Marxism-Leninism 101: Introducing Class – Class, in its typical application in common use, mostly refers to the broad demographic individuals see themselves dependent upon their income, type of occupation, and the standards of living which derived from this. However, this is not the sense in which Marxism-Leninism applies its strict definition of class, which I will now elaborate on.
Within Marxist-Leninist theory, class is the fundamental issue for the division between those who own the means of production versus those who sell their labor in exchange for a wage. As you can imagine, the former (owners) refers to the bourgeoisie, and the latter (wage-laborers) is the proletariat. These classes are important because they illustrate two diametrically opposed interests that form a contradiction of social production in the dialectical application of understanding society. This is key to Marxist-Leninist understanding of history (historical materialism) that best explains how we arrive at the society we live in today, and what we may expect in the future as these antagonisms grow more complex and more divisive.
How these classes came to be can be illustrated through the historical application of the dialectical materialist method, one of which traces human social, political, and economic development form the hunter-gatherer societies all the way to the emergence of the first capitalist class of merchants. For my purposes today, I will not discuss the origins of the bourgeoisie and proletariat but rather what they are and their importance for current society.
The bourgeoisie does not simply refer to the supremely wealthy; but rather, how (in relation to the means of production) their wealth is accumulated and invested (in capital) from production for exchange. By production for exchange I merely refer to a system and arrangement of economic productivity dependent upon the production of commodities in exchange for monetary value, as opposed to producing for the satisfaction of local utility and need. This is the keystone of capitalist production versus other forms of production, and is where the bourgeoisie (properly called the capitalist) involves itself in economic relations.
Thus, the bourgeoisie can be said to be the owner-class. The bourgeoisie then refers not merely to individuals who own capital and in turn use it for the production of commodities, but they are also the ones who commit to the purchase of labor for this to happen in the first place. The capital of the bourgeoisie is invested in such a way that he makes efficient use of human and natural resources as best available for productive purposes; with the ultimate goal of creating a wide margin of profit as a return – indeed, this can be said to be the very essence of the bourgeoisie’s existence.
The bourgeoisie is also the dominant class within capitalist society, or also known as bourgeois society. The bourgeois class uses the state as a coercive tool for the maintenance of its own domination and the security of the market. The bourgeois class retains control through various means, sometimes psychological, sometimes economical, and other times violent. As far as the state is concerned for the bourgeoisie, it’s sole purpose is to legitimize and protect interests of private property, maintain relations conducive to production for exchange, but also interfere only when necessary when the market becomes apparently chaotic beyond the scope that of which private capital could possible control. This last characteristic is retrospective, and can only be seen after the fact when immense pressure is placed upon the system of market-economics (from within). Often times, these pressures result in the most drastic consequences for the working class peoples, but short of risking revolution or consciousness of these inherent contradictions by the working peoples, the bourgeoisie will find alternatives to hinder the awareness experienced by the proletariat through various concessions (legalization of labor unions, minimum wage, increase in quality of working conditions, etc.). While these may seem to serve the interests of working people, in reality, they serve the interests of the bourgeoisie who can only hope to maintain their system of ownership – a fragile one that is constantly under stress as it develops further.
Conversely, the proletariat refers to the class of individuals who sell their labor in exchange for a wage, as they own nothing in terms of production. The proletariat is often times as misunderstood and wrongly applied to certain classes of individuals. However, within the Marxist-Leninist framework, the proletariat is the most potentially powerful class in capitalist society – even though it owns nothing and has no direct say in the operations of state. They are forced to sell their labor in capitalist society for a wage that then must be turned back over to provide for their physical sustenance. This relationship is a peculiar one; the capitalist who employs the worker cannot produce any goods without him, nor can he even maintain his system without a significant amount of dependency upon a willing proletariat; whereas in social relations, the entire relationship is artificially empowering to the bourgeoisie. The worker must internalize this relationship and sees his subservience to the bourgeoisie as one of dependency upon his own survival.
The proletariat does not have a say in the bourgeois state, nor could it ever realistically expect to do so as the daily operations of state are for the preservation of a class whose interests are not its own. The interest of the proletariat transcends mere participation and equal say alongside the bourgeoisie, but rather, an end to the bourgeoisie as a class altogether. This is the prime example of contradiction, and the main contradiction that will ultimately transform the proletariat from the servile masses into the dominant class upon establishing a new socialist society.
Socialism, then in terms of the state and its relation to class, is more than merely state ownership of the means of production. It is an overhaul of the bourgeois method of production for exchange and the ascension to state-power by the proletariat as it now becomes the dominant class. Socialism is marked by the dictatorship of the proletariat, contrary to the belief that socialism merely means redistributing wealth through public ownership of certain industries in concert with retaining private ownership in others; rather, this is the annihilation of the bourgeois state and of private ownership of the means of production and the ascension to political power by the proletariat. The proletariat thus becomes the dominant class and uses the repressive and coercive tool (the state) for engineering society along its interests.
This is merely a brief introduction to put the terms “bourgeois” and “proletariat” into perspective, as in present usage these terms have been extended or misused in ways that have rendered them rather meaningless. Further reading is suggested to better understand the dynamics between the relationship and the inherent contradictions of capitalist society and what this means for class-development and antagonisms within our own society.
Further suggested readings:
Karl Marx – The Communist Manifesto – introduces the brief principles and development of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, illustrating the respective political, social, and economic outcomes for each and discusses how the inevitability of class-consciousness ultimately results in socialism through the advancement of antagonisms.
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels – Das Kapital – provides in depth, detailed critique of capitalist political economy and class-development within.
Friedrich Engels – The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and State – another useful resource tracing the historical path of contradictions and how society has come to exist as it does today.
