Class Analysis and Social Movement Theory: Toward a Synthesis

Abstract

Much time and energy has been devoted to describing the class structure of modern capitalist societies (Wright, 1984, 1985; Meiksins, 1986; McKenzie, 1982; Oppenheimer, 1985; Ehrenreich and Ehrenreich, 1978). Boundary questions—about just how many classes there really are, or whether or not white-collar workers do or do not occupy contradictory class locations, or whether or not members of the professional managerial classes are proto-capitalists or not—are not, in and of themselves, significant. The participants in such debates are aware that such questions are directly related to political strategy, and that this relationship is significant. If white-collar, service workers are proletarianized, then the potential for liaisons between the traditional and the new working classes is enhanced, and we should capitalize on this fact by pointing out to people the similarities in their positions. Divisions have been drawn between classes with varying degrees of sophistication. Those working in a Marxist tradition have exhibited the greatest sensitivity, for they understand that the element of exploitation is key in deciding who is, and who is not, a member of which potential class formation. A class society is, by definition, one in which one group appropriates the surplus labor of another. Class conflict exists, and classes stand in opposition to one another, because of exploitation. However, we know that there is a great deal of diversity among those who sell their labor power. We know that people do not respond to exploitation in precisely the same way, even members of what we would think of as uniform class formations. And furthermore, we are aware that many contemporary movements have been grounded in ethnicity or religion, as opposed to social class. It would seem, then, that the question we ought to ask has less to do with boundaries, than with the conditions under