneity' and class exper­

ience that goes into the making of a class. Class is being

conceived in terms of 'common experiences' and struggles

around common interests. While acknowledging class experiences,

to a greater extent, as the outcome of relations within

production, Thompson however argued, that there is an everpresent

cultural moment in the formation of this experience.

"·•• class experience is largely determined by the

productive relations into which men are born -- or enter

involuntarily. Class consciousness is the way in which these

experiences are handled in cultural terms : embodied in

traditions, value systems, ideas and institutional forms. If

the experience appeares as determined, class-consciousness does

not". 34

The way, people live their own history is the ultimate

determination of class, and for Thompson in the last instance,

this is the only definition of class. The concept has been

criticised35 because it comes closer to a moral --existentia­

listic rather than a practical-experimental experience. 36

further within the perspective of structural coercions and

'dialectics of control', it is argued that a person whose action

is totally restricted and controlled is no more a participant

34. ibid. pp.9-10. 35. for a critique of Thompson,see, Anderson, P., Arqumen~J

Witbin English Marxism, London: Verso, 1980. 36. ibid. p.2s.

in social action, hence can no longer be considered as an aetor~7

In various analyses of class, at the level of cultural

and ideological, there is complete re jecti'on of economic deter­

mination of class. The problem areas have been the determina­

tion of 'cultural specificity' and the relation between cultural

and other aspects of social life. However, the absence of any

kind of abstraction .is tantamount to making everything

cultural and trivializing the concept of culture (e.g.

identifying it with leisure activities etc). Theoretical prob-

lems also emerge as culture enters 'sensual' areas of human

interaction or as opposed to ideology tends to take the form of

'spontaneous horizontal' interpretation of society. Moreover­

researcher being an outsider -- the difficulties are encountered

in the interpretation of cultural meanings and their constitu-

tion processes.

The social and regional limitations of the 'cultural con­

cept of class' is yet another issue when the formation of culture

is studied from below. This is characteristic of research ori­

entations which emphasize the writing of history at _a local __

level from below, and that of 'oralwhistory'. Further culture

as a level of 'active self-creation' (or constitution into

subject), pertains to the 'lived-experience' of individuals which

can not be easily reduced to the reproduction structure of society,

37. Giddens, A., Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory, London: 1982, pp.39 & 193.

108

Gonstitytion Of Subjectivi1Y Wi!h1n

Giy11 Socie~

* Of late, emergence of yet another dimension of class

research is that pertains to the 'constitution of subject'

within civil society•. 38 Civil society is seen as ccnstituted

by social practices; external to both state and economy and a

functional necessity for the reproduction relations of capita­

lism. No doubt civil society is based on economic circulation

but it is not necessarily structured upon production relations.

Many dimensions such as, organization of work; gender, religion,

nation and race relations; political organization etc. are

considered as essential in the determination of civil society.

Civil society is the domain where actors are constituted into

subjects. Classes are seen as determined by the practices of

civil society, and hegemony, as a relation between economy and

the state is an effect of civil society. Further, in this

perspective distinction is being made between 'general democratit

struggles' and the class struggle (having basis in production

relaticns}.

The approach is not free from difficulties. Now civil

society had never remained a constant entity in history

while certain features were absent in the past, and some others

if at all present had existed only in different form. If

changes in the constitution of civil society are not related

38.

• See, Urry, J., The Anatomy of Capitalist Societies, London: Macmillan, 1981 •

The tradition dates back to Antonio Gramsci, and recent reassessments of the concept of 'civil society' are provided by John Urry.

109

to the change in the mode of production, theory must spell out

some other explanation. It must reveal the 'essence' around

which the very "civil" has emerged, organized and reorganized

throughout history.

For a moment, if we limit the analysis to capitalism (as

assumed in this perspective), and uphold its basic contention

tha-t this area of civil society has its own dynamics beyond

the relations of pro~uction; even then without some common

denominator of class, to seek meaningful relations between so

many diverse constituents of civil society (nation, religion,

gender, race etc.) becomes too cumbersome. The absence of an

'objective essence• and without certain degree of abstraction,

the concept of class tends towards disinte~ration; class

analysis amounts to a confusion of unrelated~ategories -­

producing a highly complex and differential image of class

structure.

This tendency in class analysis -- i.e. constitution of

subjects in civil society -- has particularly developed against

the notion of the prior existence of classes. Przeworski39 has

argued that concrete analysis is incompatible with the view of

classes as economically determined, spontaneously emerging

subjects that simply march on to transform history. Classes

are formed as effects of struggles. Class struggles can not be

reduced to struggles between or among classes. In each concrete

historical conjuncture, class struggles mean struggles about

39. Przeworski,A. op.cit., 1985, pp.79-80 & 92.

110

class formc;ticn as well as struggles between or among organized

classes. Hence class, first of all is the struggle for the

formation of class subjects within civil society.

The idea that class struggle above all is the struggle

around the formation of class-- simultaneously transforming

the conditions under which class is formed -- is not without

merit, but beyond that, analysis is not free fzoc:nn problems.

For Przeworski, organization of politics in terms of class is

a contingent historical outcome of continual conflicts. Abandon­

ment of the fundamental basis of long term conflict inherent in

production relations, brings in a large number of conflicts (of

course classes also) centred around sundary issues or (in

Przeworski's language) depending upon the •structures of choices

available to the historical actors.• 4° Class becomes equivalent

to any type of collectivity and loses much of the meaning. If

it persists in the analysis, it is merely because of a parti­

cular theoretical habit.

Yet another argument is that subjects are formed only

in ideological practices. Subjects are not constituted within

the sphere of production and even after treir formation do not

necessarily belong to a particular class. Central to this

thinking is the question of the formation of hegemony. 41

Subjects are formed through and in a discourse and social

relations acquire their social character only through discursive

40. ibid. p.5. 41. See, Laclau, E., Mouffe, Ch., Hegemon~ ang So~i~list

Strategy, London: Verso, 1985.

111 constitution. Discursive articulation of various subjects

culminates into hegemony --i.~. 'discourse of discourses' -­

which is addressed to the discursive mechanisms of various

kinds of political forces as they struggle to constitute 42 subjects in a particular political programme. Class deter-

mination of subjects and political form. are not given in

advance -- the meaning of subjects can only be drawn from their

involvement in a certain political project.

Such approaches merely shift the problems of class to

a different platform. · They are unable to account for the

social preconditions of production and for the already existing

receptive level of subjects in a discursive practice. The

level of abstraction has been questioned; and missing is the

role of other factors such as 'material motivation', 'physical

coercions•, etc. Ignored are also structural changes in the

reproduction system under capitalism and the processes of

historical structuration of class.

Class quandary i.e. practical dilemmas of class research

are manifest in the analyses of class structure, class conscious­

ness, political organization, cultural and ideological etc.

Meanings of class concepts vary, and their relations to

theoretical constructs are complex. Problems also pertain to 43

the historical and societal context of class theories.Sharma has

42. Jessop, B., The Cap1j:,alis;t S;ta;te, London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1982, see, pp.19l-2l0.

43. Sharma~ K.L, Casj:,e, Class and Social Mov.ements. Jaipur: Rawat ~ubs., 1986. Sharma's work is outstanding in that it has strived for the liberation of Indian studies from the misleading influences of Western class theories; andhhas significantly contributed towards the construction of an adequate theoretical framework, suitable to the analysis of social structure in India.

112

revealed the historico-ideological overtones of various class

theories in the light of broader theoretical and methodological

currents in sociology. More particularly, their rElevance/

irrelavance to the analysis of Indiansocial structure has

seriously been evaluated. His work has conclusively establi­

shed that Western theories of class-being the product of parti­

cular historical conditions and having roots in alien philoso-

phical traditions are not of much use or at best has only a

limited relevance to the Indian situation.

It is significant to note that more recent class theories

central concern of this limited overview -- while rejecting

any type of reductionism and objective economic determination

of class have made attempts to understand the role of 'subject'

in class analysis. However, these approaches are also not

free from problems. If class analysis based on production

relations turns out to be an abstract petrified orthodoxy,

the approaches that lay emphasis on 'subjectivism', being

devoid of any 'social essence' tend to be merely floating

orthodoxies.

As long as class theory fails to determine the

'social essence' of class and is unable to meaningfully

relate the 'subject of history' with that 'class essence',

the whole effort tantamounts to an exercise in wilderness.

113

THE gUESTION OF 'SUBJECT' IN MABXISM

That Marxism after Marx got closely associated with the

Revolutionary activities pervailing all over the European

Continent, is well known. By the turn of this century Germany

had already become the centre of Marxist debate, and Kautsky -­

the official theoretician of German Democratic Socialist Party

(SPD) -- had turned out to be as the natural heir to Marx. In

the following decades, Marxism spread around not so much in the

original writings of Marx and Engels as through the works of

Kautsky. He wrote 'The Class Struggle• 44 keeping in view

particularly the Erfurt Congress of the Party held in 1891.

The Erfurt Programme was 'unimpeachably democratic and

reformist•. 45 The same spirit of 'democratic socialism' pre­

vailed during The Second In~ernational because Kautsky was

the leading figure and played the dominant role in the

ideological proceedings.

This change in the revolutionary perception effected a

policy-shift which stressed that a sharp distinction must be and

made between the ultimate · goal/the day-to-day tactics

employed. The breakdown of capitalist society was considered

as 'scientifically' necessary, and the only important task of

socialists was thus to prepare their organization to weather

the storm and take power. The stress was put on the 'objective',

not the 'subjective' aspect of revolution. The rhetoric

44. Kautsky, K., Thf Cl~ss §trygcle, New York: W.W.Norton,l971. 45. On the role of Kautsky at the Erfurt Congress, see, Lichtheim,

G., Marxism, New York: Praeger,l965,esp.pp.259-78.

114

remained revolutionary but the actions were governed by the

leaders' fear about the survival of the painfully and slowly

built precious organization. The organization became a fetish;

from a means it became an end. The central focus on the party

as an end neglected its integration in the social totality

Marxism turned out to be a kind of religion and false -

consciousness.

Fetishism of the organization stemmed from the belief

in the inevitability of revolution, that would materialize

as a natural event in the course of social evolution. The

Marxism of SPD was strongly influenced by a Darwinain notion of

the 'scientific' necessity of the socialist victory-- a belief

particularly borrowed from Engels. 46 The emphasis on the

Darwinain Scientific Socialism relegated the 'dialectic' to the

background. Bernstein's47 famous revision of Marxism was hostile

to Marx's dialectical method, and gave primacy to gradual

evolution leading to socialism. Kautsky, the defender of

orthodoxy was also paying only lip-service to 'dialectic' while

describing Capital (most dialectical of works) as an economic

text-book which contained the iron-laws about the eventual

breakdown of capitalism.

Not only that, the shift from the anti-Hegel stance of

46. For Darwinian Scientific Socialism, see, Engels, F.,~ Origin of tht Family. Pxivate Property aod fhe State, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977; ~nd Enge s, F., Dialectics of Nature, (trans.C.DuttJ, Moscow: Progress Publishere, 1954.

47. Bernstein, E., Evolutionary Socialism. New York: 1961.

115

the party was accompanied by a rising admiration for Kant. 48

More and more Kantian philosophers claimed to be Marxists, and

Marxist politicians felt proud to be Kantians. Ethical Marxism

projected Kant as the true and actual founder of German socia­

lism and was seen as compatible with a certain kind of evolu­

tionary doctrine. The scientific stress on objective development

catered to the need for an idealistic ethic of pure subjective

striving: materialism turned into mechanism and dialectic got

equated with subjective idealism. Hence Marx's advance over

German idealism that had enabled him to mediate theory and

praxis was ultimately lost. Socialism as a utopian future was

perceived as paradise and socialists were granted the status

of 'chosen people' responsible for the transmission of

enlightenment to the masses.

The socialism of SPD was the busy-work of thousands of

permanent party and union bureaucrats; the role of the people

was totally undermined. 'Scientific Socialism• 49 also

conveyed the impression that ideals are superfluous for the

advent of communism, since the process is governed by an

objective necessity independent of the will of the men. In

sum: practical considerations remained the overriding concern

in order to consolidate the party. Subject was made subservient

to the will of the party. Pure political practicism as an end

48. For a comprehensive discussion of the impact of German Idealism on Marx, see, Rotenstreich, N., Basic Problems of Marxls Philosophy, New York: Indianapols, 1965.

49. For a Critique of 'Scientific Socialism' as a disastrous teleological conception, the very opposite of scientific thought, see, Kolakowski, L., Main Currerts of Marxism (3 Vols.),Vol.3,esp. chapter on Lukacs,ondon: Oxford University Press, 1978.

116 itself became synomymous with Marxism. This Mutilated, distorted

and truncated Marxism ruled the roost all over Europe, before

the Russian Revolution.

With the success of October Revolution, the centre of

Marxist debate shifted to Soviet Union and alongwith it started

the struggle for theoretical hegemony. Revolution belittled the

evolutionary passivity of the Social Democrats that the

bourgeois state could be captured intact and used for socialist

ends. Lenin had already developed the thesis that bourgeois

state must be destroyed and new proletarian forms must be

developed, 50 What ensued in the international arena was a war

a theses, pamphlets, resolutions, counter-resolutions, revolts,

resistances, expulsions, mud-slinging; among various political

parties-- even Kautsky was branded, as Renegade Kautsky. 51

Moscow turned out to be victor as most of the communist

parties all over the world fell in line -- Lenin became the .

custfdian of true Marxism. Already, the vast majority of workers

everywhere were more than willing to accept Moscow·s word as

law, because after all it was in Russia that the revo~ution had

been made a rea~y. Moscow did carefully cultivate a logic

based on false-consciousness that in the insecurity and

isolation of a capitalist society, proletariat needs

something to cling to. More than that the unique

50. Lenin, V.I., 'The State and Revolution'; 'The Marxist Theory of the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution', in, Selecttd Works. Vol.2. Moscow: Progress Publishers,l977,pp.283-327.

51, Lenin, V.I., 'The Proletarian Revolution and Reneoade Kautsky! Selecteg Works.Vol.3, Moscow: Progress Pubs,pp 1977. pp.17P97.

117

mystique of the successful seizure of power was undoubtedly

responsible for a large number of adherents who flocked to

the parties of the Third International after 1919.

The· Moscow dominated Third International was 'centralist'

and 'manipulative' and adopted the Lenin's theory of the 'Party'

i.e. revolution must be brought to the workers from without. 52

And consistantly, fatal objective factors were given precedence

over subjective ones. Theories were invented to make a virtue

out of necessity, eventually developing the system of Marxism­

Leninism-Stalinism, that lost its living connection to the

real movement and petrified into an ideology. Party and State

were gradually fused together; 'Party' became the true

consciousness of class (proletariat); and the 'subject' of

history evaporated into the thin-air.

It is against this background, that a limited discussion

of another tradition in Marxism will be presented -- a tradition

that attempted to restore human subjectivity to the heart of

Marxism. This tradition was hostile to all forms of reductionism,

objective economic determinism and to any conception of Marxism

as predetermined or inevitable laws of social life. It was

argued that Marxism when separated or isolated from the praxis

of the working class tends to retreat from dialectical method

towards positivism and/or subjectivism. Engel's dialecties of

Nature53 was held incompatible with Marx's concept of

dialectical theory -- which only means the mutual interaction of

52. Lenin, V.I., op.eit., 1964. 53. Engels, F., op.cit., 1954.

118

consciousness and the material world and its 'object' is nothing

but social life. History is the unfolding of the actualization

of 'subjectivity' and there is no separation in Marxism (or

in any dialectical theory}, between 'being' and 'knowing'.

Thus efforts were made to bring out the repressed

consciousness of Marxism, and methodologically, the conce~ts

of totality and the concrete universal were placed at the center

of the reconstruction of Marxism. The underlying contention was

that unity of form and content must be found and dialectical

analysis must di$cover the essence, the universal content or

meaning implied in concrete existence.

Sear;ch For The Sub1ect Of History

Lukacs -- a revolutionary and Marxist theoretician who

intermittently rose to power and fell in oblivion -- had in

between devoted himself to a theoretical and practical rsearch

for the 'subject' of history and developed a theory of t~

historical dialectic of the 'subject-object'. In his'History

and .. Class Consciousness•;4 the dialectically moving center

is the concept of reification -- that refers to the human

social relations of producers appearing (emerging and seeming)

as thing-relations of (produced) commodities. The emergence of ...

a 'second-nature' of commodities confronts men with their

~.

• Lukacs, G., History and Class Consciousness, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1971 • What Marx considered that thing-relations in market appear on surf ace in the .. form of 'second nature' of commodities, is precisely, Lukacs' methodological insistence on ~;-tatting with the immediate apoearances, with the world of commodities, making his starting point different from that of Marx.

119 activity, their work as something objective, independent from

them and ruling them through laws which are as alien to them

as the laws of physical nature.

Hence the separation between subject (worker) and

his objEct (the product which obeys laws independent of the

worker) and the fetishism of commodities are mutually

conditioning historical processes. As labour power bE:comes a

commodity, the subject's physical capabilities are torn from

him and turn into a thing moving within the law~ of the

objective process. Ultimately the subject is reduced to a pas­

sive deactivised spectator of the production process and even

of his own labour in this process.

Thus under capitalism the reduction (in reality & theory)

of the total labour-process to highly specialized partitial

processes (organized through exact calculation and prediction)

is merely the other side of the world of reification. The

objective reificaticn of all aspects of capitalist life had

its subjective counterpart in the reification of conscicusness.

While maintaining that in the immediate empirical

reality there is a rigid separation of all subjectivity from

objectivity; he argued that the reason for it was; because the

immediate empirical reality of capitalism is the alienated world

of reification. He believed that he could work out the histori­

cal mediations those transcend beyond this immediacy -- espe­

cially the concept of praxis that would point to concrete

possibilities of the overcoming of the reified world that he

-~. 2 0

criticised. He attempted to show that 'dialectic' could be

concretized and historicized by the consciousness and praxis of

the class that could change the world.

He was unsuccessful in accomplishing this ambiticus

task and the industrial proletariat has not yet overcome that

world of reification. The analysis conveys that the proletariat

in the world of reification is reduced mainly to the object of

the economic process. WhatsGever is le·ft of its 'subjectivity'

is that of a merely passive and contemplative spectator. Thus

the task of making or creating the proletariat into a 'class'

that could become the subject of history; the class whose

conscicus praxis could transform the world, yet remains

unfinished.

For Lukacs, class consciousness is not the psychological

consciousness of individual proletarians, nor it is the (mass

psychological) consciousness of their aggregate: it is the

significance of the historical situation that class becomes

conscious of itself. However, on the question of 'subject' he

could not decide between Lenin and Luxemburg. 55 He still

argued that only the proletariat could accomplish its becoming

a 'class-conscious' class and at the same time Marx's notion

that educator himself must be educated must not be forgotten

thus hanging in between Luxemburg's 'spontaneity' and

Lenin'~ 'Party'.

55. For the relationship between Lukacs and the official Marxist-Leninist line, see, Brtines, Paull 'Introcuction to Lukacs•, "The Old Culture and the New", Telos,5,Spring-1970, pp.l-20.

1. 21

HegemonY And Formation Of The Sybje£1

Imprisoned in 1926 by a Fascist State, Gramsci began

to re-examine the entire historical process that had brought

the Italian revolution to an impasse. In a number of note­

books56 he expressed his ideas on the real, central problem of

Marxism i.e. the formation of the 'subject' and a new culture

of the future socialist society. Though Leninist until his

prison years, Gramsci, from the very beginning, had hailed the

Russian Revolution as verdict 'against Marx's Capital' because

it could not be explained in the existing Marxist theory -­

particulary within the Marxism of the Second International.

In the aftermath of revolution he became ever more convinced

that Marxist theory must find a new road to socialism. 57

He moved beyond Leninism and Marxism of socialists;

argued for the need of a 'subjective -· revolution 1 --

sm must be seen as philosophy of praKis. To ensure the ~8 of the new order,- revolution must take

place within man before it could possibly change the social

structure. Liberation from the socio-economic conditions

of capitalism should not only be brought from outside but

must also occur inside the 'subject' of history. The

transformation of subject must be in terms of thinking,

relationships, culture as well as his overall role in society.

56. Gramsci, A., Pr1jon No!e922~. ed. by Hoare, Q. and Smith, G.N., New York: nternational Publishers, 1971.

57. See, Paggi, L., 'Gramsci's General Theory of Marxism', Telos, No.33, 1977, pp-27-70.

58. Cf. Hoare, Q., •what is Fascism", New Lefl Rey1Jw,No.20,1963.

122

Marxism must, "elaborate a doctrine in which all these

relationships are se~n as active and in movement, establishing

clearly that the source of this activity is man's individual

consciousness ••• (who) thinks of himself not as an isolated

being but enriched by the potentialities offered to him by

other men and by the society of things ••• " 59

In sum: for Gramsci 'subject' is the nexus of whole

complex of social relationshipt .. Socialism must be based on

socially and culturally conscious 'collective-man'. This

theoretical understanding had the hindsight of subtle practical

experience of •workers councils', through which he had attempted

to make men understand their social significance while

establishing proletarian hegemony over means of production and

the work process.

Gramsci's significant theoretical tontribution pertains

to the areas of superstructures, cultural domination and

* ideological hegemony. No doubt Gramsci paid scant attention

to the material conditions of hegemony but he repeatedly

stressed that objective conditions provide a basis for the

establishment of hegemony. To the extent material forces of

production are developed, constitutes the basis for the emergence

of various social classes, each class having a specific position

59.

*

Louis, M.,(ed.), ~tlnio Gramsci The Mogero PrtD&e and Oib!• Writinas, New Yor~nternationa1 Publishers, 1968, pp.78-79; Cf. also, Marzan!, C.(trans.), The Open Mat!ism of Apton}g Gramsci, New York: Cameron Associates, 1957. Full discussion of these aspects iS not the concern here, only a particular point relevant to this analysis is to be raised.

~23

within production. The very content of the political hEgemony

of a new social class which founds the new type of state is

predominantly to be of an economic order. What is involved in

the process is the reorganization of the structure and real

relations between men on the one hand and the world of the

economy or production on the other. 60

The objective conditions {not in the deterministic sense)

are necessary but not sufficient for. the establishment of

hegemony. Even if the objective conditions exist, hegemony

may not materialize, since there exists an autonomous domain

of the politic2l and ideological. However, Gramsci insisted

that both for the establishment and continuous perpetuation

of hegemony, there must be an objective economic basis :

• ••• for though hegemony is ethical-political, it must

also be economic, must necessarily be based on the decisive

function exercised by the leading group in the decisive

nucleus of economic activity.• 61

Now in case hegemony flows from material conditions

(relations within production) the analysis must face the

difficulties confronted within orthodox Marxism. Or if as

Gramsci argues for (and his followers uphold) the autonomy of

politico-ideological sphere in the constitution of hegemony, the

analysis must spell out the mechanism {medium, relation or

essence) to move from class structure to the formation of

60. Gramsci, A., op.cit., 1971, pp.263,133. 61. ibid. p.l61.

1 2 4

class consciousness (politico-ideological) and vice-versa,

the domain of the formation of the 'subject' remains a

disputed territory. Gramscian and neo-Gramscian analyses

are unable to overcome this persistent dilemma of Marxism.

Need~ and the Self-Activity of the Subje~l

Karl Kersch belonged to a tradition in Marxist theory

that drew inspiration from Marx's dictum of the active

relationship of theory and practice, where practice is not only

the cr\terion of truth but its origin. Theory must be forged

historically, in the course of working class' own struggle for

emancipation. Transformation of the material relations

between the members of society must at the same time mean the

transformation of the consciousness of that society.

Towards the end of his life Kersch builded a critique62

of Mrxist theory in the light of the development of capitalism

and workers' movement. He found Marxism ossified in the

conditions relevant to nineteenth century capitalism, and

held that such an analysis could only be provisionally useful

to any other period. Marxism is not an eternal science that

can provide knowledge true for all periods. He qualified Marxism

with the'principle of specificity' by arguing that materialist

dialectic can provide a critique of contemporary reality and no­

thing more -- its central contention being the specific

relation of all economic forms and propositions to historically

determined objects.

62. Korsch, Karl, Karl Marx, New York; Russel and Russel,l963.

* While not outrightly discarding the role of the 'party',

Korsch following Marx retained throughout, the belief that

transition to socialism could only be accomplished by the self­

conscious activity of the proletariat. He insisted the

working-class practice is the only criterion of truth.

Detatched from workers' movement (failure of workers-councils),

though his work acquired scientific tone, yet he never abandoned

the idea that the proletariat's self-activity is the fundamental

condition for revolutionary change. He was critical of the

earlier reliance on the vangaurd to liberate the working class

since it ignored the needs of the 'subject•. The scienticism

of the ** theorists of the Second and Thtrd Internationals was

an outgrowth of their 'practicism1 on the one hand and the

missing role of the 'active subject' on the other.

Sub1ect and Free Action

Herbert Marcuse made the 'subject' so central to

Marxist theory that many no longer regard his work as compatible

with Marxism. He argued that developments within capitalism

have reduced the proletariat to inaction rendering Marxist con­

cepts to obsol•scence. Capitalist development has reached a new

stage effecting a fundamental change in the relations between

the two conflicting classes whereby the proletariat fails to act

Korsch's understanding of the party was very much similar to Rosa Luxemburg : the proletariat was tr.e party.

** Kautsky (Second), Lenin (Thire) International.

1.26 as the revolutionary class.

" ••• the traditional Marxian categories no longer

apply - ••• Marxism is faced with the task of redefining the

conception of the transition to socialism ••• " 63

His work aimed at removing obstacles to a revolutionary

consciousness as a precondition to socialism. Marxist theory

must promote subject's 'free action' by eliminating the

impediments to free ratieflali ty. The realization of freed om and

reason requires the free rationality of those who achieve it.

The transition to socialism poses the paramount necessity for

the full development of the subject's potentialities. Objective

conditions become revolutionary conditions only if seized upon

and directed by the conscious activity and the socialist goal

is nurtured within the subject's mind.

"The revolution requires the maturity of many forces 64 but the greatest among them is the subjective force .•••• "

Marcuse supplemented the classical theory of

proletarian revolution with a historical alternative. He

argued that through dereification subject must overcome false­

consciousness that prevents action, at the same time lay

bare new potentialities of action in the 'historical situation'

that acts as impediment to the revolution. The socio-historical

process manifests into ahistorical facts and objects, thus

immunizing the proletariat's consciousness as a social and

historical subject.

63. Marcuse, H., §oviet Marxism, New York: Vintage, 196l,p.3ff. 64. Marcuse, H., Reason and Revolution, Boston: Beacon, 1960,

p. 317ff.

127

Hence Marxist theory must analyze such objects and facts

to demonstrate their constitution in the historical process.

Once the subject recognizes that it has constituted the facts 1

it can open the options to constitute them otherwise. Thus

strategy for socialism must mean b·tinging 'subject' into

contact with what Marcuse termed the 'basic Marxist situation'

i.e. the historical possi~uity of the radical act, which is to

emancipate a necessary, new reality as realization of the

whole man. Its agent being the conscious historical subject,

his field of action is history, which is discovered as the

fundamental category of human existence.

Adopting a phenomenological and existentialist perspective,

and the concepts of 'history' and the 'whole man'; Marcuse

attempted to develop an ontological theory of historicity

i.e. history as a fundamental mode of 'Being'. He argued if the

realization of freedom and reason is linked to a particular form

of consciousness, then the elimination of the latter becomes

one of the most important occurrences in history; and the

foremost task of Marxist theory to explain it. This kind of

explanation demands a redefinition of human existence that

can account for the central role of historical consciousness

in it.

Reification and reduction of subject's class conscious­

ness poses the need for a theory of historicity and its suspen­

sion that Marcuse termed as one dimensionality65-- the

elimination of the distinctions between essence and appearance,

65. Marcuse, H., One Di•ensional Man, Boston: Beacon, 1964.

128 potentiality and actuality, social and natural. Such an elimi­

nation derives from the loss of distinction between the present

(realm of reification and ahistoricity), and the past (histo­

rical context of its constitution). Because for Marcuse

capitalism is a catastrophe of the human essence that demands

a catastrophic abolition of the existing conditions.

Marcuse incorporated Freud's psychoanalysis to elaborate

a materialist theory of objective happiness that justified the

gratification of subject's instincts and needs as a basic cate­

gory of Marxist theory. 66 Integrating these notions with the

dialectic of technology, scarcity and human nature he continued

his search for 'natural basis of individualization• 67 and entered

into the areas of 'revolt of instincts' and man's 'coming into

his own in his passions•. That this obsession with the

extremes of 'subjectivity' landed him into passimism is well

known.

Constitution of Sublect in the Structurt

of Intersyb1ectivity

Marcusian analysis (and to a greater extent that of the

Frankfurt School) is more or less an elaboration of the

dialectic of the individual that rests on the historically

ambivalent commitment to bourgeois subjectivism. While at one

level the elimination of the autonomous subject is the tragedy

of one dimensional society; at the other level autonomous

subject under capitalism is a mere reflection of property.

66. Marcuse, H., Negations: Essays in Critical Theory, (trans. J.M. Shapiro), Boston: Beacon, 1968.

67. Marcuse, H., Eros and Civilization, Boston: Beacon, 1955, p.l04.

To seek solution to this central problematic -- i.e.

how advanced capitalism could develop by the elimination of

something that never existed in history - Habermas studied the

constitution of subjectivity at a far more deeper level. He

argued that subject exists only as a component of social stru­

cture of intersubjectivity that rests on the mutual recognition

of the self and the other as simultaneously identical and

non-identical. 68 This structure is built in the very nature of

language and interaction. The fundamental changes in the

'subject' are thus to be seen as a disturbance of intersubject­

ivity or a systematic distortion of communication. The

elimination of the 1 subject' is in fact the elimination of the

structure of communication and interaction in which subjectivism

is rooted.

Adopting Max Weber's theory of rationalization, Habermas

formulated that technological rationality becomes the

legitimation ideology of society. 69 To provide a historical

account for the phenomenon of rationalization and the role

of communication structure, he constructed a theory of 70 evolution. And using psychoanalysis as a model for critical

knowledge he developed a

of knowledge as well.

general social theory and a theory

68. Habermas, J., Knowledge and Human Interestf, (trans. J.J. Shapiro), Boston: Beacon, 1971, see,esp., Dilthey's

'Theory of Understanding Expression: Ego Identity and Linguistic Communication', --chap.7.

69. Habermas, J. Leqi&imation Crisis, London: Heinemann, 1976. 70. Habermas, J., Communication and the Eyolution of Society,

London: Heinemann, 1979.

i30

The central concern remained to formulate and revise

Marxism to preserve its radical content while making it

relevant to the contemporary historical phase. The aim is

to eleborate radical critical method for dealing with the

problem of human freedom in society, by incorporating scientific

knowledge of 'subject' and society. However, a reading of

Habermas reveals that foci continuously shift en market ration­

ality, social labour, exchange,technological rationality, politics.

ideology and the state etc.

Decline of market principle encour~ges technology and

science as ideology. Politics acquires a negative character

as it is oriented to eliminate dysfunctions and reduction of

risks that threaten the system. It seeks to achieve not

practical goals but technical solutions. It poses the need

for depoliticization of the people and undermines the process

of democratic decision making. 71 The state can suspend class

antagonism. Mass loyality is created with the aid of rewards

for privatised needs.

Removal of restrictions from communication enabling

unrestricted democratic discussion is the suggested solution

for true rationalization of political and social relations.

Social institutions must be oriented towards the expansion

of freedom and choice; and not towards seeking technical

solutions or proper management of economic resource. Some

71. Habermas, J., Towards a Rational Society, (tna~s. J.J. Shapiro), Boston: Beacon, 1970, pp.102-106.

t31 ·* radical force (students are not sufficient} must destroy the

crumbling achievement ideology bringing down the already

fragile legitimating basis of advanced capitalism, that n·sts

merely on depoliticization. 72 Finally rarlical theory of

knowledge itself is conceived as a p0tential political problem

requiring a solutionG

One after another functional arguments (of course critical)

are advamced, everytime introducing some new determining factor. . 73

Rejecting Marx's labour theory of value, no efforts are made

to search for some other 'social or 'structural essence'.

However, insistence tc retain 'Marxist dialectic' is supreme,

even if it requires going back to its origins in Kantian and

Hegelian ~hilosophy. Subject, subjectivity and intersubjectivity,

whether queezed into a mass, must still remain within Marxism.

What these theorists are stubbornly resisting to admit

is that the Great Philosopher had never alloted any space to

'social subject' in his materialist dialectical method. If the

'subject' appears to be moving freely in all his philosophicor

social writings, it is merely reflection of material conditions

and has nothing to do with the real 'subject' of society.

Totalizing - Sublect

Sartre has been described as the theorist of the

'third way' between materialism and idealism. As for Sartre,

his work is torn by a dilemma -- he was extremely restless

with Marxism as it no longer had anything new to teach, while

at the same time he was convinced that it can not be

72. ibid. p.l32. 73. ibid. p.l04ff.

* Detailed account of student radicalism is available in the first three essavs.

132

transcended as long as the social and historical conditions

responsible for its birth remained in vogue, and the problems

that it brought into being (class oppression) continued to exist

unresolved. 74

In his earlier work,75 he directed his efforts to concre­

tize the 'totalizing-subject•. The analysis was mainly concerned

with the task of defining the true r~lationship of conscious­

ness with the 'self' and the world: consciousness is conceived

neither as a 'reality' to which density of an intangible sub­

stance may be granted, nor a'thing' but only as an impersonal

spontaneity. However the effort remained limited to study

consciousness in its concrete movement, grasped from within

in its relationship with an immediate practical perceptual

field that has not been historically determined. This absence

of history restricted Sartre's method of viewing problems to

the boundaries of 'situation' and intersubjectivity.

In his later work76 he opened the analysis of 'subject'

to the problematic of history -- the privileged terrain of

Marxism. By then Marxism pressed into service of dominant

Stalinist practice (as a theoretical veil) had already been

degraded to an ideology, and had bogged down to become

institutionalized. It was no longer a philosophy for the

transformation of social relations or an open form of thought,

74. Sartre, J.P., Search for a Meth9d, (trans. H. Barnes), New York: Alfred Knopf, 1963, p.XXXIV.

75. Sartre, J.P., BeiDa and Notbingoes~, (trans. H. Barnes), London: Methuen, 1957.

76. Sartre, J.P., op.cit.,1963, see,esp. Introduction, These ideas originally appeared as 'Materialism and Revolution'.

1. 3 3

rather it had convulated inwards in self-satisfaction. It

was stripped of its revolutionary content, and was reduced to

a closed universe of 'dialectical materialism'. Sartre

attacked with hostility this very materialist view -- a

materialist conception of nature without any extraneous

addition.

He laid bare the deception in this a priori formulation,

arguing that the extraneous addition i.e. 'subjectivity', which

wes supposed to disappear is in reality divided into two parts

by materialists. At one level it is converted into an 'object'

to be studied scientifically; while at the ot~er level,

reified 'subject' is bestowed upon with the absolute truth of

vision devoid of subjective fallibility -- i.e. subject is

conferred upon with the capacity to know and ·.attain a distance

between himself and object. Thus it amounts to the restoration

of a quasi-dualism of subject-object.

Since this provides the basis for the production of

knowledge, hence by the application of the 'principle of

causality' a qualitative distinction is introduced between syn­

theses generated through the interaction of mere quantities on

the one hand and the contradictory interplay of those quantities

which are sublimated in the syntheses on the other. Materialist

construction, in this way moves from simple to complex through

'dialectical syntheses' of matter in motion tracing its origin

to beginnings of history.

Sartre questioned this kind of synthetic enrichment;

confusion of reflections cast upon objects; and the very

134 suitability of 'dialectic' used to characterize transforma­

tions pertaining to causality that is scientific in nature.

And also questioned the justification to make 'dialectics'

merely the law of the motion of objects, and the claim of

Orthodox Marxists to root the analysis in both the materialist

causality and dialectical thought -- by which is only meant an

unrestrained action of the 'subject', having capacity to

synthesize· ofrt.ologically. For Sartre dialectical materialism

was merely a dubious and unacceptable syncretism that employs

two types of contradictory rationalities --Marxist causality

can neither summon structural support from science oar can

keep itself af-loat through dialectic. In angusih he uttered.

"Marxism after drawing us to it --- abruptly left us

stranded --- it no longer had anything to teach us, because 77 it had come to a stop".

The stress on consciousness, the refusal of an a~stract

materialism prevented Sartre from a facile acceptance of an

overly mechanistic historieal materialism. If Marxism had

offered an external 'objectivity' underlying it were Sartre's

violently 'subjectified' demonstration~•

A Counierpoint : Struciuial Causality

The last contribution to be discussed is an influential

approach that stemmed from Althusser's structuralistic thinking,

and concerns the question of 'subject' in Marxism the other way

around as it is opposed to any idea of subjectivism. Althusser

77. ibid. p.2lff.

~35

argued that there exists an 'epistemological break'in Marx

pre-scientific writings. Marx's ttought during the earlier

phase was heavily influeced by rationalist humanism (more close

to Kant and Fichte than Hegel) and continued to be dominated even

by the new form of Feurbachian humanism. 78 However, after 1845

Marx broke with existing philosophies those predicated upon e

human essence and ~e until then considered fundamental to all

theories of history and politics. Replacing the conceptual

arena of subject/essence by a dialectical historical materialism

of different specific levels of human practice (economic,

political, ideological, scientific) he thus created a new

p~ilosophy of infinite implications.

But the earlier terminology (e.g. Hegelian) continued

to perpetuate in his scientific works (e.g. Capital) through­

out the later period, hEnce giving a deceptive continuity of

~nguag~hat resulted in the interpretation of the whole of

Marx's work ~s the homogeneous development of a single system

of thought. Though Marx had'settled scores' with the old

philosophies in 'The German Ideology• 79 (work belonging to the

period of break) but until the end of his life, he constantly

struggled to discover adequate concepts and language, and more

or less was unsuccessful.

as.

79.

The argument that Marx had to reject all forms of theoretical humanism, before he could develop his own revolutionary theory was first formulated in, Althusser, L., ForMa[!, Harmonds-worth: Penguin, 1969; and its most developed form is to be

found in, Althusser, L., 'The Gonditions of Marx's Scientific Discovery', Theoretical Practice, No.718. The theory which emerges from this work, Althusser calls it merely 'a positivist and historicist thesis', Althusser, L., Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, (trans.Brewster,B.), New left Books, 197l,p.l51.

136 Once convinced of this, Althusser -- through a symptomatic

reading of Capital80 set out to complete this unfinished

task in Marxism, and constructed a structuralistic theory

which rejected any kind of empiricism, economism and histori­

cism. Althusser's concept of structure is a totality wher~

the different elements and levels of the structure of society

(economic, political and ideological) are prerequisite of each

other's existence. Economy is in the last instance the

overdetermining level, but not necessarily under a certain his­

torical conjuncture. All elements are independent but they

are also in asymmetrical relations with each other. Which

elemen~ssumes the dominant role at a particular time varies

depending upon the overdetermination of conflicts in the social

formation.

For Althusser a contradittion in Marxist totality is

always 'overdetermined'. Although, in the last instance the

structure is determined by the economic, yet the role of the

economic is not that of 'essence' of which all other forms

of social practice (political, ideological· ,theoretical) are

exteriorizations. In fact the dominant contradiction in a

social formation will at any given time occur at another level­

whether political or ideology. What the economic base deter­

mines in the last instance is which element is to be dominant~

80. Althusser, L., and Belibar, E., Reading Capital, New York: Pantheon Books, 1970.

t 3 '1

in a given social formation. Central to Althusserian thinking

is the concept of 'Structural causality' conceived as the

existence of a structure in its effects -- the structure being

merely a specific combination of its peculiar elements and

nothing beyond its effects.

Thus particular practic•s which appear in history are

to be seen as effects of the structure of the 'social formation'

which is constituted by one or more modes of production.

Althusser has been criticis~d81 for turning Marxism into a

variant of 1 structuralism1 , more particularly for settin9 up

mode of production as an eternally self-producing entity.

Transition from the dominance of one mode of production to

another can not be explained, since Althusser refuses to

conceive a mode of production as self dissolving contradiction.

Above all rejection of 'Hegelian teleology' by Althusserian

Marxism poses the danger of substituting it by a 'static

teleology' devoid of any 'revolutionary theorization' so that

the structure of the prevailing mode of production can be

broken and displaced.

Significant also is Althusser's treatment of ideology?2

For him ideology represents the imaginary relation between an

individual and the real conditions of life. Acceptance of any

concept as given, according to him, leads to ideology rather

81. Cottrell. A., Social Classes in Marxist Theory, London: Routeled~e and Kegan Paul, 1984, pp.14-18.; Hinaess . and' :Hirst also maintain that social formations can not be grasped as the effects of modes of production or combination of modes--, Hindess,B. and Hirst, p., Mode of Pr~ductiop and Social Formation, London: Routeledge & Kegan aul,1977.

82. Althusser, L., 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses', in, Althusser, L., op.cit. 1971.

138

than knowledge. Like science ideology is also a way to adopt

reality that makes people into subjects and its existence is

seen as ahistorical. Ideology is 'alawys already' there in

a similar fashion as people are 'always already' subjects

(because of ideology). However, Althusserian treatment of

ideology is also not free from contradictions~3 The discussion

is not limited merely to structures or material conditions of

ideology, but does enter into the domain of psychoanalytical

theory. In sum: by rejecting the, subject/object, essence/

phenomenon problematic, the Althusserian approach capitulates

to 'positivism' and smacks of latent functionalism.

To conclude : it is argued above that Marxism after

Marx (until the advent of Russian Revolution) flourished

exclusively under the aegis of various revolutionary parties

in Europe, particularly, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in

Germany; and the concern for Marxist theory more or less remained

the ~erogative of party idologues. Due to scientific vision

of socialism, and materialist conception of history, objective

factors were accorded precedence over the subjective aspects of

revolution. The tendencies of evolutionary socialism, ethical

Marxism etc. turned materialism into mechanism : dialectics was

equated with subjective idealism or was relegated to the

background. Pure practical considerations resulted in the

fetishism of organization, rendering the 'subject' of history

subservient to the will of the 'party'.

83. See, e.g. Kolakowski.L., 'Althusser's Marx', The Socialist Registef• Merlin, 1971, and also Lorrain, J., Tbe Concept of Ideo ogy, Delhi: B.I. Publishers, 1980, pp.154-164.

139 With the success of Russian Revolution the centre of

Marxist debate shifted from Germany to Moscow. The mystiqu~

of a successful revolution helped Moscow to emerge the sole

arbiter in Marxist theory. Scientific tendencies were further

strengthened and theories were invented to make virtue out of

necessj.ty. The role of the State and Party was set above the

independent action of class. Already throughout the 2nd and 3rd

International, fatally objective criteria had become the hall­

mark of Marxism. Lenin and then Stalin emerged the true

custodians of Marxist theory. Party was projected the true

consciousness of class.

Separated and isolated from the praxis of the working

class, Marxism also exhibited tendency to retreat from dialectical

thought towards positivism. Marxist theory having lost its

living connection·with real movement hardened into a system of

Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, and ossified into a state ideologyc

The elimination process of 'subject' from within Marxism was

ultimately complete.

The theoretical work of Lukacs, Korsch, Gramsci and Sartre

eto. was hostile to the naive materialism of the orthodox Marxism

that neglected active 'subject' and 'subjective conditions'

essential to1the realization of socialism. They were critical

of all types of reductionism, eccnomic determinism and the

scientific and positivist tendencies prevalent in the work of

Marxist dcyens such as Plekhanov, Kautsky, Lenin and even

Engels. The whole effort was to bring out the repressed

consciousness of Marxism by restoring 'human subjectivity' to

t.(O

the heart of Marxist theory.

However political isolation imposed by T.hird

International reinforced by Fascist prisons, separated these

theorists from the direct contact with the working class move­

ments. Moreove~xcept Gramsci, most of others were classically

trained prodigies and their theory was vitiated by an elitist

character and technically superb obscurantism. Beyond the

university trained scholars their ideas were not easily

comprehended by the masses; and were thus confronted by external

obstacles. Thus the Marxist theories of this tradition tended

to degenerate into extremes of subjectivism, scientific positi­

vism (laterKorsch), pessimism (Marcuse) and even despair

(Sartre).

The starting-point for the reconsideration of subject­

object problematic was retained that of Marx or retreated into

the philosophicalpremises of Hegel or Kant: no fresh ground

was broken and the problematic remained unresolved. What is

more, this theoretical tradition failed to establish any

sound basis for the analysis of class structures and class

relations of even capitalist societies. The attempts of

Habermas and others, to lay the foundations for a critical

theory of class relations and social life have also remained far

from successful.

Althusserian polemic against Hegelians-rejection of

the problematic of subject/ object:, essence/phenomenon etc.

and the attempts of his structuralism to confer scientific

status on Marxism-has capitulated to 'scientific positivism'

1~1

and smacks of latent functionalism. Above all a damning

indictment on most of tre above theories is treir incapacity

to transcend the boundaries of European culture and an utter

lack of concern for the Third World -- a blindness shared with

all the European thought (radical or bourgeois).

In the aftermath of Russian Revolution an overarching

feeling had emerged that one must. through thick and thin

remain faithful to the 'party'. Any effort to generate

creative and original ideas, revitalization of 'dialectics' and

stress on 'active subject' in Marxism was considered merely

abstract and idealist. Since 1920. till recent most of the

above authors had remained condemned to obscurity without any

significant audience or following. Of late (since 1960s onwards)

the New Left84 in Europe has sought to unearth the relevance

of their ideas by developing a critique of social change which

is not only limited to political and economic institutions but

is also extended to the everyday life of the 'subject'.

Cultural revolution of the New Left seeks to abandon the

distinction between 'work' as a separate entity znd other

aspects of existeneo •. and aims at the rejec--tion of culture and

aesthetics as separate and superfluous domains. The 'subjective

consciousness' as the locus of radical change and self-liberation

of the oppressed are conceived as the ~ases in New Left's

tentative response to the classical problem of subject-object

in Marxism -- since it stands distorted through the notion of

84. For the influence of many of the above discu~sed issues on New Left. see, Howard.D. and Klare, K.E.(ed.J The Unknown Dimension: European Marxism Since Lenin. London: Basic Books, I972.

1~2

'party' treating proletariat as mere 'object' and not 'subject'

of history.

However, the New Left has exhibited its extreme attatch­

ment to tspontaneity' which limits and dampens its potential

impact and has not posed the question of 'political power' in

any serious manner. In sum: it has failed to produce a

comprehensive social theory even of advanced capitalist

societies. To comprehend social change and to build an adequate

class analysis, nothing short of a major theoretical and

methodological break-through beyond Marxism's dialectical and

historical materialistic premises is required. The very tortent

of titles, 'such as 'For Marx•, 'Reading Capital', 'Making Sense

of Marx• etco 85 are all symptomatic of the fact that something

serious is amiss within Marxismo

*****

8~. The first two titles belong to Althusser, the last is by Elster, J., Makino Sense of Marx, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198~.